linked short story collection or novel?

All I've published so far is (A), but I'd say (B) is much easier to market, simply because the market is much larger. I suppose the exception might be if you're writing literary erotica, where the reverse may apply.

I think a novel is easier to sell. From what I've heard, the new literary writers who get a collection published these days have to agree in their contract to follow up shortly with a novel. More people read novels than shorts, so they are easier to sell. I guess they feel it's more bang for their buck?

Having said all of that, I am planning a linked short story collection. I just don't do novels very well.

I agree that a novel is an easier sell. Writers who write a collection of stories first are probably just doing what they feel called to do rather than as any deliberate marketing decision.

Novels are always the easier sell.

Let's say someone writes a Magical Realism or Lit Paranormal collection about motherhood for example. There isn't really a demand for collections from unknown authors, so they're doing it like everyone else said, for the love of the project more than anything else.

Just wanted to note that there's an article about writing linked short story collections in this months Poets and Writers. I haven't read it yet...I'll come back if there's any particular words of wisdom.

gettingby said:

I would have thought novels would be easier, but I think that might not be true for everyone. I think there is demand for new collections. I know, personally, I am more likely to pick up a collection than a novel. Literary short stories collections are quite different than genre. I think in genre, it might be easier to sell a novel, but there is something about literary short stories that can really make for stunning collections. I'm in no way putting down genre. It's just that this is the literary section, and I think things might be a little different.

Click to expand...

Literary is a narative style, where story and plot are divergent instead of parallel and isn't predicated on setting. However and for the sake of this discussion, I do write contemporary stuff that's Literary. It's to a smaller degree than with my Speculative Fiction, but I do still write it and enjoy writing it. I also love reading it. My taste in reading is just as diverse and eclectic as my taste in writing, and I particularly love collections and anthologies in both genre and Lit. They explore a fuller range on a topic than novels are by their nature able to.

Be that as it may, I stand by what I said. Literary is a market just like genre is, and in all markets the easier sell for debute author has for quite some time been the novel. Readers are more interested in full collections from established writers like Jodi Picoult and others, because they know their work and know the quality of it. Unless they subscribe to Lit Mags/Journals and saw it there, or have seen it in an author's work in an anthology and enjoyed it, they're simply less likely to buy a full collection by an unknown author.

gettingby said:

I hadn't heard that collections are followed by a novel in contracts. That's a little scary to promise one after the other. I mean it's great for the writer, but it could also come with a lot of pressure. In your case, what are you planning to do if your contract makes you promise to deliver a novel?

Click to expand...

Learn to write long, or don't take the contract. Those deals that I've heard of are with the big houses, though. I'm sure you could get away with all shorts at a smaller house. It also helps if your shorts have been published in the better journals and magazines.

Tedium said:

Learn to write long, or don't take the contract. Those deals that I've heard of are with the big houses, though. I'm sure you could get away with all shorts at a smaller house. It also helps if your shorts have been published in the better journals and magazines.

Click to expand...

It also helps, I think at least, for the subject of both the novel and collection to be one(s) you're deeply passionate about. I could see myself writing a collection about being Black and LGBT and then writing a novel on the subject right after, but not on being LGBT in general. Not because the subject isn't worthy, but because the intersection of race, religion, and sexuality are what interests me. It's a subject that comes up in some of my Speculative Fiction as well, and the subject Lit Paranormal novel I'm slowly plucking away at the planning of.

gettingby said:

I don't really understand your definition of literary. I think we see things differently.

Click to expand...

Probably. Or perhapse you're stuck on the idea of Lit being dictated by a contemporary setting when it's not? Not everything set in a contemporary setting is automatically Lit, nor everything meant to scare or set in different time/world automatically Genre. Lit can be genre stories like Inside The Outside, a Literary Horror novel. And then there's also Lit Historicals and Literary Erotica.

gettingby said:

I write literary fiction because that is what I like to read. I just don't think your earlier description of what literary is makes much sense. I know genre can cross over to literary, but that's not what I am talking about here. I am hesitant to say too much because I have seen you lash out on people and I'm not trying to get that type of response. But I don't think it's a good thing for anyone to put a blanket statement about what literary is especially if it does't make much sense.

Click to expand...

I don't view my personal definition of what Literary is as not making sense, and I've seen estabilished writers and editors of Lit using something pretty much the same as the one I use. If you would like to say what your definition is, I'm always interested in this type of thing. Literary in many ways, whether genre lit or contemporary in nature is often hard to pin down and has as many definitions as there are writers and editors.

