There was a time that I could write a concise, fully realized story in five chapters/33,000 words.

Now, I have one story passing 100k words and another pushing 50k and neither of them are anywhere close to being done.

I don't know if more words=more story or not. I know it's not the quantity of the story that determines its quality but I wonder if there isn't something to be said for brevity. I wonder how many words are really needed to tell a story and how much isn't just authorial fluff.

My question for you is this; is it better to be concise or lengthy in your stories? Do you prefer them to be short and sweet or do you like it when the author spends ten chapters world-building and writing character interactions?

2118820 It depends on content. If it's mostly filler than it's better to be short. If it's full of plot being driven forward the longer the better!

2118820 It depends entirely on the story, the writer, and whether you're actually enhancing the story with your verbosity, or just being verbose for the sake of being verbose.

Sometimes short and simple is better. Sometimes you want longer narrative descriptions and more mood-setting. Also, some writers can't really pull off verbosity, and others can write fifty pages to describe a three-page scene without losing their audience. It depends entirely on the story and the writer, and there is no clear-cut answer one way or another to this question.

But one thing I can tell you is that you don't want to fall into a dry prose trap. Dry prose is a storykiller. If you MUST have lengthy prose, it needs to keep the attention of the reader.

If you've ever read Dune by Frank Herbert, you know what dry prose is. Dune has hundreds of pages of it.

2118820

Concise, in that the most is delivered in the fewest words possible. Personally, I want it done ASAP (which I have trouble practicing in my own writing, so I get where you're coming from). It can be 100,000K, as long as I feel like I'm not walking through a swamp half the time. But there are times when I want to know a character or a place better; you just gotta make it interesting, and in the end, relevant. The world ends with you, as they say.

2118841

Concise, in that the most is delivered in the fewest words possible.

This might make your story end up looking like a history lesson, though.

2118820
Without the ability to spew a whole lot of text, I think I would shrivel up and die.

That being said, too much detail is every bit as much a vice as too little. I'll never be an author with a strength in brevity, but I do try my best to cut down on my first instinct to blather on and on and on about things.

Collabing with JaketheGinger has actually been a real help in that. He's a far more face-paced author, who doesn't go overboard when telling a story. Having him around has made me doubly conscious of things. It's totally the sort of experience I would recommend for any author that has trouble one way or the other. Pair up, and have a little fun, writing a story with someone who you really respect as an author, but who has an opposite style.

2118820 As one particularly talented author once told me, every sentence should do one of three things: advance the plot, develop the characters, or set the scene. If it does not do one of these three things then it is unnecessary fluff and should be trimmed.

But as long as it's not fluff, longer is usually better. At least in my opinion.

2119353

every sentence should do one of three things: advance the plot, develop the characters, or set the scene.

That's a pretty bad-flanked bit of advice. One I think I'll have to keep at the forefront of my mind.

Good to see you around these parts, Aburi!

2118829

It depends entirely on the story, the writer, and whether you're actually enhancing the story with your verbosity, or just being verbose for the sake of being verbose.

In other words, its the difference between J.R.R. Tolkien and Robert Jordan.

The former knew what he was doing. The latter just liked to show off his prose.

2119862
Have you read Tolken? The guy spent a dozen pages describing a forest, it takes him entire novels to get to the point.

Jordon has NOTHING on him when it comes to "showing off his prose"

2119862 Gotta agree with Aburi here.

Jordan was descriptive and had a liberal use of prose, but he's got nothing on Tolkien. Jordan's stories were bogged down by hundreds of characters. Tolkien didn't have that excuse.

2119957
2120038

I've read and re-read both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Eye of the World bored me within the first half of the book.

I'm not sure why people keep saying Tolkien was just as bad, or sometimes worse, about elongated prose compared to Robert. The facts speak for themselves: Within twenty pages Frodo left the Shire, whereas it took Rand about 100-200 pages to leave his home, and while Tolkien is descriptive he by no means stops to describe every little object (hell, he doesn't even bother telling you what his characters are wearing... unlike Jordan, who literally does spend pages on it).

That Lord of the Rings is only three books while Wheel of Time is up to 14 and is still going despite its author being dead, honestly, is all that needs to be pointed out. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

2120065 different stories, brah. Check your pudding.

Tons more characters, tons more lore, tons more going on. Whether that is a detriment to the story is up to the individual. Jordan had more to describe, comparatively Tolkien did not.

2119862 Other writers can narrate an entire war in the time it takes Tolkien to pontificate on a single tree.

2119005

If taken to the extreme. I don't see why you would, though. That just means 'don't meander'.

2118820
In my opinion, getting to the point as clearly and concisely as possible is important just as far as prose style goes.

Plot development is another case entirely. You want to develop things as thoroughly as possible without dragging the pacing down.

2120186 I've heard this before, but I honestly can't think of a single page where Tolkien "pontificates a single tree." I've seen him describe sweeping vistas of forestland, but that's different, and actually kind of important for giving you a feel for his world.

Besides, those other writers may narrate entire wars, but do they do it particularly well? ;)

2120075 Well... without having read WOT (beyond the first maybe 200 pages of Eye of the World) I guess that's a fair point. I honestly can't see why anyone would need 14 monumental books to tell a story though.

For the sake of comparison: Romance of the Three Kingdoms (by Luo Guanzhong, translated by Moss Roberts) tells the story of a civil war that tore apart China around 200 A.D., involves hundreds of characters, three different factions and dozens of layers of things going on over the course of like 70 years and its actually a little shorter than Lord of the Rings.