ProfessorPangloss
Amateur Kentuckian
Over the years, my experience in critiquing or editing hundreds of unpublished (or yet to be published) short stories and novels, by scores of writers (both professional and novice), has left me with the impression that the mind of an individual writer imagines stories best in either a short form or long form, but but that an individual writer is seldom good at both. In a sense, it's like the comparison of a musician who thinks in terms of a melody, versus one who thinks in the context of symphonic orchestration.
If a writer envisions a literary "symphony," it's damn near impossible to squeeze that into a short story. If, instead, he or she conceives a simple notion of an event, a "melody" if you will, then the challenge of expanding that to the length of a novel requires an unusual depth of creativity to weave the whole fabric.
Some writers have found financial success in combining the two. For example, James A. Michener's huge "novels," including The Source, Tales of the South Pacific (basis for the musical, South Pacific), Caribbean, Hawaii, and many more, are actually just chronologically assembled collections of short stories that share a theme--often with an overarching "narrator."
As is apparent from many of my FTT posts, I find brevity challenging.
Bob
"I'm sorry to write such a long letter; I did not have time to write a short one." - attr. var.