A bit of advise from a complete novice. (Like massive noob novice)

[Pentagathus]

I haven't yet got around to finishing a novel and as the title says, I'm a massive writing noob. But this bit of advise still seems pretty obvious to me. If you are also a noob, write short stories. I don't mean never work on novels, but practise writing stories that don't require a massive amount of planning and world building first. It helps you to actualy improve your writing skills, and you can gradualy build up to writing more complicated plots. I find it helps me with not going to far in depth when writing about the world I create as well.
Alright, I'll crawl back to my noob shaped hole and leave you alone now.

 

[Sapheron]

Some find it better to start off writing short stories, others prefer to write novels. I don't think we can catagorically say which is better for people to start off with; it depends. I think anyone would be sensible at least give both a try though, whichever they actually want to write.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've said this many times before, so those of you who have heard it already can plug your virtual ears:

There is only one reason to write short stories and that is because the stories you want to tell happen to be short stories. Otherwise, you are wasting your time on writing exercises for which you have no passion, which will lack any spark to make up for your newness and inexperience, which may kill your inspiration by making writing a joyless process -- and which will teach you a lot of things you will need to unlearn if your goal is novel writing.

The structure of a short story is very different from that of a novel. Its intent, its rhythms, its pacing ... all different. If you want to write short stories and novels, too, obviously learning to write both is worth it. Otherwise, to be writing the one when you would rather be writing the other is just a distraction from your real goal.

Some people are natural novelists -- they work best in the novel form. It suits the kind of ideas their imaginations naturally generate. Some people are naturally drawn to short fiction. They have the kinds of ideas that work exceedingly well in short story form. Some people have an equal, or nearly equal, aptitude for both. Sometimes people have to experiment to find out which kind of writer they are. Sometimes people just know.

Writing short stories simply because someone tells you that is the path to success is a very, very bad reason for doing so. I know many writers who never even touched short fiction until after they had produced several published novels. I know at least one extremely talented and successful short story writer (a finalist for numerous awards) who could never make the transition to novel writing, try as she might.

On these forums, many other writers of limited experience have put forth the same advice that you have, Pentagathus, so you are not alone. But I believe your reasoning is faulty because it proceeds from incorrect premises.

I believe it is a good thing when everyone, regardless of their level of experience, shares their opinions and describes their own writing process, as well as telling what advantages they feel they have gained by their own particular approach. I think that discussion between new writers and experienced writers is a good thing, where everyone, whether they are new to writing or have years of experience, may gain new insights. But I think anyone who is a complete novice should be careful about offering advice.

 

[Michael01]

I'd say I'm about one step beyond novice, sort of at the very beginning of "apprenticeship." Well, I like to think so, anyway. Still, I take Teresa's suggestion very seriously. This isn't just because she has experience. It's also because of my own efforts.

I've completed a draft for one novel, several drafts for a second, half a draft for a third, and have some other projects in the works. I've also written four short stories and a novelette - all of which still need work, of course, if I ever wish to see them published. However, none of the shorts really did anything to help me with novel writing, except perhaps marginally.

Three of my so-called short stories are not really short stories. They're actually related to my novel work in one way or another and I just hope I can pass them off as short stories. Let me tell you, that hasn't worked out too well yet. One of the biggest criticisms I received at Baen's Slush for Hex Moon was, "This reads like the first chapter of a novel." You can believe there were others, but this was one I really couldn't get around.

The first short I attempted to write extended way beyond my projected 5000 word mark. In fact, it's more than double that length. I just have difficulty containing my ideas this way. Now it turns out that I really enjoyed writing it, although maybe not quite as much as novels, and it did help me to learn a small lesson about character development. It didn't help me to learn how write better novels, though - or better shorts, for that matter.

Besides, if three out of five are actually parts of longer works, I'm still leaning toward novel writing.

