ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Rechan on May 17, 2014, 01:29:54 AM
-
To those who plot/outline: How do you find and outline/plot ideas that are Big enough for a novel?
I write very, very short stories - 2,000-4,000 is where I operate best - but this is frustrating me. I'd rather write books.
The problem is that a story is only as long as it needs to be, and anything I come up with doesn't need to be a novel. My thinking is on too small a scale; anything I come up with can be told in a tight space. How do I think on a novel's scale? How do you work out ideas that have a lot of moving parts, that require a lot of steps that necessitate at least 90K words?
What I really want is to make a series, but I can't even try to tackle a series until I figure out how to think on a single book's terms.
-
I'm sure volumes could be written about this subject but I'll attempt to at least get the ball rolling. There can be many different things that will lead to the difference in length between a novel and a short story. These are not necessarily absolutes but hopefully they will give you some ideas.
A novel allows for more characterization. One of the biggest faults of many novel writers (IMHO) is creating caracitures with no depth, villains that are completely evil with no redeeming features and no reason for their evil, heroes that are noble and good just because. In a short story where one doesn't have the time or space to develop characters completely, it can be acceptable to focus on one or two characteristics that are important to the story. In a novel one can take the time to let readers get to know characters. There is more time to show rather than tell what makes a character tick. It is also possible to develop secondary characters to a far greater degree than can usually be done in a short story.
Probably the biggest difference is found in the plots. One of my professors used to say that a long story with a single plot was just a short story that needed to be edited. A true novel will have several intertwining plots. To give some examples that are cliched but still affective in the right hands, the main plot of a murder mystery might be finding who the killer is. In addition to this however there may be a plot line about the main character's struggle with addicition. There may be a romance, there could be struggles with bills or dealing with the death of a loved one. In fantasy stories it is common for the characters to find it necessary to adjust to a gift in their life or a curse. They may have been transported to a new world or have just become aware of the magical world that secretly exists in the shadows. These secondary plots can be as long as the main plot or "short stories" imbedded in the novel that play out over a few chapters. In the case of series, some of the plots may actually be longer than the individual novel.
Novels also give you more space to engage in "world building". If you are setting your story in a fantasy world and are following the adage to show rather than tell, then the longer length of the novel gives you more time and space to show the reader the world you have created and the rules that govern it by actually putting your characters into situations that demonstrate whatever you think is important for them to know.
The difference is not so much that the idea is "big" enough for a novel. Although they overlap, they are very different art forms. Some would say the short story is more difficult because you have to condense everything down. Probably the best way for you to see the difference would be to search out some authors that have taken their short stories and rewritten them into novels. It is fairly common in genre fiction. Normally I could think of a dozen but right now I am blank as to examples. I am sure someone here will be able to come up with examples for you to examine.
-
First, a novel isn't one plot: they are usually one main plot (A plot) and one or moe B plots.
For eample, my modren fanasy novel's main plot is the hero stopping a demon cult. But there are other, smaller plots:
1) the Hero has to come to terms with his relative's death, and the magical legacy the relative left.
2) discover who killed his relative.
3) start a relationship with a beautiful girl who may or may not be involved with the relative's death.
4) deal with a powerful legandary wizard who has her own reasons for being involved in the current problems.
Now, all these B plots are connected to the A plot, but they have their own beats and take up some of the screen time, so the A plot can fade in the background for a scene or two, or even for an entire chapter before coming back to the forefront.
A Game of Thrones is another example - smaller plots woven together for a comple story.
So, create the main plot and look for subplots that can be spun off the main plot. That how a novel can be written.
YMMV, of course..... ;D
Craig
-
Probably the biggest difference is found in the plots. One of my professors used to say that a long story with a single plot was just a short story that needed to be edited.
Yeah, this is one of the problems I have, because I think in terms of what is absolutely necessary to tell this story. If a word is unnecessary, I cut it out. Adding in things not needed to serve the story's purpose feels utterly unnatural and wasteful and wrong.
And often I don't care about the B plots of many novels/shows because I feel like they're getting in the way.
But I don't think they're as, well, clear as you're making it out. Take Storm Front for example. Aside from Morgan hassling Dresden (which accounted for what, 3 scenes?) the entire thing is focused on Finding out/Tracking Down/Taking Out the bad guy. There's no B plot.
