Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

you can see the next version of my story

With respect, we haven't seen a complete first version yet.

AJ

Wolf wrote massive manuscripts. Perkins edited them down to great novels.

But did he really? All he did was enforce one person's (his) opinion on everyone else. Was the original version even better? Did it contain nuance that could have changed your perceivement of characters and their motivations?

We will never know.

If a story is good, most people appear not to care about the length.

Perfect examples in film, are the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy and the extended version of Aliens. An editor trimmed down LOTR because it was perceived that there was no interest in long films. Yet a large proportion of fans prefer the extended versions (I do, so in that regard, I'm biased). And the same with Aliens, the longer version is just better, even if logically, it doesn't make numerical sense.

Needless bloat is a serious issue, in that regard, you have a perfectly valid point. On the same topic, there is also the other thread discussing the existence of extraneous sex scenes in stories that serve no function other to than to tick off some checklist held by the writer in their head.

But did he really? All he did was enforce one person's (his) opinion on everyone else. Was the original version even better?

Thomas Wolf didn't think so, so he finally left Perkins. I guess we'll never know for sure, but the novels Perkins edited were bestsellers and the ones Wolf published without Perkins' editing were not.

SciFi is more like 120,000–150,000

The early great SciFi authors could do the job in 60,000 words. It's only the modern trend for world building that has resulted in the size expansion. Does world building advance the plot? I'm not sure it does.

AJ

Does world building advance the plot?

Good question.

I recently re-read David Gemmell's 'Legend', a task that was easily achieved over a pleasant afternoon and one of the things that struck me, was the sparsity of the world. I hadn't realised just how 'bare' the novel was and that a young teenage 'me' who read it for the first time, had created a lot of memories about the novel that didn't actually exist. I had just read the book then 'filled in' the missing bits with my own imagination, then after a while those memories had become 'cannon' (in my own mind, at least).

The other, very obvious, observation, is that nowadays, I would feel short-changed to buy a book that I could read in a few hours. In fact, nowadays I will ignore any 'thin' book I see in a shop bookshelf, which would mean that I would actually deprive myself of early Pratchett and Robert Asprin novels, but with the cost of a 150 page book the same as a 400 page novel (DTP), there is a financial incentive to ignore the thinner works. Even though the quality over quantity is still a valid consideration (Though there is no guarantee the thinner book is going to be a better read over the thicker and vice versa).

Harry Potter novels are a literary doorstop, and yet, those novels did more for children's literacy levels of the time in the UK, than the proscribed English curriculum. A standing joke amongst English teachers of the period. So much so, that many teachers actually pushed for replacement of the 'classics' (Shakespeare and the like) with Rowling's books because children struggle with the archaic language and social 'norms' of the period in which the novels were penned. Rowling also has the ability to write about serious (current) social aspects in a way that young children can understand (Racism and Apartheid amongst many others) and relate to, and yet, not in a preachy way.

There is a heck of a lot of world building in a Potter book.

Indeed, I have noticed a considerable uptake in private messages of support in relation to my own stories here, (The last year or two of my submissions) that praise me for my world building, and which state that the world building is what makes the stories so enjoyable (to them).

So to cap my thoughts on the matter. Does world building advance the plot? No, I don't think that it particularly does, but what it does do, is make the story richer, and more enjoyable for the reader.

I had just read the book then 'filled in' the missing bits with my own imagination, then after a while those memories had become 'cannon' (in my own mind, at least).

IMO that's a sign of good writing. Readers engage more if they have to fill in the gaps then they can imagine it how they want. If authors spoon-feed too much detail, it can put readers off if the details contrast too strongly with how they'd envisage things.

AJ

Perhaps people had more imagination when the likes of HG Wells and Jules Verne were contemporary.

AJ

So to cap my thoughts on the matter. Does world building advance the plot? No, I don't think that it particularly does, but what it does do, is make the story richer, and more enjoyable for the reader.

I tried to pick a point to jump in and picked this one.

I think there's a disagreement about what 'world building' means that makes some of the later responses 'two ships passing in the night'.

Some people seem to think that it's 'appearance': how things look and sound and act and so forth.