I have heard the same thing over the years, ever since I started writing as a teenager. In fact, half the time the advice was "Publishing short stories makes it easier to get your foot in the door. Publishers can referrence your body of work." People told me authors like Stephen King and Mercedes Lackey got started that way. But, as I think Teresa has pointed out before, why would an editor looking at my novel think I can write a good book just because I can write a short story? The important thing to note is who actually gave me this advice: none of them were writers.

Oh, some of them had good intentions, but they still did not actually know. Neither did I at the time and I took them seriously, although I still didn't have the inclination to write a short story for a long time.

So if I have an idea I really want to write that can be expressed in about 10,000 words or less, then I'll write it. If I don't have the inspiration to do so, what's the point?

 

[chopper]

some short stories do actually require a fair amount of worldbuilding too; at least that's the case in my experience. else you have the glaring problem of a plot happening in a total void. you need to be able to paint thumbnail descriptions of the world your characters inhabit, regardless of whether you are working on a novel-length project or a shorter piece.

as far as swapping between the two forms goes, i had never really written any kind of short story before joining Sheffield SF Writers Group. they are just as hard to complete as novel-length projects and, indeed, can distract me from what i really want to work on (Malessar's Curse!!!).

 

[J-WO]

When I first got serious, I made a conscious decision to just write and see where it took me. For about the first year everything was around at the *8000-30,000 mark, essentially novellas/ novelettes.

Nowadays, my outputs more extreme. I'll be working on a 80,000+ novel, whilst occasionally a tiny 1000'er might pop into existence. What I'm most proud of is that these days I instinctively know what format an idea will be- this means I've developed some writing muscle or other I didn't possess when I started.

What I'm trying to get at is that I recall that first year as one of the best of my life. I even said that to myself at the time (though not to anyone else or I might have jinxed it!). There was a freedom to it, almost a 2nd childhood, one of those where a kids allowed to be just a kid and play, despite the inevitable scratches and bruises (which, in the long term, are integral to the fun).

Blimey, I'm getting all Misty-eyed, I see...

Please, Pentagathus, don't turn it into work! Just write some rockin' s**t- it's all that matters. As it is, you're not scared to put your opinion out there and that's crucial to the genetic make up of any great scribbler. Lifeblood of this forum, too! Welcome to Chrons!

 

[Michael01]

As it is, you're not scared to put your opinion out there and that's crucial to the genetic make up of any great scribbler. Lifeblood of this forum, too! Welcome to Chrons!

Good point, J. Pentagathus, write to your heart's desire, and welcome to Chronicles!

 

[Bontemps]

I must admit when I started writing (fairly recently - I'm still a noob too), I always wanted to write a novel but did not have the mental stamina or persistence to do so.

I started with short stories too, things around 2-5k. It felt good to complete something, and encouraged me on (even though my first couple were truly terrible - I mean even worse than now!). After half a dozen or so, I began to get ideas that were too big for a short and started to consider writing that elusive novel.

So, for me starting with shorts worked to build up my self-confidence in thinking, yes I can finish something.

However, as has been said it doesnt work for everyone and if the idea is too big for a short, its a bit pointless downsizing it to fit it into a short story.

 

[mosaix]

some short stories do actually require a fair amount of worldbuilding too; at least that's the case in my experience. else you have the glaring problem of a plot happening in a total void. you need to be able to paint thumbnail descriptions of the world your characters inhabit, regardless of whether you are working on a novel-length project or a shorter piece.

And there, Chopper you have hit the nail on the head. It is so easy to get the balance wrong between world-building and story telling. I critique one story a week on the critters web-site and, I have to say, that this is one of the commonest things that authors of short SF stories get wrong.

Sometimes no world-building at all can work. The world is just inferred by the story itself, but this requires a skilled author and a mature audience or it just falls flat on its face.

But all world-building and no story, in short SF, is a complete waste of time.

 

[thatollie]

A lot of solid advice has already been given, but I'll weigh in with what I got.

