“I write long.”
I remember hearing this declaration from an author back at the start of my writing career. It seemed like one of those self-fulfilling prophesies, like maybe if she hadn’t said it, she could solve the problem—if it was a problem. In fact, at the time, I had no idea. Now after dozens of short stories and poems, one completed novel manuscript and another underway, I can firmly say, I, too, write long.
This means that when you have a thought, you use more words than others to express it. Another person might say it in half as many. It doesn’t mean their choice is more correct or better writing. All it means is that it is shorter. There are plenty of beloved authors who use words as impasto, layering on color, building up a landscape. Think Maggie O’Farrell or JRR Tolkien. Work by short writers is not by contrast, drab. But it does require the reader to fill in the expanses not illustrated.
Writing short blogs on Substack is a challenge I set for myself. In addition to offering a tidbit to keep you thinking about words, it forces me to communicate succinctly. My haiku practice helps me convey a scene in just 13 syllables. This, too, is a discipline so that, when necessary, brevity can prevail.
As a reader, I generally prefer authors who tell a story with descriptions included. I take nothing away from those more journalistic writers who have kept me gripped in their stories too. But I relish the 19th century classics with their sumptuous details and their filthy descriptions. Twice recently, I have heard Claire Keegan’s writing described as “pared back.” I find her stories rich with detail despite their brevity. I believe she achieves this because she zooms in, like a lens, on the story she is telling. It is not short writing, IMO. Whatever it is, it’s a treat.
Do you write long or short? Do you have a preference when reading? Why?
Awesome! I’ll try to connect to the reading.