-
I don't outline too much. I know where I'm beginning, and where I'm ending. I let the story unfold naturally, thinking about what events need to transpire to make the climax occur. Its more of a cascade effect. All of the subplots serve the greater plot, even if it's unrelated. It's the way the events impact the character that matter, rather than events impacting each other.
Since my first book isn't published, I can't tell you how successful that will be. But I'm doing the same for the second book. I started the first chapter intending my character to end up one place by the end of the first act. But halfway through the first act, he's going to be somewhere else entirely, and the first destination will now be the second. Either way, his final destination is fixed, and I just need to see how the world he's living in will get him there.
-
Subplots, obstacles and set-backs are often the difference between a short story and a novel.
In a crime short story, the hero talks to the suspects and figures out who's lying and solves the case.
In a novel, the hero has a personality, a life and a history he has to deal with. If he has a partner, they also have a personality, a life and a history plus they have to deal with each other. Each of the suspects has an alibi and motive that needs to be investigated. And just as they think they have the culprit, he or she is murdered and they have to start over again.
If you just take a short story and drag it out than that's what a reader will get. But you take a short story and give it life (something a reader can relate to), then you might have a story a reader can lose himself in.
-
Try Tim Powers suggestion of research until you find 20 things too cool not to use. Then you need to love the onion layers of characters and plot threads. You need to peel away slowly and live the tears.
Ditto Oz's great comments on characterization, plot threads, setting (world building), homework assignment of short stories to novel. Want a short cut? Read the Leonard Elmore short story and watch the Justified series or any of his other shorts that led to longer works. ( For a list check here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmore_Leonard ) Ditto Trboturtle w/his Game of Thrones suggestion. These are hows, but I'm intrigued by the whys behind it not working for you so far. You ask, "How do I think on a novel's scale?" You need to rewire your brain. It isn't easy. I especially like Superpsycho's, "...you need to let it live." I believe this to mean time to breathe.
Learn to love the deep layers. Learn to appreciate them and absorb them. Learn to slow down while digging deeper into your plots and characters than you ever have before.
Start by plotting longer shorts. Find the niftiest thing you wrote in your last short--and explore it. Write it. That done? Go back to your setting and find the coolest thing you wrote--and explore it. Write it. Find a relationship that's cool--and explore it. Write it.
Try to go for depth not length and then watch your word count. Aim for a 5000 word short, then a novella at maybe 20,000. As you learn to dig deeper, you'll find yourself naturally gravitating toward longer and longer works. If you're good at shorts, you already write well. Now you need to train yourself to enjoy the onion. Ah, "Become the Onion Lord!" Ha! Love GRR Martin.
Yeah, this is one of the problems I have, because I think in terms of what is absolutely necessary to tell this story. If a word is unnecessary, I cut it out. Adding in things not needed to serve the story's purpose feels utterly unnatural and wasteful and wrong.
Caution: Writing long still requires every word, sentence, and paragraph add to the story and be necessary just like in shorts, but you give yourself the latitude to explore in order to satisfy your reader.
And often I don't care about the B plots of many novels/shows because I feel like they're getting in the way.
Keep in mind that B plots aren't unnecessary. They are ways to explore the main plot from another angle. Sometimes, they are ways to build secondary characters for future work, but the plot will still intertwine like a natural skin and won't be unnecessary. In longer works, you need to include character beats for richness.
To be honest, Rechan, if you can't care about those other onion layers then you probably will find the challenge impossible to achieve.
But I don't think they're as, well, clear as you're making it out. Take Storm Front for example. Aside from Morgan hassling Dresden (which accounted for what, 3 scenes?) the entire thing is focused on Finding out/Tracking Down/Taking Out the bad guy. There's no B plot.
I heartily disagree. If you assume Morgan was unnecessary, you probably feel the same about Murphy. What about Michael's kids? His wife? These are essential and necessary onion layers as he peeled away at his characters--always with an eye to the overall story. JB added tension to the story with those scenes with Morgan. What did you think about JB using the lightning storms as a secondary character? Unnecessary? Wrong. It added texture. It added tension. It added mood. It would have been shorter to just skip it, but he choses to include these to enrich the storytelling and make it satisfying to readers.
