Young Writers Society

Okay just to start...

Short-having little length
Piece- a separate or limited portion or quantity of something

Alright so, I have been reviewing works that are pretty short. And some even state that it is just a piece of a story. Or a scene that just came to them that they may or may not elaborate on. These pieces were reviewed properly until the reviewer(s) start to go on and on and on about how short the piece is.

I'm just wondering what y'all think about this.

Personally if it is just a short piece I would expect it to be a limited portion of a story that has little length.

So what do you think?

"Piece" can be synonymous with "work" and can be complete in and of itself. It may be part of a larger work, or it may be standalone. It is simply a piece of writing (or art/music).

My question would be why are the reviewer(s) going on about how short the piece is? Is it because the pacing was too fast? Because it was all tell, no show? Or is it because they're just biased towards longer works in general? If the reason for the complaints of shortness are validly tied to shortcomings of the story, then it's just a case of reviewers commenting on an aspect of the story that could be improved. Otherwise, it's really not a valid point since personal bias and preference are tied to taste, and just because a piece was not to one's taste does not mean that piece had any technical issues or is without merit.

For instance, there are plenty of pieces out there that are not to my taste, such as The Naked Lunch or many of Picasso's more abstract paintings, that many value, and while I might be able to appreciate the technical and cultural dimensions of the works, the fact remains that I just don't like them. It's a matter of personal taste.

Would you review the upper corner of The Mona Lisa sans Mona Lisa character in the middle?

I'd just avoid such pieces.

Ah but what if these pieces were for a school assignment? Or a contest that had a word limit of 150-250 words?

The pieces that I have been reviewing are like this, I like short pieces. Anyways, the other reviews state that they don't like shorter pieces and tell the writer to make it longer (when they can't) the majority have nothing to do with showing/telling, grammar etc.... those I agree with. Its the 'your piece is too short' bit I do not understand.

Ok, but then state such short pieces are complete pieces (not you kjr, more a general statement).

Irregardless, if something reads as not being complete...it will still feel that way, it doesn't matter how you slice the word limit. It's like poetry, prose, in that the less room you give yourself, the harder it is to make a concise and understandable experience from what we read; in my opinion, you'd need to look at each piece case by case, comment by comment.

Sort of a shill review if that's all they say, but any short review is typically less than appriecated.

Pieces can be "too short" for various reasons. Some actual examples might be helpful, for context.

If somebody says a piece should be made longer, chances are they are saying it feels incomplete and their first remedy is "make it longer". While this is not always possible and not always the correct remedy, saying a piece feels too short is just a shorthand for another problem. While it might not be the correct way of expressing it, young writers tend not to know the correct terms.

Or, as Kyll says, it could simply be not to their taste because they don't like short stories, or that particular style of story, or what have you. Disagreements in reviewers can usually be attributed to taste. Which I usually find to be a good thing, because if everybody had the same tastes the world would be rather boring.