Others seem to think that it's 'functionality': how things work, what the connection between things are, and so forth.

The first sort has its place, but is where 'fill in the gaps' matters. Sometimes less detail is better. Steven King mentions this a number of times - the best monster is the one you don't see on the page. Once you see the monster, it's inevitably shorter, smaller, and has fewer teeth than you imagined.

The second part is important, in my opinion. Part of it depends on the reader, though. Much fiction, and especially speculative fiction, 'handwaves' how economies interact, how societies function, where the stress points are, and so forth. That used to be more acceptable than it is now. Going back and looking at books from decades ago, sometimes it's obvious that the society can't really function in the way that it's described, or that one needs to really make up a whole lot of things to create a workable model.

That sort of world-building matters, I think, up to a point. One risks turning into Robert Jordan, or perhaps George R.R. Martin, where the small details of how things function and where things are placed in history can take up an enormous amount of space.

Rowling is somewhere in the middle. One can imagine that her world can, by and large, function, and there is a lot of 'texture,' but many details are left for the reader (and some, frankly, don't make sense when poked at too far). I suspect part of her writing is influenced by knowing that readers in her primary targeted age range are going to say 'why?' over and over and over again. If there's no viable 'why?' they will give up and read something else.

I wont disagree with "Sometimes less detail is better." The problem is that taken too far, it can easily be worse.

Oh, definitely. Completely agree. That point will vary from reader to reader, too, and quite a bit. There's no one answer. It'll vary, and that's fine.

fine

As a matter of interest, have you counted the number of times you use 'fine' in VOAT?

AJ

the best possible story is a blank page.

I think that's an absurd claim. You can put on an entertaining play with no props. You can write an engaging story with no 'wallpaper'. Even children can entertain themselves with just a cardboard box to play with.

AJ

And yet professional stage productions that people actually pay to go see are almost never done that way.

I'm not au fait with what's popular, but reviews of commercial productions in London show a wide mix, from lavish productions with elaborate stagings to minimalist productions, sometimes with only one thespian playing all the parts.

AJ

You can write an engaging story with no 'wallpaper'.

I do not agree.

Wow, it took a lot of searching to dig up the name, but Dennis Lehane is famous for writing crime thrillers with minimal wallpaper. I've read his work and it's okay for an American ;-)

AJ

does not support the thesis that "You can write an engaging story with no 'wallpaper'"

The thread like others before it reverted to "black and white," "yes or no," "all or nothing." No such thing in writing fiction. Sometimes a lot of detail works. Sometimes not much detail works. Even within the same novel.

btw, what's wallpaper in a story?

awnlee jawking is the one who introduced the 'wallpaper' term. From context, I presume that he's referring to things like scenery and props.

I didn't originate the term, although it may have come from a different thread. Someone mentioned authors describing the wallpaper in a room. A no-frills author like Dennis Lehane would only describe wallpaper if it were trying to kill someone ;:)

AJ

The early great SciFi authors could do the job in 60,000 words.

I was referring to what publishers today would find acceptable in that genre. My reference was that publishers try to limit their risk so they set word boundaries by genre.

I was referring to what publishers today would find acceptable in that genre.

According to the 'new scifi' reviews in my newspaper, there are some traditional length stories being published, so I dispute your term 'acceptable'. However the majority seem to be doorstop size and heavy on world-building.

AJ

so I dispute your term 'acceptable'

Acceptable meaning a new (unproven) author within a genre. The longer the novel, the higher the publisher's expenses and therefore risk. We're talking about everything from editing to printing costs. And of course the price reflects the costs so then they have to worry about how many people will pay that much.

Of course if it's a proven author, the publishers are more flexible. Known author = less risk. And then there's the super long manuscript by an unknown author that is just perfect. They'll take a risk on those too.

The longer the novel, the higher the publisher's expenses and therefore risk.

But

SciFi is more like 120,000–150,000

and

I was referring to what publishers today would find acceptable in that genre.

If 120,000-150,000 words are the 'acceptable' size for a modern dead tree scifi story, what length do stories have to be to be unacceptable?

