Letting a story breathe

O'Dandelo · May 13, 2012

I think there's a stigma attached to genre fiction these days: Make it tight, don't waste a single word, and get straight to the point, resolve it, boom, end. Exciting thrill ride, etc., etc.

There's a stigma attached to literary fiction, as well: Impress with magnificent prose while the protagonist stares into a wheat field and struggles with ennui or angst.

And while the two concepts (simplified above, of course) can intertwine and feed off one another to a degree, I think they're pretty segregated these days.

Which leads me to this: When do you let your story breathe and be what it wants to be?

I'm not talking about padding stories. I'm talking about stories that genuinely are better stories through deliberate pacing or the protagonist struggling with something before the climax is able to arrive...elements of that nature.

I'm all for tightly woven, bang-bang thrill rides of stories. And I'm all for stories that take their time along the journey. Some stories can be a thrilling horror or scifi tale that has a literary bent, something that searches for beauty in the madness, whatever, fill in the blank. But I find myself feeling pressure to shorten stories, hack them down to soulless things. I've written stories that are fashioned to be quick and exciting. I'm referring to the ones that want to be more, like maybe a 3000-word story that really wants to be 5000 words because it has a lot of depth to offer, or the story could really benefit from the transformation/conflict/struggle/whatever going on the protagonist's mind.

So what do you guys do in situations like these? Hack the story down knowing it will fare better at markets? Stick to your guns and end up submitting to more literary markets, knowing there's probably too much genre in the story for the literary markets to bite?

I notice that a lot of anthologies these days (including best-of-year collections) feature primarily stories that clearly take their time. 8000- or 10000-worders that could, plotwise, be cut down to 4000 words. Stories that ask a lot of the reader with verrrrry slow starts, slow builds, etc. And they're much better stories than they'd be if they were gutted. Granted, they're stories by writers who've made names for themselves already, so they're given the luxury of stretching their stories out.

There aren't a lot of places out there for "literary" horror or scifi or fantasy. So I'm curious what your approach to or your thoughts on this subject are. Excuse the rambling post.

WildScribe · May 13, 2012

I guess it'll be obvious that I'm not a fan of "literary" most of the time when I say that I tend to find stories better and more interesting with less naval-gazing, inner monologue, and angst.

I don't really "force" stories, either, though. I write for calls, and I plot toward word counts with fairly good accuracy. If it's a 10K call, I tend to develop an idea and write a story that takes place across almost exactly 10K words without a lot of downtime or whatever. If the call is for 2K, I write for that without rushing the story. It's actually a skill I'm really good at - writing almost exactly to the call length or to my own desired word count. I've never tried with anything longer than 10K, but it would be a fun experiment.

Siri Kirpal · May 13, 2012

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Ask yourself: Why am I writing?

If you're writing for cash, gut the story, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. In that case, write to sell. If you're writing because you've got a story that's got to be born, you don't kill the thing by cutting its limbs. You write the story the way it wants you to write.

I'm thinking you might be happier as a novelist, because literary horror and sci fi et al do make appearances as novels.

But then, if the story doesn't want to be a novel...

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

defcon6000 · May 14, 2012

O'Dandelo said:
And while the two concepts (simplified above, of course) can intertwine and feed off one another to a degree, I think they're pretty segregated these days.

Really? Have you checked out the nebula nominees? I'd say most of them have a literary bent to them. In fact, literary spec fic seems to be the big thing right now, along with those "weep-woe" sympathetic characters and kids with autism.

Also, you're trying to argue two things: the divide between genre and literary and limited wordcount.

Let me just say literary does not necessarily mean longer wordcounts. I see literary stories come in at 1-2k words and shorter than that. And genre short stories can be as long as 10k. It all depends on how complex you make the plot/conflict.

If a zine asks you to gut your story, it's because they can't afford a 5k, 7k, 10k story at their current pay rates. Wordcounts are flexible, pocket money is not. If you notice with anthologies, many of them do not pay more than semi-pro rates, which is why they can ask for the higher wordcounts.

And, if I were to use some telepathy here, I figure you're frustrated because you write longer stories, but many zines do not accept those lengths. But that doesn't mean those zines are against literary, they just don't have the money.

For me, I'd try to write the best story that I can, while being mindful of wordcount. But if the story wants to be longer, then that's what it's going to be. Like I recently wrote a flash story which had to be expanded, otherwise the flash piece would fall flat--and what's the point of writing a flat piece that won't sell?

Kerosene · May 14, 2012

A writer's job is to have others read. Their pleasure is to write what they wish. Mix pleasure with work and you'll get what you're getting at.

There are two problems I see:
Stories that are too long.
Stories that are too short.

