WRITING SHORT, OR, HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING?

NOT JUST HOW LONG, BUT HOW LONG BEFORE THAT PIECE OF STRING IS INTERESTING?

Photo by David Clode on Unsplash

It seems these days, in terms of writing a book, everyone is aiming for longer and longer versions. The days of a book containing less than 300 pages seem to be long gone. To find a novel of that length, you have to look in charity shops to find versions that were published 40, 50, 60 years ago.

Maybe it cost more to print books then, but most of them come in at about 250 pages or less. Maybe the reading public had different tastes then.

Some of the classics are very short by today's standards: John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men was only 121 pages long.

Mark Twain had a famous quote about writing short:

“Sorry this letter is so long. I didn't have time to write a shorter one.”

So, is it true that a shorter piece of writing is more difficult? That it takes more time? Is it somehow less interesting/important than your average 60,000 to 140,000 book-length? Or is it just that the publishing industry wants and expects it?

Do the reading public want their money's worth? More pages = more value?

If this trend to write longer and longer books keeps up, at some point we will need a forklift to get them off the shelves.

But, in opposition to this trend, there is the world of Flash Fiction. Also Flash Nonfiction. Is this the literary version of “keep 'em wanting more”?

The Arvon Foundation ran a competition to write a story in 50 words (exactly) not one word more, nor one word less. The title wasn't included in the word count, so some entries did rather fudge it with long and explanatory titles.

I didn't win, but did get included in the anthology with this entry:

THE LAST CHANCE DIET

When Erica was diagnosed with cancer, she thought, “Right. That's me finished.”

She escaped to Italy, ate olives, drank wine, didn't watch her weight. Luigi mistook her desperation for lust.

Years later, he asked her why she came to Italy.

“For the olives,” she smiled. “For the wonderful olives.”

Pleased as I was to have the story accepted, I have to admit, I'm still not sure what it is about.

So, in terms of length, there are pros and cons on both sides. A faster read is good for people who are pressed for time, but unfortunately, probably the shorter the story, the faster it leaves the brain. Maybe it needs time to make an impact.

Although Hemingway's six-word story still packs a punch:

“For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.”

People like to take long, long, long novels to the beach or to read on holiday. Something to really get their teeth into, and also something to take their minds off the fact that they are turning their skin to bacon as they soak up the sun for hours.

In order to have lots of plot twists, and multiple characters, you do need an enormous amount of leeway in your word count. You must be able to take your reader along, through a maze of scenarios, time travel, clues and red herrings, and generations of families. Throw in a bit of history as well, and it's easy to see the word count ratcheting up.

For myself, I've found my tendency to write short is a real disadvantage in writing a book-length memoir. I could get my memoir “done” in 40,000 words. In fact, if I were hard-pressed, I could tell you the whole memoir in 42 words:

As an emotional overeater, I gained weight, lost weight, and kept it off the rest of my life. How I did it is my memoir, which may be of help to you if you have problems dealing with food as I did.

There, that's it. It would make a pretty slim volume. Not even a pamphlet!

So, obviously, I need not compress my story, but to look for its hidden depths. Things that I have not tackled yet. I suspect I may need to do more than add a lot of description. The common wisdom says memoir requires a lot of “digging” and perhaps they're right.

What about you? Do you like to write short, or do you find it difficult to cut your work down? Let me know in the comments.