# A novel made up of many short stories that amount into a complete narrative...



## Topper88 (Mar 22, 2013)

Can anyone cite examples of this? And in your opinion, is it an effective format for storytelling?


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

If it's just a series of connected short stories, I wouldn't consider that a novel. I've read a couple, but it was a long time ago. I don't really think it's all that effective unless one is good at writing short stories; it's not effective as a method of writing a novel, simply because each short story is complete itself, so the reader can finish one part, set the book down, and maybe not get back to it for months. Effective story-telling at the novel length should make the reader want to keep reading to the end of the book, not just the next 'chapter'.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 22, 2013)

_Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned_ by Walter Mosley.

It's fantastic.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 22, 2013)

_A Visit from the Goon Squad_ by Jennifer Egan. I found it rather unsatisfying but it won awards so others must have liked it a lot.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2013)

Ray Bradbury's _The_ _Illustrated Man_.  Independent short stories tied together with bits of narrative.  A classic.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Cinnabar, by Edward Bryant
Trouble is my Business, by Raymond Chandler
The Gods of Pegana, by Lord Dunsany
The Dark Country, by Dennis Etchison
The Complete Continental Op, by Dashiell Hammett. Includes two complete novels and a heap of short stories.
Averoigne, by Clark Ashton Smith
The Instrumentality of Mankind and the Rediscovery of Man, by Cordwainer Smith (tie-ins with the Norstrilia novel)
The Complete Venus Equilateral, by George O. Smith

These are all superlative. There are many more-they used to be common, especially during the Golden Age of SF. I disagree 100% with the notion that a themed collection is inferior to a novel. In fact I prefer them. I think the form is more flexible and that a lot more can be done if one has the toolkit.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 22, 2013)

I had a class in college that focused on writing like this.  It's actually been very popular for the last fifteen years.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> I disagree 100% with the notion that a themed collection is inferior to a novel. In fact I prefer them. I think the form is more flexible and that a lot more can be done if one has the toolkit.



I don't know that anyone said it was 'inferior'. I did say it wasn't an effective way of _writing _a novel - a novel is one story, not a series of short stories. I enjoy reading short stories, but if I picked up a book that was touted as a novel and instead was written in this method, I wouldn't be happy. If I knew it was a series of connected short stories, no problem.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Novels have long been assembled from series of short stories. Your answer certainly infers that you feel the novel to be the superior form. Both have their pluses and minuses. I prefer the collection of related shorts. Perhaps it is my attention span.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> Novels have long been assembled from series of short stories. Your answer certainly infers that you feel the novel to be the superior form.



I'm not aware of this tradition. Short stories are complete stories. Novels are complete stories. Stringing together a series of short complete stories, however closely they are connected, does not make one long complete story - it makes a series of complete short stories.

And the inference is totally on your part. I like short stories. I like a set of related short stories in one compilation. I like novels. I don't find any to be automatically inferior to any of the others. I do however like to know what form the book I'm picking up will be - if it claims to be one and is indeed another, I'm not happy.


----------



## Angelicpersona (Mar 22, 2013)

Terry D said:


> Ray Bradbury's _The_ _Illustrated Man_.  Independent short stories tied together with bits of narrative.  A classic.


 I was going to say that Ray Bradbury is kind of known for this. He takes a central theme and writes a number of short stories around it.
As for the effectiveness, I think it depends on what the theme is. Some themes would translate better to this form of narrative than others.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm not aware of this tradition. Short stories are complete stories. Novels are complete stories. Stringing together a series of short complete stories, however closely they are connected, does not make one long complete story - it makes a series of complete short stories.
> 
> And the inference is totally on your part. I like short stories. I like a set of related short stories in one compilation. I like novels. I don't find any to be automatically inferior to any of the others. I do however like to know what form the book I'm picking up will be - if it claims to be one and is indeed another, I'm not happy.


