Sometimes Short Is Better
There’s either been a slight change in publishing or I’ve become more aware, but everywhere I look there are novellas and short story collections. Sure, the literary world, general fiction and romance all have mounds of single titles. You can find a 300 or 400 or 500 page novel in just about any genre without much effort. But when paging through magazines (yes, by that I mean EW, People, Elle and all the other fine review magazines) there are numerous short story collections, usually of the literary variety. In fact, over the weekend I saw a collection by Stephen King’s son - I’m sure the kid has a name but I can’t remember what it is. The good news is that he doesn’t look like his dad.
In romance there seems to be an anthology released every single day. So I tried to figure out why the new trend and still have no clue.
- Myth: Novellas are easier to write. I say false. Trying to fit believable conflict and character development into 100 pages is tough. Things like story arcs and sexual tension are compressed and if the heroine and hero hadn’t met before page 1, getting from "who are you" to a satisfying ending can be a challenge.
- Myth: People love novellas. For me this is true but many folks don’t care for the shorter format. Frequently on message boards and Amazon reviews a reader will complain about a collection of novellas. Usually the argument goes something like this: I didn’t know this was an anthology and was very disappointed with the 3 shorter stories. Now, you’d think seeing 3 author names on the cover would give away the deep mystery that the book is actually an anthology but I guess not.
- Myth: Well at least they’re cheaper. Uh-huh, have you heard about trade paperbacks?
Mystery unsolved.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:32 am
I don’t know that novellas are easier to write, but for me they are much quicker to write. I can whip out a novella very rapidly (even though I’m a pretty slow writer). Yes, you’re saying, of course it takes about a third or fourth of the time it takes to write a novel, because it’s only a third or a fourth as long. But no, it takes me much less time than that. I think I could write five or six novellas in the time it takes me to write a novel. I’m not sure why this is…I’m guessing it’s because the plot isn’t as complex, so it takes less time to work out all the details. Or maybe it’s just that the Dreaded Middle is shorter, so I don’t get bogged down as badly. Either way, for me novellas are fun and easy to write, and that’s why I love ‘em.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
I like to write novellas too. They’re definitely simplier. But, I WANT to be able to write single titles without feeling the overwhelming urge to panic.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
I agree they go faster. I even agree with Ellen that they go faster than 1/3 of a single title would. But, the idea that they’re easier is where I disagree. One of the problems I have with novellas is that many suffer from lack of characterization and zero plot. To hit those elements well takes some planning in a novella - I say that when I am the absolute worst plotter in history. Seems to me many novellas read like “A Day In The Life” excerpts rather than compelling stories. To get the balance right is not easy and not eveyrone can do it. Of course, Jordan’s right that a single title is a different kind of challenge.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Are people really that thick that they can’t figure out a book is an anthology? *shakes head*
Novellas are a good way to check out an authors style before buying a full length, that’s why I like anthos.