You can't get texture into shorts like that. Good luck and keep us posted.
Anyone can report A to Z and that is a talent, but storytelling is an art form. There are subtleties, beats, interior thought (would you think Harry's interior thoughts are unnecessary?)... There is a deftness to drawing out the tale to satisfy a deep genetic need within human nature and that is storytelling. Anyway you get the idea.
-
I don't know that I can add anything to the great responses you have gotten from superpsycho and meg_evonne but let me try to emphasize some of the points that they have made.
Caution: Writing long still requires every word, sentence, and paragraph add to the story and be necessary just like in shorts, but you give yourself the latitude to explore in order to satisfy your reader.
ME is, as usual, right on. I think this may be the heart of your trouble. If you are reading novels that have a lot of unecessary words then either they are poorly written or you are missing some of what's going on in the story. If you are reading stories where the secondary plots are not related or needed then again either you are missing something or the stories are poorly written.
Another way to think of novels is that they are a little closer to real life. In real life a police detective (for example) is going to have more obstacles than just catching the killer. He (or she) may have a family. He may be alone and wish he had a family. He may have conflict with coworkers. He may face budget problems either at home or at work. He will have other cases that have to be worked in addition to the main one. He might have health issues. These things are not separate from the main plot. Any one of these could keep him from solving the case. They are not artificial additions. They are real life issues.
Just look at what you face in trying to be a novel writer. It's not just a single plot line of "do I have the talent?" or "can I get this novel published?". It's do I have the time? Can I find an agent? Can I find a publisher? Can I figure out how to successfully make my short stories into novels? Do I have a full time job that I'm trying to juggle with my writing? How about friends and family? Are they supporting my efforts? Are they hindering them? What if my car breaks down or my kids get sick or I get sick (I don't know anything about your personal life so I'm obviously just creating random what-ifs.) What if my dead beat sibling shows up at my door and wants to move in?
All of these things and a thousand more can and will (if applicable) have an affect on your success as a novel writer. They are obstacles that have to be overcome. They are all sub plots to the main plot of you trying to write and publish a novel. That does not mean that they are not directly connected to the main plot. Some of them, like family, friends and health, may actually be bigger than the main plot. Some of them like car problems or bad plumbing may be subplots that only occupy a chapter or two but all of them play a part.
A short story might tell how you discovered the difference between novels and short stories. A novel might tell how you went from writing short stories to become a published novelist. Each story is important. Each is different.
Sorry for being so long winded. I guess I need more work on my short story skills.
-
Well said Oz. Now we wait to see what the tossed seed will yield. Good luck Rechan.
-
I would like to point out with Storm Front into the rest of the series, there is a sub-plot that runs throughout it all. Its Harry's skill and understanding of magic. It continually progresses and the foundation (extremely flawed as they are presented in book 1) is laid in Storm Front.
Also seemingly unnecessary words are the little hidden barbs that you use to hook the fish later on in your novel or even in successive books. A throw away comment about 'making a deal with droids' that has almost no bearing on your story, except as possibly a future colloquialism, in book one turns into a major sub-plot in book 6.
How far ahead are you planning your story. How much do you want tie in between novels. Does every story exist in isolation or are you even now planning that after you deal with the Pirates and then Bugs and then intransigent Sector Assembly that when the Droid Invasion forces come up do they come out of left field or have you already laid down some hints of information and groundwork along the way. Today's chopped comment is the line that have readers squeeing as they turn all the way back to book1 and/or 2 to catch all the seemingly un-imporant references.
The Deposed King
-
In a novel, the hero has a personality, a life and a history he has to deal with. If he has a partner, they also have a personality, a life and a history plus they have to deal with each other.
And I don't enjoy reading that. I'd rather read a Bond or a Hercule Peroit novel where that does not come up. Because rarely is that plot relevant or at all interesting to me.
Ah, "Become the Onion Lord!" Ha! Love GRR Martin.
While I am not going to debate the merits of an author, and bad mouth them because you clearly like them, I will simply say Martin is not the person you want to use with me to make this argument. That is discouraging me, not encouraging me. Because you can't say that every word is necessary and then point to an author who spends pages describing the food. Unless there's poison involved, the food is the least important thing.
What about Michael's kids? His wife?
