How long to write that short story?

In my post the other day about professional rates for short stories, I mentioned taking 20 hours to complete a 5,000 word short story. Now, by complete I meant the entire process--first draft, rewrites, editing, throwing the damn thing on the floor and screaming because I can't make the ending work. You know, the typical short story writing process.

I rarely write those 20 hours in order. Usually I take time off and work on other stories. My process is to write several short stories at the same time. When I tire of one story, or hit a roadblock, I put it aside and work on another.

But a few writers pointed out in the discussion thread that they consider 20 hours for a 5,000 word story to be paint drying, grass growing slow. Nick Mamatas laughed at my estimate, adding "Hey, I like my latte HOT, so step on it!" John Scalzi said that in "20 hours of butt in chair, I wrote and did the initial edit of 'The God Engines,' which is 30,000 words," and that he'd write a 5,000 word story in five hours. I've heard of other writers working like Scalzi, i.e., writing in a near complete final form. Isaac Asimov was famous for doing this. 

Of course, there were also writers much slower than that. Jeff VanderMeer asked, "Why the fuck would anyone *want* to write a 5k story in five hours? Then you're just churning out product." Rachel Swirsky said, "I'm slower than slow. I'm glacial. The idea of writing a 5,000 word story in 5 hours is amazing to me; the idea of writing a 5,000 word story in 20 hours is sort of amazing to me."

So this set me to thinking: How long does it take most writers to complete a 5,000 word short story?

I kept track of my writing time this weekend, to make sure I wasn't wrong about my story completion rates. After waking up with a great idea for a short story, I wrote 5,500 words in 8 hours. However, this was only the first draft, which predictably had major deficiencies (namely, the language needed to be cleaned up, 2 of the 3 characters were one dimensional, and the ending didn't quite work). After throwing the copy on the ground and screaming, I rewrote the story the next day. Add another 4 hours. At this point, I'm letting the story ferment for a few weeks, but I imagine it will need another 6-8 hours of rewriting and editing before I send it out, so my 20 hour estimate is pretty reasonable for how fast I write. And I should add that several of my stories have taken much longer than that.

So people: How long does it take you to write a typical 5,000 word story?

Comments

[Gareth L Powell]

I estimate it takes me an average of 10 hours to write a 5000 word story. Some stories flow faster than others, and some are like squeezing blood from a stone, but an average of 10 hours seems about right.

[RebeccaJPayne]

My first UK-published short story - all 8,000 words of it - took me 6 months. In retrospect I may have obsessed over every little detail a tad too much! There's certainly no way I can justify that sort of hour-per-word count again in the future.

On the other hand, my only other published work this year, which was 4,000 words, took me 5 hours from start to finish - largely because I picked a publication with a deadline of midnight that night and just wrote. I'm still not entirely sure how I managed to pull that one off. A 2,000 word piece coming out in January 2010 took about 6 hours.

I think it partly depends on whether you have to world-build or not. On the one that took 6 months, I think I spent 20 hours just researching constellations and the rise and fall of stars in the northern hemisphere at different times of year. At least it's research that I can use for future stories in the same universe.

[Erica Naone]

It depends a bit on genre. SF is slowest for me because of all the logic and details. I write my first drafts fast, and so write huge volumes of words each year. But then I tear them to shreds while revising and it usually takes about four drafts before I can stop that. Your 20 hours sounds right to me, though I fear it might be worse than that... I try not to think about what I'm making per hour. It's depressing. Incidentally I'm also a journalist and write nonfiction incredibly quickly by comparison.

[Jeremiah Tolbert]

When I was writing, I did about 2000 words an hour for a first draft,and then probably another hour and a half per 2000 words for revision. Anything that was so broken that it would take that much longer to revise was generally abandoned.

I suppose that could explain why I sold so few stories compared to how many I wrote.

[Erica Naone]

One other thing that occurs to me is that in my experience short stories take me longer per word than longer works. Even for first drafts, I find this to be true. So when I'm doing a novel first draft, I can get up to 2K/hour, but short stories are more like 500 words/hour for a first draft for me. I think this is because smaller deviations matter more in a short story--if a bit of dialogue's not quite right in a novel, I can often just keep going. In a short story, that can derail me until I get it fixed.

