and that is fine, and actually to be preferred advice, IMO. But this is not the way the question and answer to date has been framed.
this is not my assumption, I was discussing the issue which had been raised and commented on, as in - write and publish shorts first and then move on to novels.
It is that last idea that I disagree with, and my comment was directed as a caution against that idea.

I do agree with your comment, re: do both in parallel
and would perfectly fine if this was part of the advice given to young writers.

quote:

many of us ‘broke into’ the field by first writing and publishing a body of short fiction, then eventually moving on to novel-length work.

implying the concept of working on shorts first, breaking into shorts, and then eventually moving on to novels.
This was stated in the original argument, this I have disagreed with.
Working on both at the same time was commented after the orginal statement.

Other points:

1) Without the agent I got in part because I had a demonstrated track record in shorts I wouldn’t have the novel sales that I do.

2) I didn’t say breaking into shorts was “easy” I said it was “easier.” It’s a comparative not an absolute, and one which I still believe. And yes, “Breaking into shorts is easy” would be terrible advice to give a new writer, which is why I didn’t give it.

3) This bit “Novels: you get a 3 book contract. The publisher expects to lose money on you, but hopes not. The publisher is looking towards your future potential for growth. You are measured in what you can bring to the table now, today and possibly the future. You are not signed on the basis of being measured against the new Neil Gaiman novel.” might have been true twenty years ago. It’s not the case any more. If you get a three book deal and all three lose money, that’s it for your career under that name. Though they might give you a new contract under a new name, so that you can start from scratch with a clean sales record, that’s not terribly likely either.

4) Writers of the Future. I am aware of the rules and how it works, I guarantee you, since my second short story sale was a Writers of the Future winner.

5) This bit Further, when you do finally turn to the novel, after beign lucky enough to have spent the last 3 years writing 50 shorts and publishing a dozen, that novel may still not sell. assumes that one can only do one or the other. Most of the pros I know who write shorts do both in parallel and did so before they broke in.

Other points:

1) Without the agent I got in part because I had a demonstrated track record in shorts I wouldn’t have the novel sales that I do.

2) I didn’t say breaking into shorts was “easy” I said it was “easier.” It’s a comparative not an absolute. And yes, “Breaking into shorts is easy” would be terrible advice to give a new writer, which is why I didn’t give it.

3) This bit “Novels: you get a 3 book contract. The publisher expects to lose money on you, but hopes not. The publisher is looking towards your future potential for growth. You are measured in what you can bring to the table now, today and possibly the future. You are not signed on the basis of being measured against the new Neil Gaiman novel.” might have been true twenty years ago. It’s not the case any more. If you get a three book deal and all three lose money, that’s it for your career under that name. Though they might give you a new contract under a new name, so that you can start from scratch with a clean sales record, that’s not terribly likely either.

4) Writers of the Future. I am aware of the rules and how it works, I guarantee you, since my second short story sale was a Writer of the Future winner.

I’ve had twenty novels and about twice that many pieces of short fiction professionally published over the last (god, I hate to say this, as it makes me feel *old*) three decades. I have to say that my perception of the publishing world isn’t the same as yours. I’m not going to go through your post point-by-point, but here’s the summation:

As I see it, there’s little difference between the short fiction and novel markets. Both of them require new blood; both of them actively seek new blood. Both of them have a certain numbers of slots to fill each and every month, and they *will* fill them — and they will fill the great majority of them with previously published writers. Both of them only care how good you are, right now, with the piece you’re submitting.

You say “Gaiman has the years of experience that makes him the better writer. That is the reality of publishing in short fiction.” That is the reality of *publishing*. Period. For both short and long forms.

You also say “You have a chance, but the odds are stacked against you.” I’ll repeat this mantra: there *are* no odds. None at all. If publishing were a lottery, they would put all the submissions into a big bin, spin it, draw out a random unread story and say “This is the one we’re publishing this month!” That’s not how it’s done. Write a great story, and you have an excellent chance of getting published; write a terrible one (or fail to follow the guidelines, or let it be riddled with grammatical mistakes) and you have no chance whatsoever.

That’s true (again) of both short and long fiction.

I would tell a newbie who hates short fiction but loves novels that they should write novels, then. I would tell a newbie who simply wants to learn how to *write* and who enjoys both short and long fiction that it would probably behoove them to write short fiction first — simply because they’ll have the chance to finish and market 10 - 20 separate pieces a year rather than one… and thus have a better chance of getting published, as well as having an opportunity to experiment with different voices, different styles, with all the variations of how to best tell a story.