The difference is how much fluff there is. There is always fluff.
I try to really cut down on my fluff and end up throwing everything at the reader and having just a small amount of anything stick.

I say this: Write as far as you need to, to set the scene in the reader's mind. Anymore is waste, any less is laziness.

O'Dandelo · May 14, 2012

defcon6000 said:
Really? Have you checked out the nebula nominees? I'd say most of them have a literary bent to them. In fact, literary spec fic seems to be the big thing right now, along with those "weep-woe" sympathetic characters and kids with autism.

Also, you're trying to argue two things: the divide between genre and literary and limited wordcount.

Let me just say literary does not necessarily mean longer wordcounts. I see literary stories come in at 1-2k words and shorter than that. And genre short stories can be as long as 10k. It all depends on how complex you make the plot/conflict.

I agree about the Nebula award "trend" toward literary-ish stuff (as well as other award nominees). I'm only using the word "literary" here as a handy label because if a story meanders at all, it often gets slapped with that and rejections will say stuff like "well written and engaging, but takes too long to get to the climax," "slow to start," or some such.

Plus, I'm not adept at matching stories with markets yet. Still learning the ropes on that, so I'm sure that comes into play as well.

I'm basing this on my own experience/feedback from editors. And I'm reading Datlow's Best Horror of the Year 4 (for 2011 stories), and nearly all of them are lengthy stories, in the 8000-word range, I'd say (and even 11000-plus). And nearly all of them stretch out and "breathe." I don't have the luxury of such stories because there are very few markets that will even read a story of that length.

So it got me thinking: Maybe I have to write shorter stories in order to "break in," then I'll be able to construct plots and styles that can spread their wings, so to speak. This was what struck me, so I wondered if people would see it from a different angle than I do. Which is good.

And to reiterate, I love short shorts, as well. No problem with them at all.

Polenth · May 14, 2012

I can't say I've noticed an issue with pace when it comes to speculative markets. Most places take a mix of fast and slow paced stuff, as well as both literary and non-literary writing styles. An editor thinking a specific story is too slow doesn't mean they're against slow if they feel it works.

But that aside, you don't want to cut down a story to the bare bones of the plot, because that's a plot synopsis and not a story. Even a pulpy action-adventure is going to have a certain amount of necessary padding, because no one wants to read, "And then the monster appeared. And then he ran away. And then he found a spear and killed the monster. The end." On the other side, you don't need six paragraphs describing the monster either. You have to find that balance.

(I don't worry much about such things when I'm writing, except when I'm aiming at a market with a precise word count. Where there is a strict limit, I choose a concept that'll fit the word count, rather than trying to change a story that'd be better off longer/shorter.)

Mad Rabbits · May 16, 2012

I think stories are organisms. You reach a point with each story where it is becoming a certain thing, the thing that it is supposed to be. It is largely intuition that guides it to that point.

All of this sounds very vague, I admit!

fihr · May 17, 2012

I think there is a tension between being minimal and spending time in a vivid world, where there is more than just one exquisitely chosen detail to live in the readers mind. Just my thoughts, but the more 'literary' spec fic stories often do have masterful single details, or have distilled scenes down to a single powerful essence, and they show no more than is just enough. There is a lot of implied white space. There is an elegance and beauty, when it is done well. If its not done so well, it can be flat.

However... I don't know how long I could read a story like that for. As a reader, I like to immerse myself in a world. One beautifully chosen detail is not always enough. I don't just want a suggestion of poignance. I want to experience the character's life. (Of course these things aren't always mutually exclusive.) For me, although I admire the artistry of the minimalism, I don't think I could read a novel written that way, or even a long short story. They often somehow make me feel distanced. I become aware of the style, and feel like I am observing a perfectly honed jewel--from the outside. My preference is for fiction that draws me in and holds me, and I need a richer world, with more immersion than the cut-down stories give me. Sometimes they feel so stylised that they annoy me, and different authors all end up sounding beautifully alike.

So I suppose the style of story that would go in an anthology has more room for this richer tapestry, or else there might be room in shorter stories about something simple, that might just cover a scene, so there is still space for exploration.

In my own stories (and I'm very much a learner), I do try to get rid of repetition and unnecessary detail, because that's boring for a reader. Knowing where the balance is for a particular story is both art and craft.

O'Dandelo · May 17, 2012

fihr said:
I think there is a tension between being minimal and spending time in a vivid world, where there is more than just one exquisitely chosen detail to live in the readers mind. Just my thoughts, but the more 'literary' spec fic stories often do have masterful single details, or have distilled scenes down to a single powerful essence, and they show no more than is just enough. There is a lot of implied white space. There is an elegance and beauty, when it is done well. If its not done so well, it can be flat.