[SMD]

Probably close to 20 hours for me. It all depends. Some stories will take me longer (I spent at least a week, as in the same amount of hours that make up a week, working on a story). Sometimes I write really fast, sometimes I don't. It depends what kind of story I'm writing. Some of my more "literary" stuff (and I hate that term) takes me forever to write (a couple hours for 500 words). Editing usually only takes three or four hours, depending on how much I need to cut or rewrite or adjust. I generally don't do a lot of rewriting, though.

But that's me. I think the whole point of this discussion is that there is not cookie cutter version of the average writer. We're all different. Some of us write quick (w/ editing and all, like Scalzi), some of us don't. Look at George R. R. Martin. He's been writing the latest book in that fantasy series of his for years. Tolkien spent 12 years on LOTR...that's just three books.

In the end, I don't think any of it matters. Write at the speed that is comfortable for you. Don't assume that taking 20 hours to write 5k makes you somehow a lesser writer than someone who does the same in 5 hours. Good writers are good writers, even if they take a millenium for a story.

[Dylan Fox]

I think SMD is right: we write at the speed we want to write at. Personally, I probably spend at least five hours on research, another six or so on the first draft... and, well, it depends on how that turns out. Probably add another ten hours or so for editing. At a guess. I spend so much time on research because I enjoy it. Do I need to know when matchsticks were invented for this story? Well, no, but it's interesting. It's those little facts I pick up which spark new stories.

There's no sense getting hung up on words per minute unless you're doing NaNo. You're a writer, not a secretary. Write the way you want to write, otherwise what's the point?

[Rachel Swirsky]

Someone writing elsewhere observed that the split seems to be kind of literary/versus "purer" sci fi... though I think maybe that person didn't recognize Mamatas's work.

But as far as general groups are concerned, the idea that lit writers spend way more time on writing and revising than writers who are more firmly in genre mirrors my experience. I find that, as slow as I am, I'm pretty much in the middle of the SF writers I work with from my Clarion class and so on, versus the students at Iowa. I always thought this was sort of exemplified by attitudes to novels where sf writers seem to me to often be talking about how to finish a book in six months, where the head of the Iowa program told us to be prepared to spend 6-10 years on a first novel.

I don't think either is bad, necessarily, but like most genre v. lit issues, I end up straight in the middle.

Thanks for bringing this into its own post, Jason!

[D.J. Morel]

When I read your original post, I stumbled over the bit about 20 hours for a short story. Sounds super speedy. I just finished a story that took about 50 hours. One of the goals for the story I'm working on now is to bring this time down, while still producing a better story than the last one.

I doubt I could write anything worth reading in five hours, that's still rough draft territory, and those aren't suitable for company.

[Jason Sanford]

It's fascinating the different approaches authors bring to their short stories. Erica is also correct about being able to write longer stories like novels faster "because smaller deviations matter more in a short story."

Rachel: I've heard the same advice about literary and genre novels, and how it is acceptable to take 6-10 years to write a literary novel. That said, a few genre writers like Susanna Clark write like that (and lucky for us she does), while Gene Wolfe's best works took a long time to write.

[Merc_hyn_di]

Typically, for me? Maybe six or seven hours just straight drafting/writing.

That's on a good day, and working pretty much in a solid block of time. Often writing is split up for a few hours over a few days (I jump around projects a lot). *shrugs* Doesn't bother me. As long as I can finish the story so revisions/edits can begin, I'm not too concerned exactly how long it takes.

Great topic, I like seeing how everyone else weighs in!

[Jason Sanford]

Rebecca: I forgot to add that I loved "By Starlight," your first UK-published short story. So who cares if it took 6 months to write. It was worth it from my POV as a reader.

[T.W. Anderson]

I think it depends on the story, the content, the flow, and the writer. Words per hour isn't really something that can translate across the entire medium to apply to every writer as a whole. Everyone is going to have their own individual pace and structure.

