I just started reading the Maze Runner, the very 1st chapter is literally 2 pages. Very simple, but I did see the strategy behind it to draw in the reader. Is it a good idea to have the very first chapters be short to not discourage a typical reader? draw them in and not feel so discourage have a chapter may be so long.
Depends on whether chapter length is likely to encourage/discourage a reader, which I would imagine is a low consideration except in extreme cases. Unbroken walls of text drive me batshit after 15-20 pages, but a scene break does just as well as a chapter break for my tastes. Either way, the length of the chapters will be irrelevant if the story/writing aren't very good.
I feel like they should be representative of the general chapter length, I guess? I've never really thought about it. A super brief first chapter sounds a bit like a sneaky stealth prologue
Everything in moderation. Too many short chapters may lack substance, and too many long chapters in succession may deter some readers. As with all elements of writing, there will always be exceptions and rules to break. It's just my guess, but keeping the first chapter/prologue short might be a way to entice the reader to become engaged in the short length of time they're standing in the book store. They've already finished one chapter - why not buy the book and finish it? That is, before the age of online shopping of course!
Well, in the Maze Runner, Thomas wakes up in some elevator box being brought up to the glade, as the boys in the yard introduce themselves. It shouldn't be a prologue because its part of the main plot. It was a good way to easily suck you in the story as if you were James Wood in family guy "Oh, Candy". I didn't feel any stress or tension of trying to get to Chapter 2. Ever since I read it, I started looking at my chapters being so long of multiple of scenes in one chapter. If you make a chapter long, it becomes draining and tiresome. I could take his strategy making chapters short of just 1-2 scenes or 8 pages max.
Terry Pratchett was one of the most popular authors on the planet, and he didn't use chapters at all. He just started at the beginning and kept going till the end, with no chapter breaks at all. Breaks were always just scene breaks. People love his stuff. Organise your writing however you like. Just make sure it doesn't drag or get too choppy.
I hate short chapters with very few exceptions. Give me a 50 page chapter over a 2 page chapter any day.
No, I'm 100 percent serious. I don't think a two-page chapter can do very much and I don't need or want a bunch of breaks in the narrative. Short chapters might seem easier to write, but in reality they do very little for the overall story, in my opinion.
That's a pretty big generalization. Short chapters aren't easier to write, imo. Think of it like flash fiction -- for it to work, it needs to pack a finely-crafted punch. Sure, you can write a crap one easily, but the same is true of longer chapters. On the flipside, I'd offer that long stretches with no break can be rambling, tedious, and feel pointless and fluffy. Of course, that's an example of a long chapter done poorly -- ideally, the reader probably wouldn't even notice the length. I can see not liking a lot of breaks in the narrative, though. But it's a personal preference, not about the objective positives and negatives of shorter chapters, I think.
Yes, that may be you. We're talking about the average reader who reads a book while taking a #2. So having a short chapter for them to read till they finish their #2 can be a selling strategy. I bought a book case just put next to my toilet. End of the day, regardless what you write it needs to sell. If using gimmicks like short chapters then so be it. I wasn't expecting to continue to read Maze Runner but got me hooked, now I want to finish it. The chapters are decent but I do like his style of being consistent of 8-9 pages. An unorthodox style, very interesting. I do like chapters as breaks gives me a good feeling I am progressing. I may want to read some of his books then and study his style.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You can have opinion I disagree with -- I don't care about that. It's the "short chapters don't do much" and the assumption that they're easy to write that I was addressing, because I think those are objectively false. If you don't want to consider your existing assumptions, that's fine. Noted. I'm guessing that if someone said short stories were across-the-board easier to write than novels and can't offer much, you wouldn't be a fan of that.
