writerly nattering
12/5/05 20:59The thing is, for me, I think the major issue between the idea of the stories and the stories I wrote in most cases -- well, it's pretty predictable. I write tiny, tiny stories. And sometimes that's a good thing -- there are times when the smallness and spareness makes stronger writing -- but that's really not always the case. I think of at least four of my due South stories off the top of my head that when I sat down to write I expected to end up at least two or three times the length they actually did (Fucking Girls, Post, A is for Apple, and Discovery are the ones I thought of right away). I think with any other writer, those stories *would* be several times longer, and i don't think they would necessarily be worse off for it.
(...Looking at my website, I have discovered I have written exactly 4 stories over 30k in the past three plus years. Two of those were co-written. That's vaguely depressing.)
Hmm. That's definitely my main bone of contention with myself, I think. I know Arctic Cottages and Sandy Beaches was originally supposed to have something at least vaguely plotlike before it ended up just being all implications. Same with Contents... I think A Box of Pictures actually works better for me than it does for readers, because for that one, instead of seeing the differences from what I wanted I just fill in all the blanks as I read. Heh.
I suspect I would have a whole lot more if I could bring myself to reread my Smallville stories, but I really really can't make myself do that.
(no subject)
13/5/05 04:07 (UTC)Short sometimes gives a stonger impact, at least I think so.
(no subject)
13/5/05 04:18 (UTC)Nah, your Smallville stories were perfect in every way and doubtless sprang full-formed as wise Athena from your mighty brain.
No?
Well, I like them.
(no subject)
13/5/05 06:52 (UTC)and.
ow.
*sniff*
(no subject)
13/5/05 12:13 (UTC)*pets*
(no subject)
13/5/05 17:09 (UTC)(no subject)
13/5/05 17:09 (UTC)