I just wrapped up a rough draft that I'm in contract for for a game company. I spent about 3 hours on research, jotting notes, and I wrote for about 5 hours, so I'm about 8 hours invested. I've got 10,000 words on paper. From here, I expect to spend 3-4 hours editing, and a couple of hours doing revisions before the "first draft" is ready for submission. I'd say 15 hours total as a rough estimate for a 10k word short first draft. Then it gets sent to the company, and I go into revision mode for the final draft. All things considered, I'm estimating a total of 20 hours spent for a 10,000 word short story this time around.

As a general rule I figure about 2 hours for everyone 1,000 words of text I write. One hour to write it, and another hour for polishing, research, and etc. A 5,000 word short will generally take me 8-10 hours of total time invested before it's ready to send out. My first short story sold was a 7,500 word piece that initially took me 6 hours to write, then I spent another 3 hours editing, and about 2 hours doing revisions the editor requested, so about 10-12 hours or somewhere in there, and it ended up refining down to 5,700 words.

It's different for everyone.

[T.W. Anderson]

After some more time to think about it...

It comes back to that age-old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many writers presuppose that the very definition of "quality" lies within the relevance of "how many words" were put out in X amount of time. Some writers, like Scalzi, are capable of putting out around a thousand words per hour (I'm a bit slower...I actually give myself 2 hours per 1,000 words written), while others (like James here) spend roughly 20 hours to put out 5,000 words of content.

Both writers are putting out content that their fans like, their publishers like, and both writers generate sales based upon their work. Is there really any difference between the two?

Not in my mind. I look at comments like VanderMeer's and the only thing that comes to mind is "egotistical". He assumes (presupposes) that anyone writing faster than him is "churning" out product. Maybe I misread his quote, but to me his comment seems to relay an opinion that anyone writing faster than him is churning out "crap" content.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If the fans like, the publisher likes it, and it sells...by its very definition it is a quality story. It doesn't matter if the writer behind it wrote 1,000 words per hour, 200 words per hour, or 10 words per hour. All that matters is everyone involved is happy with the end result.

To that end...I don't think it really matters how long it takes someone to write a story. As I said in my original comment it's simply different for every single writer.

I've had days when I've struggled to write more than 500 words in an hour, and I've had days when I literally pounded out 3,000 words in an hour (rare, but it's happened). Sometimes it's fairly close to the final edit, and sometimes it's not. Doesn't really matter as long as the people buying my work are satisfied and the readers are satisfied.

[S. F. Murphy]

I have never managed to write a story that came in under 5000 words though not for lack of trying.

Before I started teaching I used to have anywhere from four to six hours a day as a security guard to spend on writing. Keep in mind that this was during the last year or so of my employment when I was assigned to a stationary post (a loading dock) pretty much by myself. It was during that last year that I finished two stories that would eventually go on to be my first sales.

How long did it take me to write them? I kept activity logs for each project, mainly as a way of reminding myself not to goof off so much or get hung up in flamewars on the internet (it worked, sorta).

So if you look at Tearing Down Tuesday's project binder, the time from start to finish is about four months. Obviously I wasn't planted in a chair the entire time working on that project. I read, I worked out, did the budget, actually did my job as a security officer, edited a campus publication where I presently teach, applied for a teaching job, helped a novelist with a research/consulting project, so on and so forth.

Four months then for Tearing Down Tuesday. I used to think it took me so long because I didn't have a laptop at work. I had to write everything by hand and spend the weekend transcribing my work into a computer. Then I'd bring the printed manuscript in for editing, fiddling, more hand scribbling, then back to the computer. These days, now that I have a laptop again, I've come to the conclusion that writing stories by hand is probably a better method for me. When I type fiction straight from brain to keyboard, it comes off sounding like Steven Francis Murphy-Historian, not the writer.

Yet four months isn't an accurate measure of time either. Both of my stories went through two full writing cycles. By that I mean I wrote a first draft, revised them through six to seven drafts, then sent them out. After a reject or two, I pulled them from the market and set them down for a review. Some problem would nag at me and thus the story would be shelved.