Sorry, @izzybot. I seemed to have stepped on your toes or crossed a line I didn't mean to. I had no intention of upsetting you or anyone else here. I was just offering the other point of view. As a reader, I feel like short chapters yank me out of the story or fail to really get into things. Of course, I don't mean every book, but I like to get lost in whatever I'm reading. It's a preference. I thought I clearly stated that, but my bad if it wasn't clear. And short chapters are arguably easier to write. That's also based on my experience. I'm not offended if people say short stories are easier to write. Of course, they are. What gets published is another story. But, yes, I do actually think short stories are easier to write. Novel writing is so hard. It's a completely different process, and I think it's harder. A lot of that is just length alone. It's sort of the way I see the chapter thing too. Again, I was just offering the flip side.
I think short or long chapters are pretty far down the list of important things to consider when writing a story. Like, for me, I’ve liked books with long chapters, short chapters, no chapters. I’ve also disliked books in all of those categories. Of all the books I liked or put down, though, the length of chapters was not up for conscious consideration. Maybe it played a role in my subconscious? I don’t know. If the writing is engaging, I seem to have a pretty high tolerance for the little things that, in a vacuum, might turn me off.
I wouldn't say you've stepped on my toes, no, @deadrats. Your first post was clearly a personal opinion that I was just curious about, but saying that short chapters don't offer much and are easier to write aren't, imo, so much the flipside as, "I don't like this thing when it's done sloppily," with the assumption that it only exists in a sloppy form. That's all I'm trying to point out. It's a thought process I see a lot in writers (see also: the prologue debate*) and I think it's an unfortunate one. You don't have to like the thing, but that doesn't mean the thing is useless. * If any of y'all take this as invitation to start the prologue debate, I swear to Baphomet ...
I get ya. I just don't think I've read all that many short chapters that needed to be so short. It's totally a preference, and I speak more as a reader than a writer when I say this. But I think the idea of writing two pages is a lot easier than writing fifty pages. I'm not assuming that either one is sloppy. I'm assuming they're both great. But writing and editing and polishing fifty pages at a time probably seems more daunting. And there is just so much more story to get into with long stretches. I know my opinion doesn't seem to be the norm around here, but it is an option and an approach worth considering. The OP was talking about really short chapters and I say take it completely the other way.
Well, sure, but I don't think we're talking about a writer looking at the material that would work for a fifty-page chapter and then compressing and summarizing it into two pages. I assume that we're instead talking about where a writer decides to place a chapter break. That doesn't mean that he doesn't go on and write the other forty-eight pages.
It's interesting that you seem to think a short-chapter/short book is easier to sell to the 'average' reader. (Tell that to George R R Martin.) It certainly won't sell to me, unless the writing is engaging and the subject matter is something interesting. If it is, I don't care how long the chapters are, or even if there are chapters. And I buy a LOT of books. Seriously. You should see my yearly book bill. And my seven 5-shelf overstuffed bookcases (after the frequent cull.) And my Kindle list. I'm a writer's Dream-Come-True when it comes to book sales. And I also buy them as presents for friends. Yes, people are busy these days. But people have always been busy. People who want to read have always made time to do so. You don't need to sit down and read a whole book in one gulp. Bookmarks are made for the purpose of marking where you left off. You can read War and Peace on your lunch breaks, if you want to. What I fear is happening at the moment is not a lack of reading time, but a lack of attention span. And that's another issue entirely.
As a reader, I could tell you that it does not make a big difference, as long as I keep hooked to the story. Anyway, I personally don't like chapters to be too long.
Well, I was thinking of selling strategies as small chapters to make it easier for the reader. Comparing the reading material of Game of Thrones and Maze Runner, there is major differences. I'm enjoying the Maze runner because it's fairly simple to read, 8th-10th-grade level, nothing complex. Does a good job keeping you hooked, guessing. I haven't even seen the movie either. The book has 60 chapters because he literally has a chapter for every other scene. As Game of Thrones, slightly more complex because there are so many moving parts regarding the plot and other characters. Maybe this should be a big question who we as Authors trying to market our book to? The average reader who only reads while taking a #2 or high-speed reader who breezes through books with no problem. You did mention the attention span and having small chapters helps with that. Of course, said best in Kick-Ass writer. You are the drug dealer, and you're selling your drug(story) to the reader, getting them hooked.
