I have decided to take up this challenge, for the sake of creating volume in the hopes of identifying a few good pieces to really polish up and make extrodinary. The first one posted on my blog, and I will probably post most of them there as well. Maybe not all, but a good majority.
That depends. For a short story, sometimes a little detail I notice (mostly about people I see) or a feeling are enough. All I do is put it into words. For multi-chapter story or a novel, I need a clear idea what I want to say, where I want it to end, and the relationship between the main characters. Everything else grows with my writing. I do a lot of research on specific topics I need, but I don't do any schemes and templates about characters and their relationships or outlines of what will happen. My characters would change most of it anyway. ^^
After reviewing and rewriting piece by piece of my story I came to a huge roadblock that could possibly have three solutions. The first is to quit the story and start a new project (unlikely I want to choose this). Second is to keep my short story short and cut out the details that drag the story. It had occurred to me after creating a inspiration music playlist that I could possibly create a story within a story structured story. The only book I can compare it to is Ray Bradbury's Illustrated Man. For those who have not read it (to sum it up), the book is about eighteen short stories, although having no plot connection to each other, revolve around the idea of human kind and technology. The illustrated man is tattooed with metaphorically "the souls" of each of the individual stories. The idea I had in mind was to take the five short stories that I currently have in production (storyboarding phase) and revolve them around the story about their existence. The narrator acts like the story teller and the connection he has to the stories are the involvement with his company and the corruption of what he has done to the "subjects" and society. This will be a science fiction story and will have a conspiracy themed idea. Some of the problems that I am facing along with this structure is: 1. Is it necessary to use this type of structure or should the short stories stand out as their own without a backstory? 2. Have there been any other books that have used this structure where it worked? 3. I have not seen many authors publish a "collection" of short stories, how do they structure their collection? 4. Is it cliche or out of the ordinary? What are your thoughts?
It is not necessary to have a common character or narrator to connect the stories, but they should have a common "voice" for the connection to be FELT. Notice that the readers feeling the connection is very important. And of course, the stories should stand on their own. Don't know about any books with the structure you have in mind but you should read Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri. The stories are independent of each other, but they are all about lives of Indians and American Indians who are caught between different cultures. I know the book is not science fiction but you can apply the connection she managed us to feel. I think I have answered these.
I don't really see how this is any different than short stories that all have a central theme and maybe even overlapping characters and are set in the same universe as each other (hypothetically). And you could tie it to a central plot that kind of comes out at the end if you really wanted to. I think the benefit of something like this is that if the short stories on their own are solid, then people could read each of the stories on their own and still get something out of it.
A collection is not really publishable for a new, unknown writer. I'd say go ahead and begin it, but on the back burner.
The stories must be able to stand on their own. I think typically, most authors publish short stories independently before making a collection (I may be mistaken). Yes, there are many collections of short stories that do this. One that comes to mind is Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures by Vincent Lam. All of these short stories are about doctors working in a hospital and their experiences. There are a number of others and if you would like any recommendations, send me a PM. Although it is not as common as publishing novels, yes authors do publish short story collections. Again, if you want recommendations PM me. A good example is Alice Munro - it's all she does. No I do not think so. However, you could always write of novel of interlinked stories that could either a) stand on their own two feet or b) work as a novel. This would be difficult to do, but it's doable. Check Paul Glennon's The Dodecahedron: Or a Frame for Frames. It consists of twelve stories that have a unity of themes and structure. But the plot doesn't move forward to a definitive conclusion nor does it have a definitive beginning or middle. You can also read any of the stories in any order. Check out the website: http://www.goodreports.net/reviews/thedodecahedron.htm Cogito's advice is valid, it's not typical for a first-time author to do this, but I don't think it should stop you necessarily from writing it. If we all listened to what other people said about writing being a "waste of time" or "not a career" no one would do it. Just my two cents.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse a little bit here. Finish your stories. If they have a common theme and are strong enough to stand on their own - then you have a collection of short stories. If they have a common theme but are not strong enough to stand on their own - use narration to tie them together and you have a novella. If they end up being total crap and you hate your life because of them - you have something to use as kindling come winter. Just finish writing them. There is no reason to try and pick out wallpaper for a house that isn't built. I say this because of the following. (Since you mentioned Bradbury.) Don't try and dictate where you want your stories to take you, sometimes you need to follow in order to look back and find potential.
