Short vs. long, and no I'm not talking about skirts or hair styles, I'm talking about stories.
I received a wonderful email in my inbox this week. My super editor, Lill, (kiss, kiss, kiss), let me know Wild Rose has accepted my short story (as yet untitled). My full length novel "Human with a Twist" comes out in July.
So, back to the original question, long vs. short?
It was very different writing a short story compared to a full length novel; just as it's very different reading one.
As a writer: with a longer story you have more time to develop your characters and their relationship. In a short story you have to find a way of keeping everything believable, but do it in a much shorter space of time. I always think of short stories as stories in a pressure-cooker (up the intensity to finish quicker).
As a reader: One of the things I object to as a reader is that I always want more. My short story is set in the same world as my novel and features a woman from the original novel. Although the short story is completely stand-alone, it means if readers want more, there is more - and a full length novel at that, to help ease the itch for more :)
In my opinion Short stories are very good at two things:
1) giving you a full story if you don't have time to read a novel (e.g. on the bus)
2) giving you a feel for a writer you don't know. For instance at the end of last year I got hooked on Meljean Brooks after reading her short in "must Love Hellhounds".
Anyway, when my short is titled, and has a release date, I'll keep you all posted & I hope you'll give it a try :)