Taming long short stories
I've been in newspapers for 30 years and have heard complaints from editors throughout that time that stories are just too @#$%^&*! long. Heck, I've been the one complaining for many of those years. We vastly overestimate the willingness and patience of readers to stay with a story of any length unless it is particularly compelling.
Just last week, during our monthly staff meeting, I told the assembled journalists that we are embarking on a concerted effort to ensure that "short stories are short and long stories are long." We publish too short stories that are long.
Most everyone knows it except the writer.
But I didn't do this, which sets specific length guidelines by story type at The Washington Post, a paper that has much more space than ours. They aren't out of line with our unofficial story lengths. (Other discussion at Romenesko.)
Many quotable writers have mentioned that it is harder and more time-consuming to write short. No question about that. But space is at a premium, and readers don't have time or desire to wander through extraneous information to get what's necessary.
Writers and editors get too close to stories sometimes. In a way, that's good because you like writers writing about topics they're interested in. Generally, they can write with more authorative and passion. But it can also resemble the adage about asking a watchmaker the time and he tells you how to make a clock. Unless the story is a well-told narrative or profile, most readers just want to know the time.
Every writer knows that even a three-paragraph story can be too long if the content doesn't command attention. Imagine how tough it is to get through, say, 20 inches on some government action that doesn't immediately explain why the reader should care. Yikes! So, we must get better disciplined at evaluating how much a story is worth to the reader.
Full disclosure: I've been known to violate this dictum myself with my own newspaper column.)
The Post's memo is worth reading for the writing advice alone. A couple, edited:
(Yes, I purposely made this long enough to jump.)
* Good chronology makes for good storytelling. Watch out for artificial transitions. They burn up space needlessly.
* To build effective, memorable mental images, pay attention to characters. Can you describe who we are hearing from, what they look and sound like, and where they are coming from?
* Resist the urge to quote someone just because you interviewed them. * We are often saddling readers with too much recapitulation and background. If you must revisit events to make the current material work, be sparing. Write for readers, not your sources.
* Can you animate your characters and recount events in a way that will let the scenes and voices speak for themselves?
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The Washington Post (and you, likely) need to think more like readers when they are writing their longs stories -- and they need to answer questions better... Questions that normal, decent, responsible people ask out loud to co-workers or friends about stories after they read read them..
This very long story (about a tragic incident) is a long story at its worst -- and leaves many questions regular people want to lean over their cubicle walls and ask their friends:
For want of a dentist
Key questions that never get asked or answered in this piece, which quickly becomes a story advocating yet MORE government spending...
1) How many times did the mother ever tell her kids to brush their teeth? Ever?
2) Why is the mother not being held responsbile for bad parenting? This whole thing borders on child neglect. The "system" is at fault for not having free dentists sitting around, but the mother is given a free pass? Where is the Journalism here?
3) Where is the consumer help in this story? How hard would it have been to put a box that tells parents what they should do on a daily basis to HELP their kids? Free toothpaste and toothbrushes ARE available for poor folks -- I know this for a fact. Where can people get them? Really
4) While we are BOMBARDED in this LONG story with numbing facts and figures about "lacking" "government" programs, we have no concept of how MANY kids go to bed each night without their teeth having been brushed. (I'm sure that statistic is SOMEWHERE out there.) And, we're never told what kind of diet these kids have? How many Cokes a day do they drink????
5) Seems as if there is more to this simple sentence.. In this very long story I want to know more about this: "DaShawn saw a dentist a couple of years ago, but the dentist discontinued the treatments, she said, after the boy squirmed too much in the chair." So, the mom couldn't make her child behave at the dentist's office (which, as it turns out, they actually DID go to) and now he is dead? Seems as if the government is not at fault there...
6) The first sentence is a lie! The boy didn't die from a toothache! Does it make the story seem more gripping? Sure. But is it even CLOSE the accurate? Readers see through this...
I could go on and on about this very sad story...
But, at the end of the day, these long stories need to pass the sniff test for how regular people will read them. They don't buy into a lot of this kind of "issue" reporting when so much of the story lacks basic "how did this person live" answers...
Good luck Washington Post...
Posted on February 28, 2007 8:36 PM
John, in the spirit of your post I offer this edited version of your post:
I've been in newspapers for 30 years and have heard complaints from editors throughout that time that stories are just too @#$%^&*! long. I agree. We vastly overestimate the readers so why waste space on a long story?
Just last week, during our monthly campfire meeting, I told my vassals that we are embarking on a concerted effort to write better. We often don't.
Most everyone knows it except the writer.
But I didn't do this, which sets specific length guidelines by story type at The Washington Post, a paper that has much more money than we do. I like it.
Many dead writers have mentioned that it is harder and more time-consuming to write short. No question, but my vassals don't have the time or desire to extricate extraneous information to get what's necessary.
Writers and editors get too close to stories sometimes. That sucks. It's like the adage about asking a watchmaker the time and he tells you how to make a clock. Who cares?
Every writer knows that even a three-paragraph story can be too long if the content sucks. Imagine how tough it is to get through, say, 20 inches of a Bledsoe article. Yikes! So, we must get better disciplined at evaluating how much a story is worth to the rube paying to read us.
Full disclosure: I write looong.)
The Post's memo is good. A sample, edited:
* Start at the beginning, end at the end.
* To build effective, memorable mental images, pay attention to characters. Tell us if they have a stench and count their zits.
* Resist the urge to quote someone just because you interviewed them. Who needs sources?
* Give us blood, lots of blood.
Posted on February 28, 2007 9:26 PM
I've never known a writer who thought the story would be better if there was less of it, except for Blaise Pascal, and he was a mathematician.
Posted on February 28, 2007 10:39 PM
Jon, don't call our readers rubes!
Posted on March 1, 2007 12:06 PM
Sorry John, you're right. Valued rubes, er, readers?
Posted on March 1, 2007 2:04 PM
[[I've never known a writer who thought the story would be better if there was less of it,]]
Well, of course not. We save that evaluation for editors' memos.
Posted on March 1, 2007 9:41 PM