I was going to add this to a thread about magazines, but thought it might work better as a new topic. Off the top of my head, here is basic list of what I see to be the benefits of writing short fiction.

1. Gives you the chance to try out lots of voices, styles, characters, POVs, genres. A major problem I find with a lot of the new novel writers I work with is that they simply lack the flexibility and reach that comes with lots of practice - the kind you get from writing lots of short stories.
2. You develop the ability to visualise a story in terms of those old but mostly necessary favourites, Beginning, Middle and End. (It's remarkable, just how many novels are written by new authors who really don't know how to construct even a basic plot.) And the satisfaction that comes from completing a story (obviously rarer with novels).
3. You're directly involved in all the stages of fiction production - thinking up ideas, writing stories, submitting, getting rejected and accepted - simultaneously. Also, the cycle of writing a story to (hopefully) getting it published, is much shorter, e.g. you can write a story in a couple of days, submit it immediately (many magazines accept electronic submissions) and get a response sometimes within a day or so (Clarkesworld, for example, is very fast) to - well, okay, there are some mags with quite long response times; but the average overall is say 6-8 weeks.
4. Getting feed-back (okay, you still won't get very much, magazine editors being inundated with submissions, but you'll get some). Also, because you're submitting more stuff - e.g. if you've got say 30 stories out there, it means most editors are seeing your stuff on a regular basis - it gets noticed, even if not accepted straight away. The advantage of this is that editors get to trust that you are in for the long haul and eventually will give you a chance.
5. Selling some short stories is great for your CV: it proves to a novel editor that you can write fiction that someone is prepared to pay for. There are quite a few examples, too, of novel editors approaching short story writers whose work they've noticed, to ask if they're writing a novel.
6. You are totally in control of the process. Agents are not necessary (or interested) for short stories. You can write what you like (lots of markets, and even within genres there is a lot of scope for different approaches), send it to who you like and sell it, all by yourself.
7. Overall, producing lots of short stories means you get story-telling into your fiction bones, so it pours out your fingers when you sit down to write. If you only write a novel every few years, this can constrict your imaginative range; whereas working on short stories means your mind and skills are constantly refreshed.

Terry

Oooh don't Terry. I love writing short stories but feel like I've been writing this novel forever! Can't wait for it to be over with so I can zip off some bite-sized again. (After 200,000 words, I crave bite-sized..)

I can only agree with your points. I think I cut my teeth writing short stories and it definately changed my style of writing. I wrote Unrequited before I'd written one short story, but by the time I approached the rewrite of the new one I was much more confident, and like you say, had a much better grip on characters and pace etc.

Everyone write more short stories!!!

JB

Agree with everything you say Terry - soon as I finish this first draft new novel...

Sarah

Do you know what, Terry, I've never tried to write one!!!
It always seems to me like a very hard skill indeed. But the quick turn over really appeals. I'm also very keen to try my hand at a radio play which, although not as short as a um short story, is still a smaller project than a mahhosive novel.#
HB x

I've got two novels sitting on editor's/agent's desks. Time for a break. So this post comes at the perfect time. I'm going to bang out a few words today.

Fancy trying something new... just need a bloody idea!

Had a quick look at Clarkesworld Mag and found the following hilarious. It's from their submission guidelines:

Though no particular setting, theme, or plot is anathema to us, the following are likely hard sells:

* stories in which a milquetoast civilian government is depicted as the sole obstacle to either catching some depraved criminal or to an uncomplicated military victory
* stories in which the words "thou" or "thine" appear
* talking cats
* talking swords
* stories where the climax is dependent on the spilling of intestines
* stories where FTL travel is as easy as is it on television shows or movies
* time travel too
* stories that depend on some vestigial belief in Judeo-Christian mythology in order to be frightening (i.e., Cain and Abel are vampires, the End Times are a' comin', Communion wine turns to Christ's literal blood and it's HIV positive, Satan's gonna getcha, etc.)
* stories about rapist-murderer-cannibals
* stories about young kids playing in some field and discovering ANYTHING. (a body, an alien craft, Excalibur, ANYTHING).
* stories about the stuff we all read in Scientific American three months ago
* stories where the Republicans, or Democrats, or Libertarians, or the Spartacist League, etc. take over the world and either save or ruin it
* your AD&D game
* "funny" stories that depend on, or even include, puns
* sexy vampires, wanton werewolves, or lusty pirates
* zombies or any other overused undead creature of the week
* stories originally intended for someone's upcoming theme anthology or issue
* stories where the protagonist is either widely despised or widely admired simply because he or she is just so smart and/or strange
* stories that take place within an artsy-fartsy bohemia as written by an author who has clearly never experienced one
* your trunk stories

I especially love the one about kids playing in a field finding ANYTHING

Colin M

I've just sent a story to Clarkesworld. It's a funny one, I hope; as opposed to a 'funny' one. Should know the result pretty soon: since Clarkesworld changed its subs system, the longest I've waited for a verdict has been 3 days.

If you haven't seen them already, Strange Horizons' guidelines are very good, too:

http://www.strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction-common.shtml

Although both sets of guidelines are funny, I think it's also another example of how helpful people tend to be in the SF/Fantasy worlds. I mean, you certainly aren't going to waste time submitting the wrong story after reading that lot. Only question is if there's anything left to write about!

Terry

Friendly visitors to Earth/Royal Family/Government turn out to be lizard people!

* stories where the climax is dependent on the spilling of intestines

Oh come off it. Is there any other kind of climax?

JB

<Added>

Hmm. Just realised what I wrote. You really don't have to answer that question.

Waxy, you have to follow your gut feelings . . .

Sobering thought: I just checked Clarkesworld's returns on Duotrope; if my maths is right, they're accepting just one story per 1,500 submissions.

Terry

True, Terry. But I just can't stomach facing up to them sometimes.

That is eye-of-the-needle stuff, but then again, the agency I'm with get around 500 submissions a month and only take on 2 new writers a year!!!

JB

I am new to all this so I didn't even know what Clarkesworld was. What has struck me reading the list of ideas they don't want, is that all these things appear on tv. In fact it pretty much sums up what is dished up to the viewing public on a daily basis. Who is the writer writing for? What sort of person would the reader be? Perhaps if you watch tv you don't read.

Feathers

Feathers,

As you've probably seen by now, Clarkesworld is one of the top-paying SF/Fantasy magazines. It's online and the stories are free to read, which means it's based on a new model of magazine publishing. The older model - print distribution that has to be paid for - still applies to Fantasy and Science Fiction, Asimov's, Analog, Realms of Fantasy (all top payers too (although not as much as Clarkesworld) but they are having a harder time of late.

You've picked up on the great dichotomy between SF in print and SF in TV/film: basically, that there is tons of it in the visual media, making lots of money, whereas the well-spring for pretty much all the ideas they've nicked is suffering from falling readerships and revenue. There's a lot of debate about this in the SF community, but no one really has an answer. Traditionally, print SF has always covered space opera and the like, but it's also been strong on the extension of modern life into dystopian or utopian scenarios that are meant to make the reader think. TV and film has plundered space opera - which is fair enough - but what gets the goat of a lot of the (mostly) old goats who write 'proper' SF is that in its insatiable appetite for new ideas, TV/Film also swipes the deeper thinking stuff but nearly always turns it into just more cliche fodder for the visually restless.

Terry

cliche fodder for the visually restless.

Love it!

Sarah

Terry just a couple of questions.
If no cost to read, how do they make their money? Advertising?
Second, how much do they pay. And what would be the standard payment for short fiction?
HB x