Michael wasn't in SF? Michael didn't show up til Grave Peril.
And no, I disagree about the restf. Those weren't necessary. If you cut them out, the plot with Sells would have been the same. Murphy existed to serve as information about Sells; she brought Dresden on the case in the first place, and the talisman attack (which she set off) was what drove home that it was Sells.
I define Necessary as "If you remove this, either something cannot be understood or not happen in the plot". And a plot is the actions that leads towards the resolution. By those definitions, I would strike a lot of what you're describing. What you're calling texture and layers and all that other stuff is Unnecessary Extra to me. And if you think you can't get tension and texture in shorts, then you haven't been reading the right ones.
I acknowledge that the things you are describing have a point and a purpose. My objection is how important that point/purpose is and its relevance to the plot. They aren't important to me, that's for sure. And I stand by the fact that even if those points are going to be made, there are more efficient ways of executing them.
But for the purposes of this discussion, I only bring up SF because it had no B Plot aside from Morgan. Layers and texture and all that aren't a B Plot. I acknowledge that SF is part of a series, and therefore some things are relevant further on, but the relevancy is for things later on, not for SF itself; for the sake of argument I am treating it as self-contained.
-
And I don't enjoy reading that. I'd rather read a Bond or a Hercule Peroit novel where that does not come up. Because rarely is that plot relevant or at all interesting to me.
But with both characters you mentioned, Bond and Hercule Peroit, their personalities are an integral part of their stories. But its integrated into the story and not as an explanation. Hints here and there to give it flavor. That's what makes a good writer, the ability to weave it in so it doesn't distract from the story but instead gives it texture. Its part of the infamous 'Show' not 'Tell'. Not with verbose tiresome explanations or an endless stream of adverbs and adjectives but hints scattered about like seeds on the wind.
Reread one of your Bond or a Hercule Peroit story's and instead of looking for the story, look for the atmosphere that's painted of characters and scenes. Look for the subtlety of a word here and there at the appropriate moment.
-
But with both characters you mentioned, Bond and Hercule Peroit, their personalities are an integral part of their stories. But its integrated into the story and not as an explanation. Hints here and there to give it flavor. Hints here and there to give it flavor. That's what makes a good writer, the ability to weave it in so it doesn't distract from the story but instead gives it texture.
Hints of character interspersed in dialogue and action that provide flavor - that's how its done in short stories, so that's not what we're discussing at all. Showing the history, the day to day life and family of the detective - that's not hints. What is being suggested in this thread is making all those aspects take up chunks of the book.
(Also imo Peroit has next to no personality but that's besides the point.)
Let's use a set of movies as an example: The Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
We don't know who Jack Sparrow is. We learn that Sparrow had a ship, and his crew mutinied. His goal is to get the ship back and to take his revenge. We only learn that he was dumped on an island, and how he got off that island, because he ends up on that island again (it's plot relevant). We learn that he is a notorious pirate. That is all we learn about his background. All we know about his motivations are that he wants his ship, and that he enjoys being a notorious pirate, and that causes him to rub it in the face of the authority. Even in the third movie, we meet his father, but we don't know anything about their relationship, they don't talk about their past, nothing. And yet he is an interesting and fun character; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The same thing goes for the Joker. All we know about his past is that he was The Red Hood, he fell in a vat, he is now the Joker. His behavior is unpredictable, and his motivation is purely chaos. And yet he is still interesting and fun; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The way that you are talking, not only do we need to know all that other stuff about them because it's important, but we need to spend a good amount of time on them. But we don't.
Basically, look at any Pulp story. It's all about "What is happening right now". And what's happening right now is typically action, or the leadup to action. The story doesn't stay still. The descriptions are minimal, just enough to tell you a sense of something and then it's moving. There's next to no background, characterization is all in action or dialogue, etc.
-
a better place to start would be to ask what you want to write about? do you want to write a detective series, or something else?
-
I've read fascinating police blotters. Once in awhile they scratch an itch. Flat pieces of pancake though and not satisfying for me.
-
Hints of character interspersed in dialogue and action that provide flavor - that's how its done in short stories, so that's not what we're discussing at all. Showing the history, the day to day life and family of the detective - that's not hints. What is being suggested in this thread is making all those aspects take up chunks of the book.
(Also imo Peroit has next to no personality but that's besides the point.)