It's especially common, or was, in the fields of science fiction and mystery/suspense, where writers would sell each individual story and then expand those into novels, or shoehorn them together into novels. I'm in the process of just such an assembly.
"Novel" is to me a more flexible form than it seems to be to you. I regard many things as novels that consist of related short pieces strung together. Examples would be Stand On Zanzibar, modeled after John dos Passos' USA and the work of Burroughs and McLuhan, where a number of possibly divergent pieces are assembled into a whole; More Than Human, where three separate novellas with the same characters become a novel, and The Fifth Head of Cerberus, which uses the same sort of technique.
But that's just me. Really I don't care about form-I just want content, as a reader.


----------



## alanmt (Mar 22, 2013)

I think the Thieves' World anthologies may qualify, but it has been a long time since I read one.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Sort of-those were shared-world things based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's interpretations of some of Clark Ashton Smith's work. Good ones, too. But they were by different authors, more akin to the Man-Kzin Wars series or Wild Cards, or a Cthulhu Mythos collection. They advanced the narrative in a round-robin sort of sense.
Likewise single-author collections like Niven's Tales of Known Space, Robinson's Callahan's Place anthologies-they're not actually presented as novels, where patchwork sorts of things like SoZ and MTH are presented as single works.
To me, the only difference is conceptual continuity. I liken it to music. Something like 2112 or the first side of Apostrophe or Thick as a Brick is novelish, where Dark Side of the Moon is a collection, despite the thematic connection.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

There is a big difference between a series of related short stories and short stories which are expanded into novels. A lot of writers have done the latter - which kind of points out the difference between the 'related shorts' and novels.

A novel is one story. It has a beginning, middle, and end - not several beginnings, several middles, and several ends. If one takes a bunch of short stories with the same characters, for example, and adds "Three weeks after [the end of the previous story]" to the beginning of the next short story, suddenly it becomes a novel? :scratch:


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Sure, why not? A novel does not need to be an extended linear narrative. It does NOT have to be one story. I don't really see a clear distinction between related shorts and chapters of novels. To me they're the same thing.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 22, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> There is a big difference between a series of related short stories and short stories which are expanded into novels. A lot of writers have done the latter - which kind of points out the difference between the 'related shorts' and novels.
> 
> A novel is one story. It has a beginning, middle, and end - not several beginnings, several middles, and several ends. If one takes a bunch of short stories with the same characters, for example, and adds "Three weeks after [the end of the previous story]" to the beginning of the next short story, suddenly it becomes a novel? :scratch:



A properly constructed chapter also has a beginning, middle and end. This does not preclude them from working together to create a larger whole. The Mosley Book I mentioned, and the Sturgeon book mod mentioned (_More Than Human_) work both as story collection and a larger narrative. In the Mosely book, three groups of short stories _thematically_ construct a three act structure. In the Sturgeon, three novellas do the same. Yet the stories could be plucked out and read as satisfying narratives in their own right. This does not preclude them from working together to create a greater whole. Both works are hugely acclaimed, quite successful, and widely recognized as both collections of short stories _and_ fully fledged novels.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

Take any chapter from an actual novel and post it alone, as a short story. That's going to make sense? The reader is going to get to know the character, understand the plot, feel satisfied at the ending? Take a "chapter" that's a complete story - what makes the reader want to go to the next chapter? Everything is explained and concluded in that "chapter". There's no question to be answered in the next. There's no resolution to be reached. The only reason to go to the next "chapter" is because one wants to read _another _story, not find out more about _this _one.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

The reader doesn't always have to "feel satisfied". If each "chapter" ramps up the drama, tightens the screws on the narrative, then yes, the reader will want to go on.
I don't believe, and many other modern writers don't believe, that everything needs to be tied up neatly in order to be a story or a chapter or whatever. There are degrees of resolution, and they're under the writer's control. A dangling thread from story A can pop up as the driving force in story C, enhance the premise of story B, and create unification and resolution to a larger issue.
There are no rules. There's no reason why you can't confound expectation and still have an effective piece.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 22, 2013)

lasm said:


> _A Visit from the Goon Squad_ by Jennifer Egan. I found it rather unsatisfying but it won awards so others must have liked it a lot.