You mentioned that novels take more planning than short stories, but you've missed a key detail. A novel needs fewer ideas than a collection of short stories of equal wordage. Each form requires a ratio of
planning/idea-generation at opposite ends of a spectrum. (Consistent idea generation is hard work)

Novel writing is a marathon, short story writing is a sprint. You wouldn't run flat out for 100 metres to train for a physical marathon, so why write flat out for 10 pages to train for a mental one.

Also, as (mainly) a short story writer, I'm a little annoyed at my artform being seen as practice for another one. Great short stories have a huge emotional punch and tend to be at the cutting edge of the genre.

I've said my piece, now I'll leave you in peace.

 

[Bontemps]

A lot of solid advice has already been given, but I'll weigh in with what I got.

Also, as (mainly) a short story writer, I'm a little annoyed at my artform being seen as practice for another one. Great short stories have a huge emotional punch and tend to be at the cutting edge of the genre.

I do apologise if I inferred that in my post thatollie, I certainly didn't mean to.

 

[thatollie]

I do apologise if I inferred that in my post thatollie, I certainly didn't mean to.

No sweat, and besides most "practice for novelling" short stories tend to be structured more like novels but with really short scenes.

 

[Michael01]

Also, as (mainly) a short story writer, I'm a little annoyed at my artform being seen as practice for another one. Great short stories have a huge emotional punch and tend to be at the cutting edge of the genre.

Hear hear! Well said, Thatollie.

It didn't really look like you had inferred anything of sort to me, Bontemps. But Pentagathus did, although I do not fault him(?) for it since, as he admitted, he's new at writing. Like I said, I took the advice seriously when I first heard it all those years ago. I had to learn from experience (and from the advice of more seasoned writers) how inaccurate it was.

Pentagathus, please understand that we respect your effort and hope you'll continue to write, and continue to be a part of our great community!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

... besides most "practice for novelling" short stories tend to be structured more like novels but with really short scenes.

A very good point. From time to time stories like that have come up in critique groups or workshops where I've participated. The writer crams in enough events for a novel (sometimes a whole trilogy), but the story is so hurried and the writing so thin it looks more like a synopsis than a finished piece of work.

And no matter how tactful or harsh the critiques, when they hear those magic words "this story might work as a novel but it's a very bad short story," the writer usually goes away beaming, convinced they've been told that everyone liked their story so much they are dying to see it turned into a book.

 

[JDP]

Can learning to ride a tiger teach you how to ride a shark? Probably not. But practice either long enough and you'll become a pro at tying a tourniquet.

Well, I guess 'tying the tourniquet' is your general ability to write engaging prose. That's common to short fiction, novels, novellas, etc. It's a skill that any and every writer should be constantly trying to improve. But it's only one aspect of writing.

Ultimately, whether you should be riding a shark or a tiger depends on where you're going and what ground you want to cover.

This is all getting a bit deep into a slightly random metaphor, but my basic point is that short fiction and novel-length fiction are very different animals. Find which is right for you and the tale you want to tell. Then get busy writing.

 

[Toby Frost]

I wish someone had told me this before I took up shark riding!

I agree that the two are very different beasts, and that the criteria for success in each don't naturally make one a sort of practice run for the other. I wrote my first short story for about a decade last Christmas: people liked it, but it was very different to novel writing.

 

[Pentagathus]

snip.

Nice to be put in my place. I dont actualy know anyone who has gone right into novels (although I suppose everyone has done writing of fiction before this so aren't going right in anyway) so I just assumed that writing short pieces first was the way to go. Sorry. I would still suggets that people at least try it before planning out an entire trilogy though.
And I probably shouldn't have said short stories but rather shorter pieces of writing, since if you, like me get bored of writing long stories after a while you can allways just write a more interesting scene that you have planned in your story (or any scene that can be implemented into your story.)
And I apologise to the short story authors, I don't tend to read many short stories myself and can sometimes forget that you exist, I wasn't trying to imply that short stories are lesser than novels.
The most important thing I meant to get across was that writing needs to be practised, and personally I just find it hard to spend so much effort on something that is just practise. I suppose it's just becuase I'm lazy. Again, sorry for assuming that this was how everyone works.