Let's use a set of movies as an example: The Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
We don't know who Jack Sparrow is. We learn that Sparrow had a ship, and his crew mutinied. His goal is to get the ship back and to take his revenge. We only learn that he was dumped on an island, and how he got off that island, because he ends up on that island again (it's plot relevant). We learn that he is a notorious pirate. That is all we learn about his background. All we know about his motivations are that he wants his ship, and that he enjoys being a notorious pirate, and that causes him to rub it in the face of the authority. Even in the third movie, we meet his father, but we don't know anything about their relationship, they don't talk about their past, nothing. And yet he is an interesting and fun character; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The same thing goes for the Joker. All we know about his past is that he was The Red Hood, he fell in a vat, he is now the Joker. His behavior is unpredictable, and his motivation is purely chaos. And yet he is still interesting and fun; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The way that you are talking, not only do we need to know all that other stuff about them because it's important, but we need to spend a good amount of time on them. But we don't.
Basically, look at any Pulp story. It's all about "What is happening right now". And what's happening right now is typically action, or the leadup to action. The story doesn't stay still. The descriptions are minimal, just enough to tell you a sense of something and then it's moving. There's next to no background, characterization is all in action or dialogue, etc.
You came here asking for ideas on how to do a novel length plot or words to that effect. Yet so far you seem to have pretty firm ideas on what you don't want to do, covering a wide array of suggestions.
It seems to me that either you need help or advise with one critical piece that you should be able to easily identify if you turn your mind to it, or else what you need is a good swift kick in the keester in order to just go out there and write up a storm.
Most prospective authors fail simply because they don't write the novel. Not that they can't. Or that they aren't good enough (I've seen some real stink bombs out there making money on Amazon). But that instead they just don't. 'It's not good enough, I'm ruining my story, I'm not as good as Jim Butcher so why bother to continue, etc.'
I'd say either incorporate some advise as a test or just start plugging away. Worst case you can do a series of James Bond type serial short stories and link them all together into an overarcing plot against the shadowy Cabal.
The Deposed King
-
Hints of character interspersed in dialogue and action that provide flavor - that's how its done in short stories, so that's not what we're discussing at all. Showing the history, the day to day life and family of the detective - that's not hints. What is being suggested in this thread is making all those aspects take up chunks of the book.
(Also imo Peroit has next to no personality but that's besides the point.)
Let's use a set of movies as an example: The Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
We don't know who Jack Sparrow is. We learn that Sparrow had a ship, and his crew mutinied. His goal is to get the ship back and to take his revenge. We only learn that he was dumped on an island, and how he got off that island, because he ends up on that island again (it's plot relevant). We learn that he is a notorious pirate. That is all we learn about his background. All we know about his motivations are that he wants his ship, and that he enjoys being a notorious pirate, and that causes him to rub it in the face of the authority. Even in the third movie, we meet his father, but we don't know anything about their relationship, they don't talk about their past, nothing. And yet he is an interesting and fun character; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The same thing goes for the Joker. All we know about his past is that he was The Red Hood, he fell in a vat, he is now the Joker. His behavior is unpredictable, and his motivation is purely chaos. And yet he is still interesting and fun; it's what and how he does things that's interesting.
The way that you are talking, not only do we need to know all that other stuff about them because it's important, but we need to spend a good amount of time on them. But we don't.
Basically, look at any Pulp story. It's all about "What is happening right now". And what's happening right now is typically action, or the leadup to action. The story doesn't stay still. The descriptions are minimal, just enough to tell you a sense of something and then it's moving. There's next to no background, characterization is all in action or dialogue, etc.
What I'm hearing is a lot of excuses why you can't do it. Try taking a favorite full length novel you think is well written and try rewriting it in a different genre. A Western as SciFi or Fantasy. Don't just copy the story, make it your own. It may provide insight into the process.
Authors often complain about chapter creep. They get into the story so much, it just keeps going. It can be frustrating for publishers.
-
You seem to be arguing why you think short stories are better than novels. That's not what you asked. You asked what the difference was. Novels by their very definition are not going to be as "tightly woven" as a good short story any more than a short story is going to be as "tightly woven" as a good poem. It seems that the heart of your problem is that you don't like novels because they aren't short stories. You don't like extra plot lines. You feel that the main plot is the only important plot and everything else is only meaningful as far as it serves the main plot. In other words you prefer short stories. That's fine. That's your personal preference but don't attack people who are trying to help you write a novel by telling them you don't like novels. Your reasoning is circular and serves no purpose.