Agreed. Started off great, and it's centered around the music industry, something that really interests me. I was actually pretty pumped about it for the first several chapters/stories. I liked the writing itself quite a bit, but after awhile that's all that was sustaining me -- and then it it just seemed to peter out. I still think it was worth the read though.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> The reader doesn't always have to "feel satisfied". If each "chapter" ramps up the drama, tightens the screws on the narrative, then yes, the reader will want to go on.
> I don't believe, and many other modern writers don't believe, that everything needs to be tied up neatly in order to be a story or a chapter or whatever. There are degrees of resolution, and they're under the writer's control. A dangling thread from story A can pop up as the driving force in story C, enhance the premise of story B, and create unification and resolution to a larger issue.
> There are no rules. There's no reason why you can't confound expectation and still have an effective piece.



Never said everything has to be tied up neatly, and that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. I think the problem here is that there is 'form' and there is 'definition'. No one is saying one can't string together thematic short stories into one _book_. I am saying that that is not a _novel_.


----------



## Cran (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan is right about the practice being common in science fiction - particularly throughout the Golden Era. The first three books of Asimov's _Foundation_ series were initially published as episodic short stories, as was Smith's _Skylark_ series. Because many book publishers considered SF to be pulp, serialised short stories in Campbell's (and other's) magazines was the best, if not only, option for at least one generation of SF writers. If I recall correctly, the Sherlock Holmes stories also began as magazine-published shorts.

ETA: Coming back to the OP's question - yes, it can work, especially if the writer is clear about building a larger story in stand-alone episodes.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 22, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Take any chapter from an actual novel and post it alone, as a short story. That's going to make sense? The reader is going to get to know the character, understand the plot, feel satisfied at the ending?



I never said that you could do it with any novel. But a properly constructed chapter does indeed have a beginning, a middle and an end.  You _can_ do it with the novels-that-are-made-out-of-short-stories I mentioned. 



> Take a "chapter" that's a complete story - what makes the reader want to go to the next chapter?



Continuing interest in the character? Knowledge that a short story only covers a brief portion of the life of that character and the next will introduce new themes and new experiences?



> Everything is explained and concluded in that "chapter". There's no question to be answered in the next. There's no resolution to be reached. The only reason to go to the next "chapter" is because one wants to read _another _story, not find out more about _this _one.



No, I think you're saying that _you_ don't. Other people have other wants. The Mosley book was written as 14 short stories, bought, packaged and sold as a novel, was commercially successful and critically acclaimed, and was turned into a well respected film. The Sturgeon book was written as three separate stories. It was bought, packaged and sold as a novel, was commercially successful and is acclaimed as one of the finest SF novels ever written to this day.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 23, 2013)

Topster said:


> Can anyone cite examples of this? And in your opinion, is it an effective format for storytelling?


 Mmmm..._Martian Chronicles; A Wizard of Earthsea..._


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, if that's your response to facts, so be it. Nothing more to be said.


I don't recognize that as factual. Therefore, to me, it's hooey. It's just so much calumny. "Indie" means produced independently in any genre, in any form. I don't see any attribution to "publishing industry" representatives using such terms exclusively, and never have. And it wouldn't matter one whit if I called my work self-published or indie-published or whatever. It's the same stuff. You're insisting on distinctions that don't exist and labels that don't need to exist, for reasons unknown.
But oh! A novel is this, and only this, and cannot be anything else, and this is self-published, not indie-published, and by the way, my Dymo Labelmaker only works this way, not that way. Bound in hides, wearing blinkers.
Why are people so closed-minded about this stuff? It ain't rocket science. It's effin' creative art. It can assume whatever form that is pleasing to the originator. If someone wants to create a novel out of flash fiction that uses only adverbs ending in -ly, someone else will say that it's junk and should have only adjectives that end in -ish.
Appy polly logies to the humor-impaired and terminally stuffed-shirted but pfaugh! And also ptui!
Do what you need to to get the words out. Learn the rules of grammar and spelling and then invent some of your own. While I cannot read Finnegan's Wake, still I recognize its difficulty of execution.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 23, 2013)

Cloud Atlas, I didn't think it was great, but others did, it won prizes.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 23, 2013)

Moderan: I'm curious how you would categorize Hyperion.  Not truly a series of shorts but it does seem to be the driving force.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

Writing. I call it writing. You mean the Simmons book, yes? I also call it eminently readable. Or are we talking Keats, or Greek mythology? 
It's a novel, first part of a tetralogy called the "Hyperion Cantos".