A year or more later, for one reason or another, I'd pick the story back up and go through the whole process again. Starting with a first draft composed of salvaged components of the first cycle, working through six to eight drafts before finally producing a story I was happy with.

Then I'd pick a market most likely to fit my story, two possible alternates and send it out.

The only story I have ever written that has gone straight from the first cycle out to market to a near acceptance is one which still isn't published (Asimov's had a change of editors, Dozois had a rewrite request that would have resulted in a sale, the Replacement had other plans). That story, again, took four months.

I am not a fast fiction writer. Not yet. At some point, maybe that will change. Maybe I can get to a point where it takes me only a week or two to craft a solid 7000 to 9000 word short story (which is where I feel more comfortable as a writer).

Maybe it won't change.

I will say this, there has been some commentary about the speed and quantity of productivity. I have to say that I can often tell the difference in quality. The stories and novels often have a half baked feel to them. Pondering the contents of my bookshelf, I find that I tend to purchase novels from writers who take a year or more to craft their work. Someone who is pumping them out in rapid fire succession does not hold my interest as a reader for long.

Respects,
S. F. Murphy
On the Outer Marches

[Michael Bracken]

Speed of writing can be, to some extent, related of years of experience. I started writing professionally 35+ years ago (as a teenager). Back then my first drafts were sloppy, ill-conceived, and filled with spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. And I wrote on a typewriter.

Today my first drafts are often submission-ready.

What happened? After years of pounding the keyboard, I learned how to plot and write dialog. I also improved my knowledge of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. And I write on a computer.

So, after 35+ years, 800+ short stories, a few novels, and a fair bit of other writing, I can produce a publishable short story in far less time than I could way back then.

It might be interesting to compare your speed of writing today--at whatever stage your career has reached--to your speed of writing when you started. Are you faster now than you were then?

[Jeff VanderMeer]

Yeah, TW, you are misreading my quote--you're also misrepresenting your output if it's for a gaming company, since certain things like setting, etc., are already given to you, and the fiction has a more specific purpose--a functionality--that fiction in general doesn't have to have. Nor do you have any professional fiction sales that I can see, so maybe you should be taking notes instead of making assertions.

Everything takes as long as it takes. Scalzi is generally writing a fairly direct type of fiction in a largely invisible style. I can see how it doesn't take long to do that, which isn't a comment on quality but on process. But other kinds of fiction and other kinds of effects can take more time. Does that mean readers will like such things more or less? No. But it means someone not writing like Scalzi shouldn't worry about taking longer.

And some writers should be taking longer, frankly.

[T.W. Anderson]

Whether or not some writers should be taking longer is an opinion. One that you are welcome to have, given your published history, but an opinion nonetheless.

The beauty of the 21st century is that there are many, many different markets to get published in. My own work, for example, hasn't appeared in any SFWA-rated professional markets, so for someone like yourself, it's easy to sneer down your nose and claim that since I don't have any "professional" fiction sales I should be taking notes, but the fact of the matter is quite the opposite. Despite most of my sales being for indy markets, I'm making a damn good living writing a combination of fiction and otherwise, some of them paying more than the SFWA-rated pro markets, which ranks me up there as a professional author, even if you don't approve of the places where my work has appeared. Plus I'm only two years into this career, and considering what I've accomplished in that time...well, I'm more than qualified to make assertions, regardless of your opinion :)

Now, as far as the output while working off of an outline, you are absolutely right that it's a little easier when there are some background details already present and accounted for. But even when I'm not working off of someone else's outline, I still put out 1k words per hour fairly regularly when doing fiction. It's just the speed at which I work.

One thing we both can agree on is that it takes as long as it takes. Some people can effectively write 2k words an hour, and some people can only write 50 words per hour. It doesn't really matter, as long as what comes out at the end is enough to make the fans, the publisher, and the financial backers happy.

[Rachel Swirsky]

"Plus I'm only two years into this career" -- I'm not sure why "I haven't been at this long" is supposed to give your opinion more weight rather than less.

[Jeff VanderMeer]

TW--Let's back up a second. My initial comment about length of time to write a short story expressed concern about quality control. Bashing me for that is, perhaps, misguided. I.e., you made it personal for no particularly good reason. Second, I came out of indie press and have nothing but respect for it and the writers who publish in it--I still run an indie press and publish in indie press for some projects.