-
The problem as I see it is I asked the wrong question. I asked for advice on Novels, and I got novel-specific answers, when what I really meant, what I should have asked, was advice on conceptualizing plots bigger than a short story can tell, because that's what I can't seem to do. My mistake not being clear enough on the onset.
To give you an example, here are the plots of some stories I've sold:
- Obsessed fan and celebrity stalker summons the ghost of the celebrity he is obsessed with, so he can be with her. It does not end well.
- A giant parasitic wasp lays eggs in a man's stomach; the pupi don't just eat his insides but take control of his body to protect the other pupi in their gestation period from predators. Here's the blow-by-blow of that from his PoV. (That wasp exists in nature btw; eek (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14053-zombie-caterpillars-controlled-by-voodoo-wasps.html#.U3l60iggvWJ))
- A hitman is sent to kill someone, only to discover too late his target is really a vampire and he was sent as the vampire's surprise birthday present.
If I took every bit of advice from this thread and tried to make those ideas novel length, they'd fail miserably. No matter how much character, depth, tension and layers I throw at it, that is just not a big enough to build a novel on. There's no room for extra obstacles and subplots. It's not interesting enough to be a novel, and quite frankly no one is going to be interested in reading 300 pages about a celebrity stalker. But most of all of that characterization and layers distract from it, because the point is the twist ending or the events of a single scene. The ideas I have generally can be resolved within four scenes because there's no room for expansion in them.
What I am looking for is direction on creating a plot that requires a lot of steps, that cannot be tackled in a short space. Take for example, "One man takes down an empire." You cannot show that in a short story because it requires too much setup, too many events have to happen to reach that resolution. That is a Big idea, it has a large Scope. I want to think on that level, conceptualize ideas with enough room For a subplot or multiple steps or growth.
-
Disagreeing with some of you over what makes a novel doesn't mean I don't want to write a novel. I see "A novel has lots of x and y". I point to novels that lack x and y. That is not objecting to novel in general, that is objecting to some novels. The examples of novels that lack x and y that I keep using are the kinds of thing I want to write.
I never objected to subplots. All I said on the topic was that some novels lack a subplot, like Storm Front. What I have heard is "add a lot of stuff about the characters." I that is what I object to.
I've seen the suggestion of taking a book like one I want to write, and analyze it. Outline it, see how the author plotted it out and how those pieces came together. That is a workable suggestion.
-
"Obsessed fan and celebrity stalker summons the ghost of the celebrity he is obsessed with, so he can be with her. It does not end well."
Why can't this idea be made into a full length novel? I mean this guy summons a ghost. Is he a wizard, a medium or an ectomancer? and if so, why can't him and the celebrity ghost get sucked into a Dresden style PI story. He wants her, she doesn't want him, he can only have her around as long as he can pay the bills. She finds Ectomantic Investigations to be incredibly interesting, if only the ectomancer wasn't around. And as time goes on some kind of Ghost Hound or Hell Hound or something that they run across trying to pay the bills suddenly gets a hankering to snack on celebrity ghost. End of book things don't turn out well on many levels for our obsessive ectomantic fan.
Anyway so long as your MC doesn't exist in a vacum there are going to be things he needs to do in the 'real world' that open the door for fun adventures.
Of if this isn't the story you want to write, mix and match the details.
The Deposed King
-
A hitman is sent to kill someone, only to discover too late his target is really a vampire and he was sent as the vampire's surprise birthday present.
This sounds like the first couple chapters of a novel. It's just a matter of wanting to do something different with it.
Chandler Reynolds is a hitman for hire. He's worked for
governments, corporations, and private citizens. He's
even worked pro bono when the need arises. So he's
used to making enemies, and surviving retaliations.
But now he needs to figure out which of his past clients
tried to kill him.
When someone from his past hires him for a job, he
doesn't hesitate. But when that job turns out to be
a setup, and he's meant to be a party favor for a
vampire coven's Deathday celebration, Reynolds barely
gets out alive. He wants answers, but the client has
disappeared, and so has any trace of their existence.