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 23, 2013)

Topster said:


> Can anyone cite examples of this? And in your opinion, is it an effective format for storytelling?



Well, there are all sorts of Science Fiction and Fantasy stories that have been bundled into "novels" that use that format. That's because a great many were originally published as serials in magazines or in pulp novellas. (Conan, Elric, John Carter of Mars, etc..)

Is it an effective format for "storytelling?" Maybe...

If you story hinges on covering the life of a character, through many separate events, then it might work. For instance, if you followed your character through their life, stopping at certain pivotal moments to tell a complete story, and then moved on to the next, but kept a plot-critical component in mind that was suitable, you might be able to tie them altogether in order to tell one complete "story."

Take the "Conan" series of stories. There really isn't a "beginning", "middle" or "end" to them, when taken altogether. But, there's a common theme present in many of them - Conan is going to carve out his own kingdom, by his own hand... so to speak. But, few individual stories focus on this. Instead, it's Conan hiring himself out as a mercenary, Conan becoming a pirate, Conan getting the girl, Conan killing things because that is what Conans do and he's Conan, dangit! Is there a link amongst them all that forms a "story?" Not really. But, as a character, Conan is very well developed. But, there's no way to slap his adventures together and make one contiguous story out of it. 

John Carter of Mars is in a similar fix. But, there's a hook that ties the various stories together - John bounces back and forth, between Earth and Mars as a way to resolve some problems with continuity and give the reader more adventures to read. Are all the stories tied together? Loosely, maybe. But, there's no over-arching goal, no singular focus that serves as a plot that is worth to stretch across them all and render a complete story. (John Carter is more bloodthirsty than Conan, btw.. But, not as cool.  )

But, you want to know if this has been done effectively, yes? Absolutely it has! "Roots", by Alex Haley and "Centennial", by James Michener, are good examples. In fantasy, a favorite of mine is the "Thieve's World" series, edited by Robert Asprin.

In "Roots", the story evolves and reaches in climax to the birth of the author. Each story about his ancestors builds upon the central theme of the book - We all have a rich genealogical history and are more than just the sum of our parts. Seeking answers from our past can help us discover who we really are. *That* is a story. The individual episodes do not, themselves, comprise a story, if they're just tacked-on in sequence in a book. In order for "Roots" to be a "story", there must be something that connects all the short stories together and there must be some sort of purpose to all of it that is finally revealed. In the television adaption, the presentation of the book was more flushed out, with the viewers being given a more solid framework from which the "story" could evolve.

"Centennial" is about the evolution of a place. It's the life-history of a town, not a person. Episodic pieces come together together to weave a tapestry (Man, that's a tired phrase, ain't it?) that presents a town as being more than just a collection of buildings - It's also the people and events that, through history, have helped to build it.

In "Thieve's World", many authors come together to tell the story of another place - Sanctuary. A backwater's town on its decline, home to thieves, scoundrels and other undesirables. The town goes from "backwater town that needs cleaning up" to playing a central part in daring-do of several minor gods and hosting an invasion from the sea... Each author creates a character and then, following a general storyline, tells a tale in which their character interacts with that storyline and the stories of other characters. It's unique in that characters by different authors interact, each with their own observations, at times. Also, each story has to follow the general timeline of events and how the character deals with them, if at all. What's the "Story?" It's about Sanctuary, its history, the events that take place during its timeline and how widely diverse characters are effected by them.

In each of these, there's a focal point for all the individual shorts. In Roots, better exampled by the mini-series, it's about an author discovering themselves through their past. In Centennial, it's about the evolution of a town over a long period of time. In Thieve's World, it's about the evolution of a town and how characters are effected by that.

How are all of these similar? That's easy - They all take place over an extended period of time.