AJ

what length do stories have to be to be unacceptable?

I have no idea. I'm not in the publishing industry.

You have a newspaper that contains content.

Barely. I compared a recent edition to one from before Covid. These days, all the actual news is down to a couple of pages, with minimal local stuff. Some of the regular sections - book and film reviews, medical, financial etc are ok, but they each come on separate days. The rest is full of adverts and biased opinion pieces from their army of in-house columnists.

AJ

ETA: I just realized that I've been frequenting this site for close to half of my life!

But were you born yesterday? :-)

AJ

if a guy wants me to read 1.95 million words in 250+ chapters, he better be Hemingway/Steinbeck/and your favorite all rolled into one.

Weren't Hemingway and Steinbeck relatively concise authors? ;-)

AJ

Weren't Hemingway and Steinbeck relatively concise authors? ;-)

Hemingway was. He was a journalist and a short story writer.

Ernest Hemingway's "iceberg" theory is his strategy of fiction writing in which most of the story is hidden, much like an iceberg underneath the ocean. The largest percentage of an iceberg is underwater (not visible) and is subsequently the strongest part of the iceberg. In the same way, the strongest part of a Hemingway story is what is hidden from the reader and if applicable, revealed later.

Hemingway developed the style as a result of being a journalist, a profession which requires conciseness due to space restraints in printed newspapers. Hemingway believed that the application of the iceberg theory created the perfect short story, and the more details the writer strips away, the more powerful the story is.

The "iceberg theory" is also called the "theory of omission."

My now defunct writers' group was pretty much in agreement that much of the detail an author thinks up should be omitted from the story. As you say, it can be revealed later if necessary. And also it can be changed, if future sequels require things to behave differently.

JK Rowling incorporated too much detail in her early books, so later books were inconsistent because they required different behaviour.

AJ

JK Rowling incorporated too much detail in her early books,

It should be pointed out that those books sold very well, so there is an argument that the level of detail was 'just right'. Critics and learned individuals might claim otherwise, but very few critics and learned individuals write popular novels, so by default, they really should be ignored...

There is a reason that old adage holds true, even today: Those that can, do. Those that can't, become critics and teachers (Or instructors, for the trades).

It should be pointed out that those books sold very well, so there is an argument that the level of detail was 'just right'.

As a sometime editor and proofreader, I hate continuity errors. But I guess I'm not a typical reader.

AJ

As I said above, JK Rowling introduced too much detail in her early books. The later books required things to work differently, thus creating continuity and consistency errors.

AJ

I believe he meant 'brevity' in the sense of not having enough detail. The appropriate level of detail will be different for flash stories than novels; the length of the story is immaterial.

AJ

I have encountered very few —if any—stories on SOL where the problem was too much brevity

I'm reading one now. And I finished another by the same author with the same brevity problem so that's how he writes. In his case, it's not too little detail. If anything, he has too much detail (wallpaper).

But his brevity problem is the lack of words in transitions. You finish a paragraph and — wam— the next pragraaph jumps to a different time and place. It's very confusing. All he needed to do was put in a few words to transition correctly.

But his brevity problem is the lack of words in transitions.

I may have read the same story. My thought was that the author didn't know to use the line to denote a scene break.

AJ

I've given up on some good stories here because of (in my opinion) needless repetition, or agonizingly detailed descriptions of the size of a room or object, or preparing a meal.

I sometimes get the feeling that if someone published the Haynes Starship Enterprise Manual on SOL, not a few readers would rate it their favourite novel :-)

AJ

do you even sample a few chapters to find out if the story is worth reading?

I have, and more than a few chapters. I hear the praise. I see the 9+ score. I say, "This gotta be good." And many times it starts out good. But then it just keeps going: more of the same over and over again, meandering, no real conflict, sub-conflicts not being resolved, too many new characters being added, the original concept gone, etc. I find what started out as a good story became boring. Then I say, "Man, that could have been a good story if he stayed on course and just finished it at the right time."

But that's me.

But that's me.

That is me also. If the story does not live up to what I expect in the first couple of chapters, I bail.

I don't think it's appropriate for people to complain about the mere existence of stories for which they are not part of the target audience.