Sorry if I had worded my first post wrong. I am looking to structure my story in a way where the narrator tells the reader a series of stories that are different and have some relationship to each other as well as sharing the same idea. Ideally the book is based off of a CEO of a technological cooperation and his reasons for resignation based upon a series of stories unveiling the corruption of what it is causing to society. I do feel that the short stories I am writing can stand as their own as well as work together. Overall they all share the same idea of man vs. machine. However there are pieces to the story that only the narrater can tell and that he knows.
If you find the answer, then tell me. I'm going the opposite way. I'm telling several free-standing stories, and I'm struggling to meld them into one tale. To me, the transition chapters are the problem. I know where they begin, and where they have to end to segue into the next 'story,' but it feels clumsy sometimes.
So, if I'm reading your post correctly, your story attempts to remove the veil of techno-sickness from the reader by using narration of several short stories; in which you are basically doing the same thing to the CEO with every story, thus leading to his resignation - and hopefully opening the eyes of the reader. If I have the idea correct, that sounds perfectly fine. I'm a little lost as to what you're looking for assistance on as the questions you asked previously don't seem to apply with your post above. It seems like you're a little lost on how the narrator ties these stories together? Well, first things first, the narrator doesn't tie stories together, the writer does. You as the writer need to weave in symbolism and the threads of commonality within the pieces, and then your narrator simply reveals them over time. The plot, which short stories don't often have much of, is the narrator revealing the connection between these stories. Sorry if I've missed the mark. Edit: I don't know about books that do this, but there are plenty of movies - 4 Rooms, A Christmas Carol, 10 Commandments (terrible btw) - Winnie the Pooh kind of does this too.
Congratulations, you finally got published! Now what? In almost every article I've read concerning first novels they always recommend writing it as a stand-alone story, but that doesn't mean the story has to end there. But here is my question: Let's say, hypothetically speaking, my first book was a physiological thriller where the main character is left in a coma and in the second book I plan to build a fantasy novel that's completely in the mind of the main character as he battles to free himself from the coma, or something like that. Is it frowned upon to have sequels change genres? Should I just write the second story as a stand-alone novel because of the genre difference and hope my author's name is enough to sell the next book or is using the characters in a different story (but still slightly related to the first novel) the better decision, because I know I have characters in the story that my audience already knows and loves? Just curious what other writers think, perhaps you can come up with an example of a book series that changes from a romance genre to an action adventure genre in the sequel or something drastically different from the original story.
If, say, your first part is a romantic novel bought and enjoyed by lovers of the genre they might be a bit miffed when they buy the second instalment only to find Our Hero picking Orc arrows out of his backside. On the other hand, anything is possible if done with skill and the proper structure and if your MC is the sort people would follow.
I think it'd be really risky since your first book will have established itself with a certain audience. Chances are it will be mostly this audience who gets the sequel hoping for more of the same... only to get something drastically different. I'm sure if it's well-written they could enjoy both, but still sounds like a very dicey move.
I wouldn't try to make it a sequel, not if it swings to a different genre. Use a new character and setting. This is a situation where you might even want to publish under a different name, to avoid getting "type cast" as being obsessed with coma in your writing, regardless of genre. Either that, or publish something else in between.
I think it could work. Mainly because most people think it can't. What you need to do, if you were going to do that, is not reveal what's going on in the beginning. Have the person go by a new name in their head, and go on completely unrelated adventures. Every so often, have something remind them of their wakened life, but not so obvious as to alert your readers right away. Have them half-sort of remember that they were someone else in the past, maybe with a wise fairy creature or something giving odd hints. Then, near the climax of the story, reveal what's going on, and also reveal that something really bad is happening in the wakened world that your MC really needs to address. Then, the climax of the character within your dude's head will somehow force your MC to wake up, and your MC, emboldened by his inner hero (I think it would work better if the coma-character was more noble than the MC -- very ironic), would somehow find a way to solve his awake problem, even though he's still pretty weak from the coma. Make sure you look up stuff that happens to people who wake up out of comas. Y'know, muscular atrophy and all that stuff. I once knew someone who didn't talk for a year, and his voice was pretty weak as a result.
I would have to say avoid genre hopping -- it would be weird of Stephen King suddenly wrote a harlequin romance as a sequel to The Thing (obviously a ludicrous example, but you get the drift...) It sounds like you have a great idea that would make a great new story.
James Patterson writes in multiple genres. To be fair though, I have suspected for some time now that he gets first billing on a lot of collaborations by providing guidance to the collaborator and not much more. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. For a new writer, gender hopping may come across as unfocused, where it would be tolerated more with a seasoned writer.
Hey everyone. Do you think it is ok to name your story after a song? The song is the gathering wilderness. The story has the line the wilderness is gathering which is mentioned in the song. Blatant rip off or just a general saying?