Time. Time is what you should probably use to tie such stories together and to create a much larger story. I suppose you could tell a tale with multiple characters, all experiencing the same event at the same time. Some movies have done this. But, more conventionally, one would try to place the focus of the story on one thing that is constant - A person, like Haley, a town like Centennial, or a town and general timeline of events that takes place during the lives of the characters. Could you use something else? Sure, but.. what?

If it's one person all these stories are about, then the passage of time is absolutely necessary - Your character can't be in several places at once, experiencing several contradictory things. At least, not unless it's a fantasy or science-fiction piece. If it's a place, then the evolution of that place is the subject and that takes place over time. If it's different characters, then something has to tie them all together. A shared experience of "active" events is more interesting than just a synopsis of their lives living in the same place.

Find a central theme or a person, place or series of events to tie all the shorts together into a cohesive whole that isn't just a hackneyed stitch job, but has a clear purpose.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 23, 2013)

moderan said:


> Writing. I call it writing. You mean the Simmons book, yes? I also call it eminently readable. Or are we talking Keats, or Greek mythology?
> It's a novel, first part of a tetralogy called the "Hyperion Cantos".





moderan said:


> . . . that a themed collection is inferior to a novel. In fact I prefer them. I think the form is more flexible and that a lot more can be done if one has the toolkit.





Yep.  Sorry for not being clearer.  In the first book of the trilogy, Simmons uses a mechanism where each of the major characters delves into their past.  These are presented in a short story format.  I don't really know the history of how the book was put together and I was curious if this book felt more like a themed collection to you.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 23, 2013)

To take examples that are not from science fiction: "Drown" by Junot Diaz, "The House on Mango Street" by Sandra Cisneros, "Jesus' Son" by Denis Johnson, and "Self-Help" by Lorrie Moore.  All of which are sitting on my bookshelf right now, all of which are novels, all written as a series of inter-connecting short stories.  Very solid writing in all of them.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

There's stuff that's not science fiction? *aghast*
Wait, what?


----------



## Ariel (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes.  "Jesus' Son" was actually adapted into a movie that was well-received by critics. Denis Leary was in it.  I haven't seen it.

"The House on Mango Street" won the American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation in 1985.

Junot Diaz won the Pulitzer for another of his novels.


I think you guys get my point.  Interconnected short stories have been done as novels for the last 25+ years and are gaining critically-acclaimed recognition. Not only are they good to read but are easy for today's busy reader to get through, meaning that these sell.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 24, 2013)

Just a note, since the thread seems to have headed off in an entirely different direction:

I've never considered the term "Indie Publisher" to be associated with "Self Publisher." They've been distinct terms, though I think Self Publishers would rather be called Indie Publishers in order to avoid the stigma surrounding the association with "Vanity Press/Publishers"... "Indie" sounds so much more legitimate, I suppose. (Not hating on self-publishing, just pointing out reasons why self-pubs might covet the Indie title.) IMO, a true Indie Publisher publishes more than just their own work or the work of a select group. But, they are not associated with any of the large mainstream houses. They could also specialize in stories within certain genres.

When it comes down to it, terms should be as clear and self-descriptive as possible. "Self Publisher" is a whole lot clearer with less chance for ambiguity than "Indie Publisher."


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Throne of Bones won the World Fantasy Award, and Morkonan referenced Michener and Alex Haley. I know of others... 
Certainly you're right. I don't disagree, in any case.
Glad to hear that they sell.


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Just a note, since the thread seems to have headed off in an entirely different direction:
> 
> I've never considered the term "Indie Publisher" to be associated with "Self Publisher." They've been distinct terms, though I think Self Publishers would rather be called Indie Publishers in order to avoid the stigma surrounding the association with "Vanity Press/Publishers"... "Indie" sounds so much more legitimate, I suppose. (Not hating on self-publishing, just pointing out reasons why self-pubs might covet the Indie title.) IMO, a true Indie Publisher publishes more than just their own work or the work of a select group. But, they are not associated with any of the large mainstream houses. They could also specialize in stories within certain genres.
> 
> When it comes down to it, terms should be as clear and self-descriptive as possible. "Self Publisher" is a whole lot clearer with less chance for ambiguity than "Indie Publisher."



