I've been writing short stories for a pretty long time, and I tend to be a prolific writer. I know I'm a better writer than I was five years ago or whatever amount of time, but I still churn out bad stories more often than I want. Of course, I never want to write bad stories, but it almost seems like I have to before I can produce something good. And even as I improve as a writer, some of my short stories just aren't that great. I do revise and really work most stories and some can be salvaged at least in part. Other times I'll write something that's better than I thought I could do. I still put the work in it to make it as good as I can. And those ones come out pretty great sometimes. So, if I can write a great short story, why do I still write a bunch of bad ones? This is my profession. I've been good enough times to say that. But it doesn't change the fact that I'm not always very good. It's frustrating and makes me second guess myself a lot. Question for other short story writers -- How many bad stories do you need to write before you can write a good one? Or maybe this is just a problem I have. I can write a good story. I just can't always write a good story. The good stories I do write sometimes feel like the exception. If I wasn't prolific, I don't think I would have gotten very far as a short story writer. Does anyone understand this or feel similarly about their short stories?
I can't help with your specific question because I don't write enough shorts (I want to do more but it is one of those tricky things... when I sit down to write I feel that I should be working on a novel; I must conquer that!), however -- my counter question would be; who is saying that they are bad? You? A significant other? An editor? Your inner critic? It may just be your perception. The likelihood is that, if you have reached a level where you can write at a commercially viable level, most of your stories will have a level of competence. They may not all grab all readers, but I would wager that they work and are well written.
I used to mimic other short story writers until I was able to have my own voice. My plots are better now and at least I was able to write something that captures the imagination.
Can you identify what's working in your story and what isn't? If so, that's when to take the story into the shop and work on it. If you don't have that talent (and most of us don't), take it to another writer or a writer's group, and get feedback from an impartial source or two. And bear in mind that sometimes a story won't work, despite all the effort you put into it. Fortunately, you're not like the architect who has to live in a flawed building for years. You can toss it into the shredder, or put it away for a long while and then take it out and rework it.
I guess it's first my own judgement. I know we're not always our best critics, but sometimes I seem to really nail it and other times I go through many drafts before tossing it. I also do have the judgment of editors who either buy my stories or send rejection letters. And I'm not quick to give up on a story I think is good. I send my work out regularly and will keep sending it out when I believe in something. Those stories may take a year or longer (usually longer) to sell, but the good ones (the ones I feel good about) do sell and get published. I have plenty of stories that I've never sent out or pulled quickly because I realized having them published wasn't going to do me any favors as a writer. I do seem to hit the mark with other stories. I know I can write at the level you mentioned, but I just can't seem to do it regularly or consistently, at least not as consistently as desired. I know you said you don't write a lot of short stories, but do you feel the quality of your stories is consistent? It's funny you mention feeling like you should be working on a novel because when I'm working on a novel I feel like I should be writing more short stories. I've written more than one novel, but never made any real effort to publish them or even get them into the shape they would need to be in to submit. I just love the short form, and that's where I've also had some success. I'm just not in love with any of the short stories I've written recently. I guess I do trust myself to know when I get it right, and I'm starting to miss that feeling.
I guess it's just a feeling I'm going on, but I do sometimes get it right. I don't really have a desire to share my failed attempts with others and who's to say they know better than I do. I'm just saying that if I don't think something is good, it's not going to really matter if I get positive or negative feedback or a combination of them both. And I'm far too prolific to try and get feedback on everything I write. I rather do a story swap on something I think is already good so I can possibly make it better. I waste enough of my own time working on shit stories. I don't need to waste anyone else's time with those. But I seem to have to write several stories, to produce something good. I just hate the inconstancy and I'm not sure how to change it. So far I just deal with it and keep writing more. But I am noticing a pattern here and I don't really like it. I'm just not sure how to change it. Do I really have to write a dozen crappy stories to write a good one? Do you feel like your writing is consistent from short story to short story?
Shit, the greatest baseball players ever make outs 67% percent of the time. Greatest basketball players miss the hole 50% of the time. Greatest golfers ever... well, you get the idea. My question to you would be what makes you so special when failure is the rule more often than success in any measure of excellence?
What is a "bad story"? its the same as "bad art" or "bad music"..... my brother absolutely LOATHS Kenny G. He says he's a bad musician who makes bad music. I don't understand Rothko's paintings one bit and think Duchamp's sculptures are garbage... yet they are in the Moma and the NGA. It doesnt make it "bad art" or "bad music". its just not right for us. Kenny G does nothing for my brother and Rothko and Duchamp do nothing for me. Who is your least favorite author? What is your least favorite work of fiction (long or short) that you absolutely did not like? Are they bad authors/stories? If you had one story that was rejected 99 times and on your 100th attempt was finally accepted... does that mean it was a bad story? Or does that mean it wasnt a right fit for those 99 other places? If you submit 999 times and the 1000th time you submit it gets accepted... is it a bad story? Art is subjective. There is no such thing as "bad art" (or a bad story). the way I see it... there is a time and a place for everything. (im ranting. its cold up here on my soapbox. please accept my hug )
The thing is, you may not be. Steven Kings first novel was a collection of paper thrown in the trash that Tabitha (his wife) picked up and sent to a publisher. STEVEN KING. And I felt the newsletters I have been sending my students on a weekly basis has been lackluster lately, and just as I was feeling I could not make them any worse, my bosses-boss sent me an email saying how great the latest one was. So who knows. The only crappy story is the one not written. With time, anything can be improved, but not a story that does not exist.