However... I don't know how long I could read a story like that for. As a reader, I like to immerse myself in a world. One beautifully chosen detail is not always enough. I don't just want a suggestion of poignance. I want to experience the character's life. (Of course these things aren't always mutually exclusive.) For me, although I admire the artistry of the minimalism, I don't think I could read a novel written that way, or even a long short story. They often somehow make me feel distanced. I become aware of the style, and feel like I am observing a perfectly honed jewel--from the outside. My preference is for fiction that draws me in and holds me, and I need a richer world, with more immersion than the cut-down stories give me. Sometimes they feel so stylised that they annoy me, and different authors all end up sounding beautifully alike.

So I suppose the style of story that would go in an anthology has more room for this richer tapestry, or else there might be room in shorter stories about something simple, that might just cover a scene, so there is still space for exploration.

In my own stories (and I'm very much a learner), I do try to get rid of repetition and unnecessary detail, because that's boring for a reader. Knowing where the balance is for a particular story is both art and craft.

Well said. I agree completely.

I read a story yesterday by Peter Straub, who's certainly a veteran and a master of the short form. "The Ballad of Ballard and Sandrine." It's about 42 pages, so depending on the typeset, etc., it's around 13000 words. The thing is that it could technically have been a 5000 word story, plotwise. But it's gorgeous without sacrificing story, mesmerizing without sacrificing pacing, disturbing and surreal without sacrificing elegance and reality. Et cetera.

It was inspiring and made me wish there were more of a market for those types of works written by "novices." Outside of chapbooks and self-publishing, of course.

defcon6000 · May 17, 2012

13,000 words would be considered a novella, and no, most markets don't specialize in that area. Limited funds and time, you know.

We all wish there were more X markets. I certainly wish there were more humor/light markets. But this is what drives folks to start their own zines, so there's something out there that reflects their own reading interests.

fihr said:
However... I don't know how long I could read a story like that for. As a reader, I like to immerse myself in a world. One beautifully chosen detail is not always enough. I don't just want a suggestion of poignance. I want to experience the character's life. (Of course these things aren't always mutually exclusive.) For me, although I admire the artistry of the minimalism, I don't think I could read a novel written that way, or even a long short story. They often somehow make me feel distanced. I become aware of the style, and feel like I am observing a perfectly honed jewel--from the outside. My preference is for fiction that draws me in and holds me, and I need a richer world, with more immersion than the cut-down stories give me. Sometimes they feel so stylised that they annoy me, and different authors all end up sounding beautifully alike.

Sounds like your prefer novels over short stories. Short stories are limited, there's just no way around it. But this is why short stories are not novels and the two are very differently written. Novels have the room to explore the world, add extra details, a fuller cast of characters, and so on...

Short stories are mainly experiments in style, content, prose, etc. If one guy does something well, everyone wants to jump on the train. (well, that's not unusual for novels either, but novels tend to experiment less)

I have been noticing some trends with short stories, specifically "weep-woe" characters and kids with autism. There's also the rise of "magical realism" which is nice and all, but it's not actually fantasy. See, fantasy is worldbuilding, and magical realism is simply something magical in our everyday life, which boils down to metaphor. Strip the metaphor away and it's a mainstream story.

Personally, I'd like to see more interesting characters instead of sympathetic ones (no, a mentally challenged character isn't interesting, especially when they sound like a robot), and more true fantasy stories. Also, stories that aren't rehashings of old pulp SF--maybe writers think they're being clever by ripping off Asimov or Sturgeon. And humor, we could use more humorous material out there.

fihr · May 17, 2012

defcon6000 said:
Sounds like your prefer novels over short stories. Short stories are limited, there's just no way around it. But this is why short stories are not novels and the two are very differently written. Novels have the room to explore the world, add extra details, a fuller cast of characters, and so on...

Short stories are mainly experiments in style, content, prose, etc. If one guy does something well, everyone wants to jump on the train.

Actually, I love short stories, and I've always read them, since well before I began to attempt writing them myself. Often the cast of characters and variety of settings are smaller than a novel - I expect that. Amongst my favourite authors are Angela Carter and Neil Gaiman. Both write short stories which I'd describe as O'Dandelo did above:

But it's gorgeous without sacrificing story, mesmerizing without sacrificing pacing, disturbing and surreal without sacrificing elegance and reality.

Some of Gaiman's stories are experiments. (Good ones, which work.) Somehow he still manages to draw me in with his prose. I find it beautiful without having that cut-down feel that makes me 'watch the art' instead of participate in it. It's simple but very engaging.

As for Angela Carter... what can I say? Exquisite detail, fascinating story.