Further, you've got the wrong attitude re fans, publisher, financial backers. (Financial backers? WTF?) You have to make yourself happy first. I know from the day jobs I had before I became a full-time writer and from reading every short story market out there, basically, that you should always set internal standards that are higher than external standards. Which is to say, you can sell a short story somewhere pretty easily if you have a modicum of skill and still be a mediocrity, but to *run through the finish line*, to have standards you reach for that are higher than that, is the really important thing. N.K. Jemisin (sic) just had a post that touche on this subject. Just as, for various day jobs, we would have to be very careful not to let our internal standards slip just because some clients had a lower threshold for satisfaction.

Anyone has the right to express an opinion, and experience isn't everything, but it is *something*. When I was coming up through the ranks, I absorbed everything and listened to everyone with more experience than me. Even today, after 25 years in this business, I'm happy to take good advice from any source--I learn a heck of a lot from new writers and experienced writers alike. So I'm not trying to diss you, but I am saying that you're pretty set in your opinions for someone who's basically only two years old.

Questions I'd ask you: Are you sure the way you're doing things is the right way? Have you really tested it? Are you operating out of habit or out of studying your process? Are you sure you wouldn't write better if you thought about it more, took a little more time in the revision?

We've got this one life, and it's pretty short. At the end of mine, I want a body of work I'm proud of, in any context, and I don't want to have left any stone unturned in pursuit of a perfection you can't ever reach but you have to *reach for*.

...I remember back in the day when I submitted to Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine and got back a rejection I didn't think I deserved. I was very young. I sent a letter back telling her she should read it again. She sent back a very amused missive titled, "Dear Wet-behind-the-ears Greenhorn Puppy" that began with "Really, I ought to take your head off now, but you're a newbie, so I won't." And she proceeded to give me a series of life lessons that I as a writer still haven't forgotten.

I don't know why I just thought of that, but even as a tangent it seems applicable. The internet may be breaking down hierarchies in very good ways--allowing for the disenfranchised to have a voice, for example--but it doesn't mean you don't serve an apprenticeship.

In any event, happy holidays and good luck with all of your endeavors. You've misread me, but that's okay. Misreadings of young turks transforming into old farts are pretty common.

[Nick Mamatas]

I think it's funny that Jeff thinks "invisible" writing is somehow more easily written quickly as a tendency than writing that calls attention to itself. Both are tones, easily summonable to some, more difficult for others.

How long might it take Caitlin Kiernan, for example, to write "invisible" prose even for some reason she was compelled to try? Heck, anyone can try this at home right now: if you've not been in a college classroom in ten or fifteen years, assign yourself a term paper. See how quickly it goes for you, despite term papers having very particular structures and tones. Then report back.

Actually, I don't really believe Jeff thinks that anyone writing 5K words in an hour is just "churning out product" and I don't even think he believed it last week—I think he just doesn't want to say, today, "You're right. What a silly thing that was to say. Sorry Scalzi, sorry everyone."

[Andrew]

As an as-yet unpublished author, I'd just like to chip in my two cents on writing speed: fast or slow can both create good stories from capable writers--but I can tell which stories took the extra time, and I appreciate those that do. (Of course, you may say I can't, and only think I can; I disagree)

It's the difference between a genuine Rolex and a decent knockoff. They both look good and keep practical time, but only one of them will be handed down to the next generation. Not all authors have the same goals, and that's fine. That may be where Jeff is rubbing wrong against TW.

[Nick Mamatas]

Andrew: (Of course, you may say I can't, and only think I can; I disagree)

So prove it. There's an obvious means available to you.

[Stephen Gaskell]

A more relevant question might be "How long does it take a 5000 word publishable story?"

Beginners might clock up hundreds of hours getting to that first sale, whereas experienced pros can knock out a piece in five hours. Since most writers are in the "results" business, taking x hours to finish an unpublishable story isn't a particularly useful metric. Better to dismantle that first effort and keep re-writing until it sings than churn out another unsaleable effort. As Samuel Delaney said at the Clarion I attended in 2006: writing bad stories is only practice for writing more bad stories. For a beginning writer (and I mean that in the broadest sense), trying to match the pace of an established professional is likely to lead to poor manuscripts--so don't!