👍

I don't think it's appropriate for people to complain about the mere existence of stories for which they are not part of the target audience.

Sadly, that's where we are in society — "It's not for me, therefore it's not for anyone and probably ought to be banned" is the norm.

EVERYONE is seen by the author as a target audience.

I'm not sure that's true. If it were, surely there would be no need for story codes.

Some (ahem!) of my stories are rather niche. They're not aimed at everyone, they're aimed at readers whose particular kink they happen to match.

I agree that all the hyperbole about banning is unwarranted.

AJ

why the need to publicly criticize the never ending stories at all?

It's a valid critique. Just like too much sex in a story. Or stories being too short. Or unfinished stories. Or stories with typos/grammar issues. Or stories without paragraphs. Or stories with unbelievable characters. Or stories with head-hopping.

If you believe in the 3- or 5-act structure, you expect a beginning, middle, and end. A story structure. And if you believe there is no plot without conflict, you expect a plot conflict with a conflict resolution at the end. If a story doesn't have that but simply wanders, it's valid to criticize that story.

To argue that they are objectively bad is necessarily to say you think such stories shouldn't exist (even if you aren't calling for banning them) despite the fact that other people like such stories.

I think head-hopping is bad. As a reader, I hate when the author jumps from one character's thoughts to another. I also dislike when the result is the lack of suspense/tension when you know both sides right away. As an author, I offer my opinion on what I learned from studying about POV. I'm not saying that's the right way, only that that's the way those in the industry say it's to be done.

I'm not saying stories with head-hopping should be banned from SOL. Hell, probably 80%-90% of the stories would vanish. I'm not even saying people don't like it. I personally believe SOL readers actually like head-hopping. They want to know what every character is thinking. I believe they even like telling rather than showing.

The Forum is a place to discuss stories. It's also a place to discuss writing. It's not a place to recommend banning of stories, or even that certain types of stories shouldn't be written/posted. Just because the OP gave his opinion doesn't mean those stories are crap. Simply that he doesn't like those types of stories and why he doesn't. I don't see anything wrong with that. People could learn from that discussion.

Their false positive rate is fairly low.

It's a spectrum. There are extremely few blockbusters. And I expect publishers occasionally publish books that they suspect won't make a profit just to tick boxes.

And they have almost no data at all on their false negative rate.

I'd imagine the publishers who turned down JK Rowling have made no attempt to work out where they went wrong or what it cost them, but the data is available if they choose to look.

AJ

the "criticism" of soap opera style stories isn't any different than "criticism" of gay stories by someone who hates gay stories.

I think the difference is the latter is about content and the former is about story structure.

... if the world needs amateur porn stories which are longer than the greatest works of literature?

Interesting observation.

If you researched the authors of those great works of literature, you would find that many of their literary works were not recognized as great literature until after the author's death.

In today's world, a number of the stories classified as great literature are classified by some groups as porn - for example, Fanny Hill.

I also wonder about the lengths of those great works of literature. At the time they were written, the per page publishing costs were higher than they are now. If the publishers had had based their decision about publishing the stories using your 'I never read stories that are too long' philosophy, whatever 'too long' meant in that timeframe, then the great works of literature you refer to may never have been published.

I also wonder about the lengths of those great works of literature. At the time they were written, the per page publishing costs were higher than they are now.

Some very long classical stories were published in the newspaper as serials (A Tale of Two Cities) and some were published piecemeal (Les Misérables),. before being collated as a single published volume.

In today's world, a number of the stories classified as great literature are classified by some groups as porn - for example, Fanny Hill.

DH Lawrence's works were banned as obscenity. Today he's considered one of the greatest Twentieth Century authors and those novels are taught in schools.

How about the movie "Poor Things." Filled with full frontal nudity, fucking, and masturbation. Emma Stone won an Oscar for performing those in the movie. Is it pornography? It would be if I wrote and produced it.

DH Lawrence's works were banned as obscenity. Today he's considered one of the greatest Twentieth Century authors and those novels are taught in schools.

I agree.