Either way, I don't know why you've taken issue with my opinion on the market. I read and write both genre and Literary, and the publishing world's view on novel vs collection isn't different in either one. I've seen very few collections by unknown writers on the shelves of either section online and in store, they're dominated by novels. And that's because getting the reading public to take a chance on reading something by an unknown writer is easier when it's a novel. I've done my research in addition to going by what I see, and that's just the way things are.

Lillith1991 said:

Probably. Or perhapse you're stuck on the idea of Lit being dictated by a contemporary setting when it's not? Not everything set in a contemporary setting is automatically Lit, nor everything meant to scare or set in different time/world automatically Genre. Lit can be genre stories like Inside The Outside, a Literary Horror novel. And then there's also Lit Historicals and Literary Erotica.

Click to expand...

gettingby was referring to the literary authors of today, contemporary authors, not authors who write in the genre of contemporary fiction. They made the distinction because the market is so much more different today than it was for literary authors years ago. There were more potential markets, and many editors had a different opinion of short fiction. People like Andre Dubus and Alice Munro could get away with publishing mostly short story collections.

Tedium said:

gettingby was referring to the literary authors of today, contemporary authors, not authors who write in the genre of contemporary fiction. They made the distinction because the market is so much more different today than it was for literary authors years ago. There were more potential markets, and many editors had a different opinion of short fiction. People like Andre Dubus and Alice Munro could get away with publishing mostly short story collections.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying? Their definition of Lit may be different than mine and based in a contemporary setting (Setting and genre needn't overlap all the time.), and that's fine. We each have our own definition of what Lit is, there's no concenssus about the definition of it even among professionals. I've seen professionals use my definition and others likely use what gettingby's using too. But that still doesn't change the market reality of novels being easier to sell than collections, nor that this also overlaps with other markets as well. Most agents and publishers that are willing to take a chance on a collection want at least a few of the stories to be previously published in a magazine or journal, preferably ones with good reputations. I've done the research because this is something I want to eventually do, have a collection published whether it is straight Lit or a Lit/Genre cross.

I mentioned that because gettingby did not say anything about a contemporary setting, not because I had any feelings about your definition of what constitutes literary fiction. Setting does not factor into the conversation here, or into anyone's stated definition of literary fiction. If you read my initial response, I agreed with you about the higher marketability of novels.

Tedium said:

I mentioned that because gettingby did not say anything about a contemporary setting, not because I had any feelings about your definition of what constitutes literary fiction. Setting does not factor into the conversation here, or into anyone's stated definition of literary fiction. If you read my initial response, I agreed with you about the higher marketability of novels.

Click to expand...

I know and I hope there's no hard feelings.

I simply mentioned the contemporary setting because it seems to be a factor in what gettingby considers Lit without examples of current writers they would call Literary, and because it is a common misconeption about this genre/style of writing. Or I should say, I feel like it is a common misconception that I've come across having read Lit almost since I made the weird jump from picture/chapter books to adult novels around the age of eight.

gettingby said:

I would have thought novels would be easier, but I think that might not be true for everyone. I think there is demand for new collections. I know, personally, I am more likely to pick up a collection than a novel. Literary short stories collections are quite different than genre. I think in genre, it might be easier to sell a novel, but there is something about literary short stories that can really make for stunning collections. I'm in no way putting down genre. It's just that this is the literary section, and I think things might be a little different.

Click to expand...

Gettingby, we seem to have started off on the wrong foot in this thread. So I'm answering this again in way that hopefully can further the discussion in a way helpful to you.

This is a subject that I find interesting, initially because I noticed a trend in both literary and genre works in bookstores years ago and the trend has held for as long as I've been aware of it. I noticed slightly more collections in the genre section of the store than in literary believe it or not, but novels dominated both of those sections. I also noticed this when looking online. This prompted research on my part because I do eventually want to publish collections of both lit and genre/lit crosses, and when looking at agents and their opinions for both I came to the conclusion that novels are across the board easier to market. Publishers are hoping to make a profit on their investments and collections have less of a chance of doing that than novels.

I personally love collections and anthologies, prefer them when I can get my hands on them. But reading a novel I don't like is far less disappointing than a collection I don't like, so I'm more picky with them. I've got to at least read something by the writer that I've liked before I'll consider purchasing a collection. According to publishers and agents, this isn't unusual and is actually the norm.