I'd like to see some documentation that refers to either in those terms and by those definitions.
I mean, seriously. I don't pretend to be an expert...I don't hang around publishers, I rarely read their journals. I'm interested in selling books, mostly my own, and I do like precise terminology. If I'm wrong, I'll cheerfully admit it...but I don't really see the point you're making. I don't think there is a clear distinction.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 24, 2013)

moderan said:


> The Throne of Bones won the World Fantasy Award....



Oooh, I haven't read that yet. I remember hearing about it, but it skipped my "To Read" list. Tks for the reminder, looks good!


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Oooh, I haven't read that yet. I remember hearing about it, but it skipped my "To Read" list. Tks for the reminder, looks good!


Is better than good. Seriously. Ask Leyline-I bought him a copy.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 24, 2013)

moderan said:


> Is better than good. Seriously. Ask Leyline-I bought him a copy.



Is there a central theme or storyline that connects the different stories? In other words, it appears to focus on one place and the stories are like a "Day in the Life" of different characters experiencing that place. If that is true, is there any sort of central story-like connections that would be worthy of detailing for the purposes of answering the OP? ie: Take it apart - How does it "work?"


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes. The stories are in a certain locale, connected by a series of events and by the nature of the inhabitants. It's stemming from the same source as Thieve's World-the work of Clark Ashton Smith.
Each individual story advances the central theme-which is more or less satirical. The characters serve as models allowing the author to make fun of certain classes of people.
It's a collection-not marketed as a novel. But it works as a novel because of those deep connections and because of the advancement-of-theme idea.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 24, 2013)

.


----------



## Sam (Mar 26, 2013)

This has gotten off-topic in the extreme. Enough of this conversation about self- and independent publishing. Move on.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 26, 2013)

My apologies. You are absolutely correct.

In an effort to return to the OP:

I'm reminded of "Gulliver's Travels", by Johnathan Swift. A wonderful bit of political satire and social commentary, it's filled with a sort of serialized account of Gulliver's escapades amongst various fictional societies. Each seem to involve either attempting to escape or otherwise leave the island in order to return home to England.

What about the myth of Jason and the Argonauts? As Jason searches for the Golden Fleece, he and his crew have lots of adventures. Each is almost a separate story, in itself, with certain exceptions.

Is this sort of storytelling more of a period-piece of construction, where a central hero journeys through many different settings, often with fully developed stories within them? Or, is it an application of a character-driven storyline, but one that purposefully thrusts event-driven plots at the character? For instance, the entirety may often read like a character-driven story. The character is the focus and their central goal is what they are pursuing. But, in these stories, they're often subjected to events outside of their control that they must overcome, master or at least react to in order to proceed towards their goal.

Just some thoughts from a Yahoo.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 26, 2013)

To some extent, I agree with Shadowwalker.

A collection of short stories doesn't automatically make something a "novel."

It _can_ be a novel, though, if the stories are used to create a singular, cohesive narrative (in one way or another). Or perhaps even a disjointed, seemingly "random" narrative would work, if that was the author's intention.

Interesting to note that Jennifer Egan herself didn't consider her book _A Visit from the Goon Squad_ a novel, and was surprised when it was published with such a heading.

I didn't think Junot Diaz's _Drown_ worked as a novel, but I enjoyed it as a collection of short stories with the same characters and storyworlds.

In the end I guess it comes down to personal preference. Anything _could_ be a novel if we really wanted to stretch the limits of definition here, but generally I consider a novel to be something that has its own definable structure, one that supercedes a collection of shorts.

Maybe one way I could define it is, if the short stories could be rearranged in any manner and the book would still work well, it's probably a collection, not a novel. But if it loses its impact after rearranging the order of things, it might very well indeed be a novel.

Maybe. It's a tricky subject to define.


----------



## Sam (Mar 26, 2013)

From the Oxford dictionary: 

Novel (n) ~ "a fictitious prose narrative of book length". 

Book (n) ~ "a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers". 