I also read anthologies by multiple authors. (If I love a short enough, I check out novels by that author. Sometimes the shorts have been better. Other times, I've found a brilliant new author to read.)

One thing I've not done is figure out the word count on any of those Gaiman or Angela Carter shorts. But the lengths vary.

Anyway, this is my personal taste. A style thing. But I definitely agree re interesting characters too. And humour.

fihr · May 17, 2012

It was inspiring and made me wish there were more of a market for those types of works written by "novices." Outside of chapbooks and self-publishing, of course.

I don't know that there will be much of a market for that kind of thing (13000 words by novices) outside of anthologies. Some magazines complain that longer shorts are often 'flabby'. Obviously Peter Straub's wasn't flabby, or you wouldn't have enjoyed it. I think 13000 words is a novelette (not a novella-???), and maybe there will be more markets with e-publishing. Perhaps traditional lengths will change with the change in the medium. For myself at the moment, if a story ran to that long, I'd write it anyway, just to see how it panned out. But I'm also writing to find out what I enjoy writing, and most of the time, not with any market in mind. So my stories vary a great deal.

defcon6000 · May 17, 2012

Some authors are better than others at slipping in worldbuilding into a short story. I haven't read either of those authors, I know Gaiman is suppose to be popular or something.

I'm not real huge on prose, sometimes I find it distracting. Especially bad similes--nothing will take me out of a story faster than that. I prefer the minimalist approach because it's the actually character's voice coming through, and my characters don't sit around describing pastures or how blue the sky is. They describe what needs to be described and move on, because they need to move on--otherwise I prod them with a hot poker.

So yeah, it must be all a matter of taste. I think it might be good to look at if the characters of such stories are passive or active (is there more description or is there more action?)--not that it's a bad thing to have passive character, although it might frustrate readers if nothing happens. Or if you take too long for something to happen.

fihr said:
I don't know that there will be much of a market for that kind of thing (13000 words by novices) outside of anthologies. Some magazines complain that longer shorts are often 'flabby'. Obviously Peter Straub's wasn't flabby, or you wouldn't have enjoyed it.

Some people enjoy flab. :tongue

I think 13000 words is a novelette (not a novella-???),

I've heard a novella can be as short as 10,000 words. So it's debatable. Either way, it's not a short story.

Perhaps traditional lengths will change with the change in the medium.

They have changed, I do believe there are more epublishers who'll take on novelettes and novellas. But as for magazine markets, I don't see them expanding their wordcounts anytime soon. In fact, a lot of them are lowering their wordcounts. Once again, it all comes down to limited time and funds.

For myself at the moment, if a story ran to that long, I'd write it anyway, just to see how it panned out. But I'm also writing to find out what I enjoy writing, and most of the time, not with any market in mind. So my stories vary a great deal.

That's fine too. Not everyone writes for the publication. And that's what I like about short stories is that I can experiment without putting too much time and energy into a story.

fihr · May 17, 2012

And that's what I like about short stories is that I can experiment without putting too much time and energy into a story.

Me too. I like the satisfaction of finishing a creation as well (for better or worse.) One day I may embark on a novel, but I get so many ideas for shorts, I don't want to abandon them. It's a great way to experiment with different characters, styles, and worlds. (Playing in the sandpit, for me.) But... when I want to complete a story, I do still put a lot into it. Even if its not obvious in the end, or even if my skill is limited. I like applying some concept to a story (even editing for a certain kind of element) and being able to finish it and see the effect it has on the writing. I wonder if writing shorts speeds up the learning process for some things? In terms of minimal stories, that would include compression. The thing I admire a lot about minimal stories is how they often rely on implication. It's hard to learn to handle that well (for me). But I've read entire series where implication is heavily used, and scenes written without mentioning the one thing they are actually about. I'd love to get good at that. At the same time, I still like an absorbing world. Implication can be minimal, but it can also draw me further into the world, because it involves my imagination.

Orchestra · May 18, 2012

I think pitting "tightly-woven" stories against stories that "take their time" is creating a false juxtaposition. Even the more slow-paced stories should be tight in the sense that they don't sag or have superfluous padding. Slow pace also doesn't have anything to do with length. Carver has some amazing, leisurely paced stories that have a great sense of dread just below the surface. None of his works are particularly long.

But I see what you mean.

Letting a story breathe

O'Dandelo

WildScribe

Slave to the Wordcount

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

defcon6000

Kerosene

Your Pixie Queen

O'Dandelo

Polenth

Mushroom

Mad Rabbits

fihr

O'Dandelo

defcon6000

fihr

fihr

defcon6000

fihr

Orchestra

practical experience, GTFO