I also guarantee you that having five or six professional short story sales under your belt will help you when it comes time to find an agent or publisher for your novel — because it tells them that you already have a certain level of competence. I *know* because my first agent told me that the reason she agreed to look at my manuscript was because of the short fiction sales I had.

Breaking into fiction isn’t easy — for either short or long form. However, I still think it might be (slightly) easier for short fiction: because of the number of manuscripts you can produce, and thus the number of pieces you can have out circulating; because you can gain ‘experience’ writing in many more different styles and voices, and thus may discover the style and voice that best suits you.

>There are a number of them that are aimed completely at new authors (Writers of the Future), or that hold slots for new authors (Baen’s online magazine).

that’s not entirely correct, sorry.
JBU - initially, I was in favor of the Introducing slot since my understanding was that it is meant for any writer who does not yet have a pro level sale. On the forum, this question was asked and answered by the JBU staff: the intro slot is for any writer who has not previously been published by the JBU.
A lot of people competing for that slot have had previous sales; on the Baen forum where these stories go up, you do tend to spot the difference between someone who has some writing experience one those who have none.
Yes, they have published debut authors, but writers with previous sales records are still allowed to submit here, provided only they have not pubbed at the JBU.

Writers of the Future:

“The Contest is open only to those who have not had professionally published a novel or short novel, or more than one novelette, or more than three short stories, in any medium. Professional publication is deemed to be payment, and at least 5,000 copies, or 5,000 hits.”

A lot of the writers submitting here have made sales,just not sales that qualify as professional [or disqualify them from WOTF, more to the point].
They are new, but hardly noobs.

Realms of fantasy: speaking under correction, but I think Doug Cohen has been the slush reader for at least 2 years. In that time, he has passed 17 writers who went on to be published in ROF. 3 of them were first ever sales, all the others had previous sales records.

Strange Horizons: has published 1 definite debut sale in the lat year, possibly 2.

Helix: is worth mentioning, since they cater exclusively to writers who already qualify for the SFWA. In other words, they are a market but not one a new writer will break into.

I’m all for advising someone to writer shorts to improve their writing, and if they do have an enjoyment from it, but sorry, no, the idea that “shorts are easy” from a publication point of view is wrong and you can end up doing damage to a new writer.

you mentioned the professional aspect; the writer who debuts with a professional short story sale is very rare indeed. By far the majority of pro debutants will have previous sales records at other markets.
That takes time, it takes work, it takes a hell of a lot more stories sent to the waste basket than stories that ever make it to a submission round, nevermind stories that get published.

Also, you cannot equate one short story sale with one published novel.
Different mediums and they run to very different beats.
One short story sale, even one pro short story sale, does not break you into the market. Not from a professional point of view.

>and with a faster path to reward.

depends on how reward is defined. To see your name in print? maybe. To get a paycheck, even a peanuts one? possibly. To make a career, with a focus on novels one day? no. start writing novels now.
Yes, you can writer 10 shorts in the same amount of time to write 1 novel. There is no guarantee you will sell any of them. In which case, you might as well have written the novel that never sold.
Further, focusing on getting short sales and leaving the novel for one day when you have had a fair amount of sales - takes time. Takes years. Years in which a novelist could have been writing a novel. And when is that moment going to arrive? you may never get the consistent short sales record, and the novel is still not written.
Further, when you do finally turn to the novel, after beign lucky enough to have spent the last 3 years writing 50 shorts and publishing a dozen, that novel may still not sell. Nor the next, or the one after that or the one after.
If the goal is novels only, then you have wasted 3 years pursuing shorts which a writer could have spent getting the non-selling novels out of the way and progressing closer to the one that will sell.

briefly, let me touch on resources allocated for new writers:

of agents and publishers this is my understanding - primary focus goes to existing clientele. But, the agent and house that wants to thrive, has to look for new blood. @Depending on available budget, resources will be allocated accordingly and new writers signed. Maybe not as many as the agent/ house would like, but the best of those available and new blood nonetheless.
In short, resources must be budgeted towards finding those new writers and taking chances on them.

Short fiction: no such thing. Magazine has [example] 20 slots for the year. Those slots will be filled by somebody. If by a debut author, great. If not, tough. 20 slots will be filled, that’s where the resources go and every writer competes for those slots, the total fresh noob head to head with Michael Swanwick and Robert Reed.