I see nothing to delineate what book length is or whether a collection of short stories qualifies. The better question would be: who cares? Write the damn thing and let someone else decide the nomenclature.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm so confused by all this, I've had to stop writing altogether.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 26, 2013)

There were two initial debates that fueled much of what was posted later.
1. A themed collection of short stories is inferior to a novel. 
(Although with equivocation, someone that is skilled at writing short stories could pull it off.)
2. Stringing together short stories into a novel is an ineffective way to write a novel.

Say we throw out the term "novel", and use the term "linear story" or which ever term you like that basically embodies what ShadowWalker was trying to describe. There is a distinction between a "linear story" and a "themed collection".

Honestly I've never written more than a few chapters, so I'm not talking from experience. But I wondered if the connections that one tries to make, in a "linear story", from chapter to chapter aren't as clean as we'd like to think - much as a scene in a movie, that cuts from the sound of high pitched scream, to a new scene with a train whistle blowing. One may set out to create smooth transitions, but it's not always possible?

Just as painting a scene with words can be like building a movie facade, I wonder if there is a fair amount of "trickery" to give the illusion of connectedness between the chapters.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 26, 2013)

I like ice cream.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 26, 2013)

NathanBrazil said:


> T...Say we throw out the term "novel", and use the term "linear story" or which ever term you like that basically embodies what ShadowWalker was trying to describe. There is a distinction between a "linear story" and a "themed collection".
> 
> Honestly I've never written more than a few chapters, so I'm not talking from experience. But I wondered if the connections that one tries to make, in a "linear story", from chapter to chapter aren't as clean as we'd like to think - much as a scene in a movie, that cuts from the sound of high pitched scream, to a new scene with a train whistle blowing. One may set out to create smooth transitions, but it's not always possible?
> 
> Just as painting a scene with words can be much like building a movie facade, I wonder if there is a fair amount of "trickery" to give the illusion of connectedness between the chapters.



You're talking about the linear progression of time and that's not necessary for a "story." (Edit - However, it's necessary for a "plot" to be worked out, but it's not necessary for the telling of the tale.) For instance, a story that starts off with a man chained to a dungeon wall, then flashes back to the reasons why he is there, with interludes with a jailer would not be a completely linear story, even though it makes perfect sense and that mechanic is used in a great many stories.

What about flashback stories and severe episodic ones? "Forrest Gump" worked, didn't it?

The trick is connecting all the various stories together, that's where the magic happens. There has to be some sort of theme or underlying message the reader can take away from such a collection. Each episode has to add to the whole in some sort of sensible way. If it's just episodic, featuring the same character(s), it's not a novel/story in its entirety. But, if they're connected in a meaningful way, it is.

If I wrote a novel that followed the "man in dungeon" example and I constructed each scene to detail important parts in the life of that character, building upon traits I wanted to stress or life-choices that led to his final imprisonment, I could tie them all nicely together simply by showing the results of his life having been lived. Instead of a "man chained to a wall" he becomes a dynamic "living" person who has had their own share of triumphs and defeats and who, despite the opening scene, may or may not deserve such punishment. I could leave the reader to decide the righteousness of his fate or I could call into question our own moral principles and the unjustness of a "Justice for All" society... or something. 

The point is - I don't think it is as difficult to do as some people may think it is. You just have to do it... differently.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 26, 2013)

You're right of course. Any story with flash backs or something like Memento, which is written back to front, would not connect in a linear progression of time. You would still be able to re-organize them so they could line up sequentially, but that's beside the point.

But I'm mainly focused (or thinking about) the connections between the chapters. What kinds of mechanisms are used to "shoe-horn" (I think that's the term that Mod used) two chapters together? You've discussed generally how that's done, and I've read enough to know it when I see it. 

Specific examples would be helpful but this may yet again be considered OT.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 26, 2013)

NathanBrazil said:


> But I'm mainly focused (or thinking about) the connections between the chapters. What kinds of mechanisms are used to "shoe-horn" (I think that's the term that Mod used) two chapters together? You've discussed generally how that's done, and I've read enough to know it when I see it.



Just a quick answer: When you need a character to go somewhere, make them go somewhere. If you don't need to write about it, don't. 