 

[mygoditsraining]

Nice to be put in my place.

I get the feeling you're somewhat offended, Pentagathus. However, you've followed the above sentence with a roundabout explanation of the reasons why your original post, and thread, got rather soundly panned.

I mean, I have my own views on the "ideal" way to write, but if I were to sit down and hammer it all out into a vaguely readable format, and then submit it to a forum that is frequented by a range of readers and writers each with their own views on the craft, I wouldn't sit back in my chair expecting riotous applause from the gallery. I'd fully expect an argument, if not outright dismissal.

Anyway, the "ideal" method is a fluid ideology at best, or perhaps should be. Humans crave ritual, but from a biological point of view, we exist in a curious ebb-and-flow rhythm of hormonal and seasonal cycles that work against our instinctual preference for the systematic. Even that is a generalisation of a spectrum of behaviours, and as such it is our lot to spend what little time we have on this Earth seeking out the perfect balance.

Nevertheless, if you are a writer, then you will write. That's all there is to be said for it. However "imperfect" the method, the natural inclination of the artist is to art; everything else is just consequence.

 

[Pentagathus]

I get the feeling you're somewhat offended, Pentagathus.

Not at all, I meant that in a jokey way.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Nice to be put in my place.

It wasn't my intention to "put you in your place." But it's confusing enough and discouraging enough for new writers without being told that they should stop what they love doing and work on something else, because doing that something else will advance their careers. It happens that your particular piece of advice (although it may have occurred independently to you) is one that gets passed around a lot on the internet, so that it gains a spurious authority. It's best to test your theories yourself before handing them on. Wouldn't you prefer to get advice from someone who had actually tried the thing they are talking about?

I dont actualy know anyone who has gone right into novels (although I suppose everyone has done writing of fiction before this so aren't going right in anyway) so I just assumed that writing short pieces first was the way to go.

I do know people who have gone right into writing novels. Myself for one. Even my juvenile efforts that didn't get very far were meant to become entire books. And when, as an adult, I became serious about writing and sat down with the fixed intention of finishing what I wrote, I started out writing a novel-length work -- which somehow, without my planning it, turned into three books. Very few of the successful novelists I really know started out by submitting short fiction. Of those who did, the majority already had novels or series in the works.

I would still suggets that people at least try it before planning out an entire trilogy though.

If a writer wants to write short fiction they'll know it. Then they shouldn't just try it; I think they should just go ahead and do it. And when they know they want to write novels, they should do that.

Trilogies sometimes start out as one book that keeps expanding. (And stories that were meant to be trilogies sometimes expand into series of five, six, or seven books.) I know one writer who started by planning out a thirteen book series. She's just finished it. It took about a quarter of a century, and she's worked on other things between books, but the series she planned as a total beginner was how she broke in, and all of the books have been published except the last, which is currently in production.

The most important thing I meant to get across was that writing needs to be practised, and personally I just find it hard to spend so much effort on something that is just practise.

Ah, but it isn't just practice if you finish it and see it published. If you start out thinking that you won't stick with it and that it will never be published, then no doubt it will be hard to spend the effort. On the other hand, if you keep on writing because the story absorbs you, then it isn't practice either, because loving what you are doing is a pretty good end in itself.

I suppose it's just because I'm lazy.

It's not a matter of being lazy. If there isn't any novel-length story that you feel in your heart you must write, then it's sensible to wait until and unless you do feel that way. If the idea of writing a whole novel (or something longer) seems like too much work, then it almost certainly means that there is no such story for you -- at least not yet -- and you should definitely write the shorter stories that inspire you instead. Or just write a story and see where it wants to go. It may go further than you originally planned.