Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
Why is the question so strange Andrew Ashling? Many authors have started out writing short pieces (Stephen King for one) and moved on to the novel later. And some write shorter works like novella's in between novels in order to keep their name out in the public eye (as far as producing something). Plus many people I would think when first starting out experiment a bit to see which length of story they have less trouble with and which requires more effort. Also some people tend to write long which means either they have to cut or expand what they thought would be a short piece into a full novel. Others find that they write short and have to either accept that a given story is a short story or find believable subplots to build into the storyline.
|
I didn't say the question as strange. I said
I found it strange. Then I explained why.
That being said, I'm aware of all the examples you give, but it's just not how I write. As I explained in my previous post I began a story which I thought could be told in about 60-70k words. It ended up a trilogy of 400k+ words, and I'm writing a sequel now. I just go with the flow. As such I don't find any length of story more difficult than the other. When you're done, you're done, but not sooner or later. It takes what it takes, but not less or more.
Put in another way: I don't think length should be a primary concern. The story should be, and what length it
needs.
If pressed however, I would say the micro short story is the most difficult. You probably know this one by Hemingway:
Quote:
|
For sale: baby shoes, never worn.
|
He reckoned it was his best piece of writing. I tend to agree.