Short stories vs novels

[chrispenycate]

"Earthlight" was the first real science fiction novel that I read (at nine) It was also the first in which (considerably later) I found a technical error (not the last though)
Still, one of his great strengths (noticably reduced in his later work, particularly in the "Rama" series) was knowing the right length for a story, not trying to pad out a short story or a novellamaking for several excellent shorts.

[Shoegaze99]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Still, one of his great strengths (noticably reduced in his later work, particularly in the "Rama" series) was knowing the right length for a story

In all fairness to Clarke, he did not write the follow-ups to Rama, Gentry Lee did. While Clarke's name is the one featured, his role was limited to providing a bunch of ideas and some framework and his universe to Lee, who did the actual nitty gritty writing.

Which is kind of why the sequels were so poor.

[Lyrebird]

I tend to prefer short fiction, myself... though this heavily depends on the writing (Who's writing what). For example, in almost all cases where I'd read both a short and a long version of the same story, I have liked the short version... (A couple or so were AC's works, though I can't recollect the names.) Also, observe that it's always possible to shorten a novel, while the reverse is less often likely to work.

Did somebody say Vision? I'm reminded how underappreciated Asimov seems to be...

Oh, did I say underappreciated? That's just what a good short story always seems to be. I doubt the majority of readers know AC for his short fiction, or any other author, for that matter.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lyrebird

I tend to prefer short fiction, myself... though this heavily depends on the writing (Who's writing what). For example, in almost all cases where I'd read both a short and a long version of the same story, I have liked the short version... (A couple or so were AC's works, though I can't recollect the names.) Also, observe that it's always possible to shorten a novel, while the reverse is less often likely to work.

And that's where part of the problem comes in. It depends on what you mean by it being possible to shorten a novel... if you can remove much from a novel without it affecting the novel deleteriously... then it didn't need to be a novel (or at least, a novel of that length) in the first place. A short story that's "expanded" to a novel should only be so if the writer has more to say on the subject that's really pressing to be said, in which case it ends up being a different thing than it was to begin with... related, but not the same story. Flowers for Algernon is a case in point. It's not just an expanded version of the story, it addresses new layers, new levels, and is a good novel with or without reference to the short story -- they both work very well as what they are. (I prefer the short story because of the concentrated effect, but the novel couldn't lose anything without also losing much of what it's saying.) Another is T. E. D. Klein's The Ceremonies, which began as a short story, "The Events at Poroth Farm" and then was -- over a 10-year period -- turned into a novel of over 500 pages... without a word wasted. It bore almost no resemblance to the short story save for one or two motifs and incidents; the rest was completely new; and it's one of the best horror novels written in the latter half of the twentieth century. As I said, not a word was wasted; every single thing builds not only the story, but the atmosphere of this one -- which is fitting, as its main influences are Machen and Lovecraft.

However, your principle, in general, has far too many valid examples to be disregarded; and that goes to something I've said quite a bit myself: that too many works in the field are bloated and could at very least stand serious trimming, and would be much the better for it. A work should only be as long as what the work itself requires, not one word more. Otherwise you're wasting the reader's (and your) time -- at least, if you're striving for excellence in what you do.

Did somebody say Vision? I'm reminded how underappreciated Asimov seems to be...

On that one... I'm not so sure. Recently Asimov was given his own forum here, because enough people requested it -- which shows Ike is still very highly thought of in some circles, at least; and his work still receives both critical acclaim and more common recognition than may be realized.

Oh, did I say underappreciated? That's just what a good short story always seems to be. I doubt the majority of readers know AC for his short fiction, or any other author, for that matter.

And on this one... hurrah! Another person who proclaims the value of the (now) often-scorned short story -- a wonderful art form that can be very demanding, and when done well, is among the true gems in literature's crown: John Collier, Gerald Kersh, Harlan Ellison, Roald Dahl, Shirley Jackson, Charles Beaumont, Alexander Woollcott (try doing "Moonlight Sonata" as anything but a very brief short story!), H. Russell Wakefield, M. R. James, Isaac Asimov (especially "Eyes Do More than See"), Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore, Damon Knight, Kate Willhelm, C. M. Kornbluth, E. M. Forster, Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway.....

Yes, people who reject the short story are missing much of the greatest that literature has to offer... and Clarke is a good example, with "The Star", such collections as Expedition to Earth, The Wind from the Sun, Tales from the 'White Hart'....

[ntstatic]

The greatest strenght of Arthur Clarke is, in my opinion, how simple he makes, some of the most profound ideas. The stories seem almost real. for eg. while reading his stories i would feel that a "monomolecular wire" is a scientific reality. i would appreciate the wonderfull world of a mandelbrot set ( i made the pentominoes out of a cardboard when i was around 16 and solved the 3 x 12, after reading the story - i forget which novell it was)

on the point of characterization - which i have noticed people say about both ACC and Asimov - two of my favourites - that they lack the detailing and character building this In my opinion - it is what make the stories actual "Science" fiction and not some drama. i like my SF to be scientific and plausible.

IMO no one can say that ACC or for that matter Asimov are underappreciated. I do not know any one who would refute their genius.

[manephelien]

While it's true that Clarke's characterization was weak, this doesn't matter so much with short stories that center around an idea as it does with a novel. I certainly like science in sf to be plausible, as long as it isn't drowned out by techobabble spouted by cardboard characters. Rendez-vous with Rama is my favorite Clarke novel, because the characterization there was a little less hackneyed than in some of his other works. Clarke wrote RV solo, and it's in my opinion much superior to the sequels where Lee did much of the writing.

Some writers, notably Greg Bear, manage to combine both dramatic human characterizations and very plausible science. The kind you wish was real already, or maybe fear as well as hope it never will be real.