Now Reynolds is in a race against time, as someone
works behind the scenes to erase him -- permanently.
-
"Obsessed fan and celebrity stalker summons the ghost of the celebrity he is obsessed with, so he can be with her. It does not end well."
Why can't this idea be made into a full length novel?
This sounds like the first couple chapters of a novel. It's just a matter of wanting to do something different with it.
Hm. That's interesting.
I think I see where I'm limiting my thinking. The characters in these stories are created for the purpose of dieing. They are unsympathetic bad people doing bad things for their own reasons and it gets them killed with a twist.
A book where these stories are the end would be unsatisfying. However, you are suggesting these are the beginning. If these characters were sympathetic and the focus was on complication, then there's more room to work.
There are other plotting problems I have, but this at least helps me jiu-jitsu a short idea into a longer one. Thanks.
-
I agree with those who think you have at least the seeds of some full-length novels in the ideas you shared up-thread; any of them could be either the opening chapters or the climax of the story. Apart from that, I probably can't help you much, as I have exactly the opposite issue: I'll get an idea and think, "Oh, that could make a nice short story!" Then I think about it a little more and realize that there's no way I can possibly do justice to it in under 100,000 words.
-
For me, scope is determined by the scope of the core concept of that particular story. "Shaifennen and her sister encounter a local apex-predator and try not to get eaten," worked out as a long-running short, 7.7K or so. I suppose it could be filled out to make a short novel... but 7.7 worked out just fine to tell that story, with a few hundred words worth of elements which are intended to dovetail with other stories.
Now, "Shaifennen finds a dig that will change the economic balance of power in her region and maybe even help her people reclaim their place in the stars" is gonna be three books at least.
The initial find and immediate consequences are book one. The less obvious consequences, reactions of other communities as they have the time to process what her find means to them socially and economically build the second book. The endgame, the final conflicts and alliances which decide who will decide what direction the emerging civilization on her colony will take makes for the third.
Point being, I find it best to have had an idea where the story would ultimately go and allowed that to determine the length. If a story had the possibility to be part of a more complex arc, I adjusted accordingly (as with the trilogy, which originally was going to be just one book.) Flip side, I've had shorts grow to novellas, novels shrink to novellas and shorts because the core story was being overwhelmed by filler. They dovetail with the rest of the stories but aren't dependent... but they really just didn't need to be longer to get where I wanted the story to end up.
-
(As always, mileage may vary. I work best when I know roughly where I'm ultimately going. I've got milestones and an endgame, and I build towards that. And other people do better sitting down with a basic concept and just fly by the seat of their pants. My method isn't "better," it just works for me, and the stories end up deciding for themselves how long they'll be.)
-
(As always, mileage may vary. I work best when I know roughly where I'm ultimately going. I've got milestones and an endgame, and I build towards that. And other people do better sitting down with a basic concept and just fly by the seat of their pants. My method isn't "better," it just works for me, and the stories end up deciding for themselves how long they'll be.)
Having an End point certainly helps. Although some ideas the problem is figuring out where they end. The "What happens next.
Although, if you know the ending, and you know the beginning, sometimes 'what happens in the middle' becomes your problem. ;)
-
----snip---- Then I think about it a little more and realize that there's no way I can possibly do justice to it in under 100,000 words.
And this is a problem.... why?
My last novel was 150k+ and I wrote a 220k book that had to be split into two novels.
The Deposed King
-
Hm. That's interesting.
I think I see where I'm limiting my thinking. The characters in these stories are created for the purpose of dieing. They are unsympathetic bad people doing bad things for their own reasons and it gets them killed with a twist.
A book where these stories are the end would be unsatisfying. However, you are suggesting these are the beginning. If these characters were sympathetic and the focus was on complication, then there's more room to work.
There are other plotting problems I have, but this at least helps me jiu-jitsu a short idea into a longer one. Thanks.
Yeah bad guy or good guy, you need the characters to be sympathetic on some level. I'm glad that a fresh perspective is starting to help.
Go get'em tiger!
The Deposed King
-
And this is a problem.... why?
My last novel was 150k+ and I wrote a 220k book that had to be split into two novels.
Who said it was a problem? :)
The Deposed King