Novels: you get a 3 book contract. The publisher expects to lose money on you, but hopes not. The publisher is looking towards your future potential for growth. You are measured in what you can bring to the table now, today and possibly the future.
You are not signed on the basis of being measured against the new Neil Gaiman novel.

Shorts: How good are you right now, right this instant? Noob has sent me a short story, but so has Neil Gaiman. Which one is the better story?
99% of the time the nod will go the Gaiman, if for no better reason that Gaiman has the years of experience that makes him the better writer.
That is the reality of publishing in short fiction.
“You have a chance, ” but the odds are stacked against you.

“Breaking into shorts is easy” - begging your pardon, but that is very bad advice to give a new writer.

Compared to the most recent novel numbers I’ve heard that’s on the order of double the number of new novelists breaking per year (I could be wrong, I don’t have the numbers handy and they may have changed). When you combine that with production time factors–1-6 weeks for a short story and 4 months to 3 years for a novel–the odds shift even more dramatically toward the likelihood of being able to break into the professional world faster via shorts.

Does that mean everyone should start by writing shorts? Absolutely not. There are people who can’t write them, or who hate writing them. There are also advantages to showing up as a completely fresh face with a debut novel. Still, I think that for many writers shorts offer a better way to learn the craft, art, and business of F&SF at lower cost in terms of time and energy and with a faster path to reward.

Remember, too, that every Big Name Author was once the Unknown Newbie. They all managed to break in…

I agree with you that if you want to write novels, you should write novels, though. The short and long forms of fiction are largely different beasts, I would contend, and if you don’t *like* writing short fiction, then you probably shouldn’t be writing it.

heh, that i will agree on:) beyond “you have a chance” looking at data and odds makes for morose reading and are not as indicative as they look.

back later, need to go now.

I tell my students in my Creative Writing classes that there *aren’t* any ‘odds’ in publishing, that asking “What are my chances of getting my story published?” is a meaningless question. If a story is badly crafted, or if it’s presented poorly (not in proper manuscript form, riddled with errors, etc.), then your chances of getting that story professionally published is 0%. Period. It won’t matter how many times you send the story out or how persistent you are. That story has no chance whatsoever.

On the other hand, if the story is properly presented, if the characters are three-dimensional and compelling, if the worldbuilding is solid, if the plot is interesting, if everything meshes into one seamless whole with depth and passion, well, then I’d say your chances of getting the story published approach 100%. It may not be to the first or even the tenth market to which you submit it, but a stellar story will eventually sell.

The problem is that the vast majority of stories are somewhere in-between stellar and fatally flawed.

No sane editor is going to reject a story that grabs them by the throat and refuses to let go. They all want their magazine or anthology to sell — that’s what they’re there for. That’s why, yes, they will publish stories by Big Name Authors when they can, because Big Names have selling power. But they’d all LOVE to be the editor who first published the *new* Big Name Author before they became a big name. Therefore, markets are *always* open to new authors.

You mention Mike Resnick specifically as someone who places “a lot of premium on Name and pulling power.” I know Mike very well, and I can tell you that while, yes, if a Big Name offers him a decent story, he’ll grab it (he’d be a fool not to do so, and Mike’s not a fool), he is also *extremely* open to new writers. In the anthologies he publishes, he generally leaves a slot or two open for new writers. He will go out of his way to invite an unknown or little-known author to submit a story. Mike is responsible for literally dozens of new writers getting their start.

And in another sense, the number of markets and ’slots’ open doesn’t matter. One reason I’d still contend that “it’s easier to break in via short fiction” is the issue of time and effort. A new writer can conceivably produce, let’s say, a dozen or even two dozen short stories in a year. Yes, most of them will be of the ‘fatally flawed’ variety and will end up entombed in your file cabinet one day. But maybe one or three of them will be “OK” and might — with persistence and dedication — end up selling one day, maybe after some comments from editors and a few more revisions.

But if you focus only on novels… well, you might produce one a year, or *maybe* three in two years. For a new writer, the chance that they’re fatally flawed is high… and with only one or two novels to shop around, well, getting published is of necessity a much longer process unless you get lucky right out of the gate.

For that reason, regardless of the stats for the number of ’slots’ out there, I’d say it’s *still* easier to break in via the short route: because you can produce more stories that way; because you can experiment more quickly with voice and characterization and setting and plot; because short fiction is generally less ‘complicated’ a process than novels; because you have the chance to hone your craft on many more ‘finished pieces’ in a far lesser amount of time.