Into the Fire

Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God

about

Passionate: right or wrong. Writes love stories with a passion. Raw Romantic Redemptive

Going to novel lengths . . .

January 5, 2011

I don’t have anything against regular-sized novels if they tell the story in completion. It’s no secret I prefer long novels but not just for the sake of extra words and situations. The whole objective in writing a story is to tell it in its entirety and not to skimp on points of character, scene, action, or anything else that matters to the heart of the story.

If you’re a master at flash fiction or short stories or novellas, I admire your craft. Generally speaking, I will not be one of the readers of your work because all of my life I have never enjoyed short stories.

I’ve read some excellent 100,000 word novels, but I’ve also read many which felt formulaic, incomplete, rushed, and forced into an ending to fit a word count. This is done for multiple reasons, some of which are attributed to current attention spans of readers and the too-much-money excuse to produce longer books. I say “excuse” here because in certain genres with particular authors, publishers produce big novels without hesitation.

It’s convenient for publishers to set word counts for their genre specs. It’s not always etched in stone, but it’s preferred. Don’t get me wrong—it’s their call. Their money.

However, more and more I’m seeing “trends” in publishing rather than individuality and vision. It’s like serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to kids because they’re kids. Some kids prefer tuna fish and some like egg salad and others just want the peanut butter or the jam. Trends often demonstrate that formula matters over substance, and riding the wave of a trend ushers in a temporary fix for selling woes and can make production and projection simpler.

I’m of the opinion that the current pat phrase used by professionals and many parrots of the mantra “less is more” is merely a preference for writing styles. We can pretend it’s profound and use it to demonstrate the overwriting of novices, but less is often just that: less. Not enough. Too lean. Too simple. Too . . . lacking in what is needed to give real depth and substance to what is just another story with less.

Father, help us to do what you desire of us. Help us to listen to your voice above all others. Keep us focused on what you want and not on what we want. We’re desperate for you. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized

6 responses to “Going to novel lengths . . .”

mike duran

January 6, 2011

Nicole, I believe that when properly stated, the “less is more” approach is superior to a “more is more” approach, and more writers do well to heed it. Long books, films, or songs are not “good” because they are “long.” There are other factors, stylistic or otherwise, that make them good. It is in the pruning that orchards are productive. Un-pruned orchards become rambling, diseased, fruitless jungles. Great for safaris, provided you bring a machete. Likewise, editing can save a story from its natural tendency to go “wild”. Yes, a well-edited book may be “long.” But an un-edited book will surely be “longer” than it needs to be.
Blaise Pascal is famously quoted as saying, “I am sorry to have wearied you with so long a letter but I did not have time to write you a short one.” Getting to the point in as few words as possible is a virtue in speeches, sermons, eulogies, roasts, blog posts, film-making, and storytelling. It also takes more time, more preparation, more work. Using two words when one will suffice is, indeed, a habit I want to break myself of. Great post, Nicole! Blessings!

LikeLike

Reply
Brenda Anderson

January 6, 2011

Insightful as usual, Nicole.
I have read a number of books that seem to rush to an ending as if the author is attempting to squeeze their story into the word count. But then I’ve read other books that could use a generous editing. Beautifully written scenes that have little bearing on the story should be pruned, as painful as that is for the author.
The important thing is telling a complete story while weeding out the unnecessary.

LikeLike

Reply
Brenda

January 6, 2011

In my mind I seem to have a preference for longer books but I don’t know if longer is necessary per se. Every book can’t be an epic. Ultimately, I’ll take whatever length the story needs to be a wide-ranging story that plumbs the depths and pulls me in.

LikeLike

Reply
Nicole

January 6, 2011

Mike, if I failed to articulate the substance of what I meant by my second sentence and final paragraph, I apologize. I have read and reviewed a few novels this year where I commented a book was too long for what it had to say. One was a debut novel.
This wasn’t a slam on editing which is essential. It’s an examination of the motive(s) behind wanting fewer words to tell a story. The selection of words is critical to good storytelling, but if the story requires more words as opposed to fewer, it serves both the story and the reader to do so with precision and eloquence.
There are a lot of Hemingway types (and fans) in this mantra mode. I know more Hemingway-haters than I do fans. I thought he was a good storyteller but a sterile writer.
Many pros and fans gush over Koontz’s writing. He doesn’t “mince” words, and it could be said he prefers more to less regardless of editing.
Brenda, you nailed it with your final sentence. Some readers are very forgiving of amplified prose. I tend to be if I enjoy the writer but not if I don’t. If it smacks of “showing off”, no. It could be argued that different readers disagree on that “essential” element.

LikeLike

Reply
Nicole

January 6, 2011

Brenda, you’re absolutely right. Not every book is destined to be epic and rightly so. Your final sentence does this subject justice. 😉

LikeLike

Reply
Devremülk

January 8, 2011

Nice post. I love it. Waiting your new posts. Thank you…

LikeLike

Reply