However, in some school districts, those novels are again considered pornographic, and banned literature in the schools. In some areas, the novels are also banned from public libraries.

when I said "those novels", I was thinking of novels containing sexual passages in general, not specifically the works of DH Lawrence.

There hasn't been a single book banned in the US.

Not true - see list for books banned by US Federal government. Lower levels of government have also banned books in their areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments#United_States

The US Government has (or had) obscenity laws that prohibited the import of many books that were enforced by US Customs. Postal regulations prohibited the distribution of many books by the US Post Office. According to the article, a number of these laws were rescinded. There may still be laws on the books that are not currently being enforced.

The fact that the government does not supply a book does not equate to banning.

Which level of government - Federal, State, County, City?

Regardless of the level of government, one needs to determine why a book is not provided. Also, provided to whom - a school, public library, or other entity.

It is obvious that the government will not provide a book if the area served, or portions of that area, has banned the book.

A book sold in a privately owned retail book store in a county can be banned in that county's public schools.

Ban means it can't be legally obtained anywhere by any means.

Not true.

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban, ban is the act of "legal or formal prohibition". When used as a verb, it is the act of issuing a prohibition. When used as a noun, it refers to the prohibition.

Which does not apply to keeping a book out of K-12 public school libraries for being inappropriate for minors.

Sure it does. A school board can ban a book. Lazeez can ban stories containing sex with someone under 14 years old.

None of that matters regarding what I said. The US Government did ban books due to sexual content, which was my point. Legal action may have overturned the ban, but the book was banned by the government.

80 years ago.

Nice to see you agree with me about the US Government banning books, even it if was 80 years ago.

Do you realize that overturning a decision made by the government does not change the fact that the government made the decision and acted on the decision.

To recap, all I asked is if the world needs amateur porn stories which are longer than the greatest works of literature?

The number of ways to kill someone versus the number of ways to have sex with someone :-)

AJ

In my opinion the "criticism" of soap opera style stories isn't any different than "criticism" of gay stories by someone who hates gay stories.

I believe even most fans of soap operas wouldn't pretend that they're particularly good.

However, someone who likes gay stories would be able to name gay stories they consider good.

IMO, criticism of soap operas is different to criticism of gay stories.

AJ

But here on SOL, there is no specific reader or target audience other than the very general erotica topic

You couldn't be further from the truth. I have like six pseudo thingies simply because the genre fans DO NOT play nicely with each other.... You will find it difficult to get a lesbian to read male gay porn and vice versa with a gay male. You will find it difficult to get a heterosexual male read gay porn etc etc.

I did read what you wrote and I stand by (my) responses.

Given the calibre of some of the individuals you have called out, I'm more inclined to be of the opinion that they read your comments just fine, and that the issue may be, that you didn't put your thoughts down coherently enough and the point you were trying to make was obfuscated.

That, of course, is my reading of the situation and I could well be wrong. It won't be the first time...

EDIT: Added (my).

I didn't call for banning anyone.

I didn't say you did. I simply commented on what @Dominions Son wrote about people complaining. I gave a reason why they do. That you took that to apply to you is on you, not me, given I wasn't responding to you.

. The Blah Story by Nigel Tomm – 3.2 million words

It's actually over 11 million words.

From Johnny Hazelnut's Review of "The Blah Story":

The Blah Story is written by a pseudo-intellectual asshat named Nigel Tomm and weighs in at over 11 million words. This isn't so impressive, however, when you note the following things about it:

- 90% of the words in the novel are "blah."
- One of its many volumes (22 at last count and still going) is little more than a half-million word sentence generated by computer.
- It also contains the longest word in any book ever, which is several million characters and is also generated by computer.
- In fact, it's basically just "blah" repeated billions of times with random words stuffed in between.

"War and Peace" (the poster child of long novels) is less than 600,000 words.