I've not written a short story in a few years. I focus on longer fiction now. But generally, the stories I wrote I believed were pretty good. Every one eventually found a market. Some 'better' than others (based on readership and pay). I think I managed this because I usually jotted the idea for a story down, let it ferment in the back of my mind for a while, and added thoughts and details to the file. Then, I evaluated what was there and decided if there was a good story to be told, or not so much (as I initially thought). Seemed to work for me, but every writer is different.
Cause everything can't be great or perfect. Even the biggest successful authors have written craptasticly bad shorts/novels. You can't have good ones without the bad ones. That's life.
Thanks, but sometimes I really do write bad stories, and I write many of them. It seems like my process almost and I don't like it. To some extent I agree with you that art is subjective, but, at the same time, there are general standards at play when you read literary journals or short story collections. And having met those standards on occasion, I feel like I know when a story stands a chance in an already tough market. I don't have a least favorite author. There are books and stories I like better than others, but I tend to think there's something wonderful in stories which I don't want to miss with early judgement. I've actually only remember not liking one short story I read in a literary journal. That was because I thought the writer mishandled the subject matter and it was done in poor taste. I did not renew my subscription because of this story nor to submit there. Maybe art is subjective, but that was a bad story. Rejection is another whole ballgame. I don't think the number of rejections a story gets in a good indicator of how good or bad a story is. Every story I've sold was rejected several times before it found a home. I also have pretty high standard as to where I sen my work so rejection is expected. But I'm talking about the stories that don't even make it that far. I don't think we're incapable of judging our own work. And I don't want to publish just to publish. Writing is my job, and I get paid when I sell my work. I sort of know how much of a chance something has. Now, I have been surprised by just about every acceptance I've had, but I also knew I was sending out my best work. Having once been a slush reader, the majority of the short stories submitted are pretty bad. I searched for the good ones. And there were a few (not all accepted in the end), but those good stories do stand out. I think I've developed more of a taste level than I wanted in a way. I know when my quality work vs. the rest of the crap I write. I do like your optimism, but you haven't seen my bad stories. Trust me, some of the stuff (or most of the stuff) I write just isn't good. And I haven't found a way around writing the bad ones to be able to write the good one. I've got a new one that I'm on the fence about. I'll work this baby, and in the end I think I'll know if it's worth submitting anywhere or if it's just time to start again. We have to at least meet the standards we set for ourselves, don't we?
I hear what you're saying, but I do produce a few duds. That's just how it's been. And improving crap is still crap. I'm not looking for people to tell me I'm not writing crap stories most of the time. I was more so wondering if anyone else goes through something similar with their short stories.
So, you've never trashed something because you just didn't think it was very good or you knew you could do better? I think my published work is pretty good. But I have many novels, short stories, essays and plays (finished) that just aren't where they would need to be. I've tried to get them there, but I just can't send out work I'm embarrassed by. Some of my bad stories are quite embarrassing and there's no need for anyone to read them. Like you said, every writer is different. I just wish my process was a bit different when it comes to writing something I feel good about.
I went through a period where my stories were just plain crap. Call it a funk, or call it crap writing, but I had just got gone a paying stint at smut, and I was tired of writing intimate scenes. So I skipped them, in a setting where it was expected. Needless to say, they were crap. But I chalk it up as being a period of my life when I wrote crap. It defined a period of my life, but not me as a writer.
I don't know about getting it right, but I definitely know when I'm more satisfied with one story than others. Sometimes, I finish a story and think that readers might like the story, but I'm not happy with it, and that while I could revise it, I'm not sure that would make it better (and more likely, make it worse). I tend to abandon stories that I'm not happy with halfway through. I'm nowhere near as prolific as you are though, and I'm just an enthusiastic amateur.
Sometimes I will have a great start to a story, other times great endings, but neither is great... I have sat on a few for awhile, realized if I changed the beginning a bit, and the other ending a bit, I can morph them into one. That has happened. Most of the time a story has good elements, it is just a matter of changing things up to make them work. I am not like Naomasa298 though...nothing against how they write...but ALL my stories are crap in the middle of writing them. But to me that is just life. Just about everything I do, from stories to carpentry projects...sucks in the middle. I power through them though, and then adapt and overcome. We call that editing...
Perhaps. However, if I'm not happy with the direction a story is going, and I don't think it can be salvaged, I shelve it and save the idea for another time when I can think how better to execute it. It's not about whether it can be adapted in edit, at least not for me. It has to reach a certain level for me to want to get to the edit stage. But as I'm not a professional writer, I have the freedom to do that. I can see why it would be different a professional writer. I'd also say, your last sentence sounds really condescending. I'm sure that's not your intent, but that's how it comes across.
NO...that was not my intent at all. Thanks for pointing that out so I could clarify that! At school we say this to the students all the time because they like to let stumbling blocks stop them. So we tell them constantly, adapt and overcome. But that is quite a bit different then writing...
Have you ever written poetry? It helps when dealing with doubt in your writing. I know it worked for me!
I have some stories that never made it past the planning and notetaking, and a couple, the outlining stage. But when I looked at them, I saw the story just wasn't there. Or I didn't have the skill or talent to bring the story to fruition. My time is so limited, that I try to be careful on the projects that I work on. So far the method seems to be working okay for me.