If you're switching characters, you don't need any sort of linear connector. You can even switch to characters who are in entirely different timeline without any problems. It's only when the scene change does not make any sense from the point of view of the reader that you need to really worry about some sort of transition. That can also, sometimes, be handled by a one-liner. ie: (After a police interrogation.) Chapter 2 _"I sat down in my kitchen and waited for the coffee to finish. The interrogation was brutal, but they figured out they had nothing on me, so they let me go."_ No, lengthy and boring details about his cab ride home after the interrogation, yet the reader isn't bothered by that. It's an intuitive scene change - After a police interview, a character would naturally go home.. or to a bar.. or somewhere, anywhere, besides the janitor's closet in the police station, in which nothing has ever happened that is meaningful for this plot.  It's not important, in this instance, for the transition to be written in detail. For "unintuitive" scene changes, you had better tidy up a transition, somewhere, so you don't tick off the reader.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 26, 2013)

That's very helpful. I like the kinds of transitions like I referred to (scream and whistle) - tying a sound together. Or a word, tied to a slightly different meaning of the word in the next scene. Sort of a handhold for the viewer. There's something comforting about that kind of transition. 

It looks like the rule of thumb though is the reader's comfort level. It may be necessary to read with fresh eyes (or somebody else's eyes). What may feel comfortable to me, may not work for someone else (Possibly because I've got so much of the story in my head).


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 26, 2013)

Good example of transitioning, Mork. :encouragement:

At first I thought Nathan was talking about what distinguishes chapters from just independent pieces by themselves. For that I have one possible answer: in each successive chapter of a novel, _the stakes are raised_.

Of course this is not a rule, but a guide, as many stories don't even have discernable stakes, especially more fluid, literary ones. But the ones that do, and the ones that tend to be gripping, are the ones where things seem to get more and more involved, intense, and/or stressful for the main character as the story moves forward.

Some television writers-turned-novelists are easy to spot, as they end each chapter with a cliffhanger of a hook, much the way it's done in modern television, right before the commercial break. It's common practice to end on some shocking reveal, or a new twist, to raise the intensity and the stakes in order to keep the viewer hooked so she will stick around through the commercials to see what happens next. The end of the chapter is a perfect place to do this same thing--and often that's what distinguishes a chapter from a short story. The short story functions as a single unit, while a chapter functions better as an _enticingly incomplete _part of a larger whole. 

A really good chapter ending can make your reader abandon all real-life priorities just to turn the page to see what happens next! House on fire? I'll get to it later! This book is too damn good!


----------



## Topper88 (Mar 26, 2013)

Wow, reading through this thread has been quite a ride. Thanks for all the suggestions on reading material,I think I may start with Thieves' World.

After reading through these posts I think I've decided that a bunch of short stories that coalesce into one larger scheme isn't the best way to go about my novel. Thanks for all the input!


----------



## moderan (Mar 27, 2013)

[ot]





Morkonan said:


> That's a little bit harsh, isn't it?
> 
> I would think that this isn't an argument to be won, but a discussion amongst peers. Or, if not peers, at least amongst those who have a similar interest and feel strongly enough about that interest to pursue interactions with others of similar mind. We disagree on the definition of a word, that's all. I can not win. It is impossible for me to win - There's no contest, here. I can reply with what I believe is the correct definition and state my reasons for believing so. Likewise, so can you. If one of us has a more convincing argument in support of an opinion, it is not that one of us decides to "win", but that the other must decide to reason for themselves whether or not they should change their own opinion in the face of a stronger argument.
> 
> I've been wrong plenty of times in my life. But, whenever I am faced with information that demonstrates I hold and invalid opinion, I change my opinion. As I continue this habit, I find that I end up being less wrong, more often. It's a rewarding experience. If you present information that substantiates your position as being the more valid one, I will change my opinion. "Win" has nothing to do with it.


I wasn't trying to be harsh. And it isn't about "win". I'll freely admit when I am incorrect-have done so in the past and will do so again. It happens. I was just trying to put an end to that side of things before a mod had to step in.[/ot]
The whole thing is subjective. I do agree that without some tightening of the screws, some ratcheting up of an internal tension, that a bunch of short stories won't work as a novel, just jumbled together higgledy-piggledy. There needs to be a common narrative thrust.


----------