For context:

War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy – 587,287 words
Les Miserables, Victor Hugo – 530,982 words
Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell – 418,053 words
Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy – 349,736 words
Moby Dick, Herman Melville – 206,052 words

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone – 77,325 words
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – 84,799 words
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban – 106,821 words
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – 190,858 words
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix – 257,154 words
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince – 169,441 words
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – 198,227 words

The Hobbit – 95,022 words
The Lord of the Rings – 455,125 words
The Two Towers – 143,436 words
The Return of the King – 134,462 words

A Game Of Thrones – 298,000
A Clash Of Kings – 326,000
A Storm of Swords – 424,000
A Feast For Crows – 300,000
A Dance With Dragons – 422,000

Source

My typical book is about 400,000 words (longest is 639,484; shortest is 202,351).

Do you class 'serials' as individual or as a whole?

War and peace is an individual publication (though was released serially before being edited and published as one entity later on) and in it's current form, an entire story (So would that not make it, technically, an anthology?).

Harry Potter, GOT, LOTR, are (technically) all one story split into easily digested 'parts' with 'named' chapters.

My opinion is that GOT, HP and the like, are (by themselves) 'one story' which would make them stories well over a million words in length.

Another thing to consider, is that I don't think using the length of stories before the 1950's as a bench mark is particularly valid. My reasoning for this, is that they had to be handwritten and ink and parchment was expensive. Even in later years, typewriters were slow, consumables expensive. Would Tolstoy have stopped at 580,00 odd thousand words if he could have banged out his thoughts on a keyboard and e-mailed the results to his publisher? I don't think so. I think the faster he could have put his thoughts to paper, the more he would have written.

Another limiting factor to books of the bygone ages, was the technical ability of printers at the time. Books couldn't be long because they couldn't be bound easily and longer works had spine issues. Also, transporting thick books was difficult because they didn't have lorries and planes. There was no incentive to write long novels and plenty to disincentive.

Another thing to consider, is that I don't think using the length of stories before the 1950's as a bench mark is particularly valid.

A certain work of fiction, written in 1611, in 783,137 words long ;-)

AJ

My opinion is that GOT, HP and the like, are (by themselves) 'one story' which would make them stories well over a million words in length.

Well, then 😜

A Well-Lived Life — 10,132,851 words
Good Medicine — 4,454,036 words

Climbing the Ladder — 1,553,503 words

On the 'publication as a serial' that was true about A Tale of Two Cities as well (one of my favorite books).

To recap, all I asked is if the world needs amateur porn stories which are longer than the greatest works of literature?

Apparently it does, since people read them.

AJ

To recap, all I asked is if the world needs amateur porn stories which are longer than the greatest works of literature? :)

Considering peolpe happily pay for them when I am making them available gratis here, I'd say the answer is a definitive yes.

At the risk of quibbling with something that was probably intended to be a joke, your question in turn begs the question of 'What is a 'porn' story?'

My suspicion is that there's only a moderate market. Yes, the four largest single stories on this site are 'Much Sex' (though not 'Stroke Story'), but the two that I've read generally moved to less sex, more plot.

For 'dead tree' publishing, 'Game of Thrones' has a lot of sex (and the TV series had more, perhaps at the 'much sex' level). Is it porn? Personally, I don't think so.

The mere existence of popular SoL epic-length stories doesn't necessarily mean that the world needs 'amateur porn stories'. Plus, some of the authors on here don't qualify as 'amateur' in the sense that they're getting paid (some as a career / second career) for their work. Not many, but it happens.

Not me, not yet, but that's partly been my own fault in not merchandising anything.

Another solution to the 'keeping people interested' problem (and one I haven't used and don't intend to use) is to do what traditional authors do: write N volumes. Wrap up the story in the Nth volume. Start a new story.

Even better, if you can manage it, is to write six stories, interleaving volumes of each. Now it takes much longer to get to N for each, readers are constantly 'rediscovering' each story, and the boredom threshold goes up.

You could change pseudonyms for each, but you're probably better off not doing that, I suspect.

Nothing against it, if the stories continue to be interesting. One of the problems for some stories is the problem of continual escalation: if your story involves fighting against a 'big bad', every 'big bad' must be bigger and badder than the previous 'big bad'. Some 'clever' authors bring in a new 'big bad' before the old 'big bad' is disposed of, which goes wrong far more often than it goes right.

Many times a story starts out perfectly well, and it's the escalation that kills it.