What I find most useful about this discussion is seeing the range of processes that go into writing a short story. None of us is born natural storytellers, and we each have to find the way that works for us. This means that it's always worthwhile trying something different. I'm slow by the standards of what's been said on this thread--I have a tendency to revise as I write--but I've tried faster techniques, and the stories tend to fall apart. If you can write fast and get results you're happy with--semi-pro sale, pro-sale, Nebula and Hugo Awards, Booker Prize, Nobel Prize for Literature, whatever--then that's great. If you can't, then there's nothing wrong in writing slower. I don't know Ted Chiang's pace, but if his output is anything to go by I imagine he's not the quickest. I bet he doesn't give a damn.

[Jason Sanford]

Jeff: Great comment. That's exactly how I want to see my stories at the end of my life--as a body of work I'm proud of. Imagine how horrible it would be to reach that point and realize, "Crap. I wrote nothing but crap all my life."

While none of us can ever create the ideal story we see in our minds, the ideal is still worth aiming for. And since everyone has a different idea on what the ideal story is, there will always be different approaches to writing that story (and how long it takes to do so).

And Stephen: You are dead on. It isn't how long it takes to write a bad story. It's how long it takes to write a great story you can publish.

[T.W. Anderson]

It's a good point...I mean, it's great to earn a paycheck for the things you write, but the main reason all of us do what we do is because we are proud of our work. We want it to be read. We want to know that what we put out is the best thing we could possibly do.

Some people can achieve that in half the time of others. Does it make them any better or worse simply because of the amount of time it took? Not in the least.

Have a happy holidays everyone :)

[Jeff VanderMeer]

Nick--I already said sorry to Scalzi, who understood much better than TW what I was trying to say, on my own thread, and who knows I respect his writing. But I also stand by the general point that speed isn't the essential thing, and neither is daily word count. I see a lot of manuscripts from beginners as an instructor, and most of them need to take much more time and more care with their manuscripts. Which is why "finish a short story in five hours" isn't great general advice for most writers.

[Jeff VanderMeer]

Oh--and happy holidays, TW.

[Nick Mamatas]

Well Jeff, I just don't see where TW misunderstood what you said in a way that Scalzi didn't (nor did I see Scalzi or anyone giving any sort of speed advice to beginners). I did just rescan the comments and see the apology for going overboard, so thanks for thank and sorry for missing it myself.

I also see tons of mss from beginners (and non-beginners) as an editor and instructor and I'd posit that spending too much time on a manuscript—time often spent polishing it to the point where anything distinctive or interesting about it—as as destructive as a dash. If there's a difference in these sins, it's that the polish is considered an unalloyed virtue by the entire infrastructure of writing education, how-to manuals, informal advice, the dreaded "common sense", and all the rest of the cultural apparatus that truly is designed to "churn out product." The general line is "Bland! Blander! Be blandeeer, blaaaaaander!" and, whaddaya know, looking at both the magazines and the best-of annuals, the advice generally works perfectly well.

[Jason Sanford]

Nick: Just because "polish is considered an unalloyed virtue" by the entire writing-for-profit infrastructure doesn't mean it's bad advice. Instead of wailing against polish, the problem you point toward--too many bland sound alike stories--more likely results from the writing infrastructure encouraging everyone and their mother's brother to be a writer, no matter if they have the chops for it or not. But learning to clean up your own writing? That has little to do with the problem you describe.

Ginsberg's "first thought, best thought" may sound like great advice, but it only works if you are genius enough to have a great thought in the first place.

[Mike Cluff]

Right now I have been working on a story off and on for the past year and I have about 35 hours invested into it (14,000 words). A friend of mine will put in his initial time (25+ hrs) into his stories and then go back and put another 20+ hrs into them in editing and revision; he wont even consider sending them to the publisher before then.

So 20 hours seems perfectly reasonable to me.