Why do young writers like to write a book instead of a short story?

I think a lot if it just lack of knowledge.

I have seen young people claim that they need to publish their 'novel' since they just finished writing it and, "it's a whole 15 pages long!" LOL!

They're young, they'll learn.

Novels sell more and get more recognition.

I think there's also this stigma a lot of writers attach to short stories. They seem to think a short story can't be deep or have character development, and they think they're easier to write. I disagree to some extent; most of the pure fluff I've ever read has been in novels, while a vast majority of the most powerful works I've read have been poems, short stories, or novellas. Shorter works have to hit harder to be memorable.

As to short stories being easier to write, I'll say yes and no to that one. Yes, they take less time and less effort, but they also take a sensibility and precision that's not necessary in novels. You have to make every word count in a short work. You have to make it make sense without having the time to do much, if any, exposition or explanation. You have to establish characters quickly. You have more constraints on how long the action of the story can be and how many places the characters can go. And on top of all that, you have less space to make an impression.

So while I'll say writing a short story is easier than writing a novel, I think writing a GOOD short story is actually harder than writing a good novel, at least for many people.

At the start, I wrote from a male perspective. The first novel I wrote all these years ago when I used to be ten was from a male point of view. I guess I consistently located it simpler, or I was once afraid that, as I grew older, i might be somewhat bit more bitchy if I wrote from a lady perspective - because that is how most female characters are portrayed. I mainly copied what I saw and that i saw male characters as being extra down-to-earth than feminine ones, and i might relate to that. However, I would favour male characters now seeing that i am more used to writing from their standpoint, or probably, due to the fact that i'm a lady, I was once bored with ladies and i wanted some thing exceptional. However, I've began writing from girls' perspective and it can be so much less complicated than I inspiration it will be. BQ: this question is determined by you having written greater than 1 story or novel. On common, do your characters are typically more male or feminine? - Male, certainly for the entire reasons above, without a doubt. BQ2: When an inspiration for a narrative pops in your head (that is exclusive from planning), do you robotically see the personality as a male or feminine as a rule? Or is it a case where you dont' see a character or the sex of the persona while you provide you with an inspiration or premise for a story? - I used to see them as male but I now I see extra females in my preliminary thoughts. I feel it is a way of me consciously making my story more diverse, much like once I realised I had no characters of colour regardless of my MC traveling in every single place the world ._. It's half of and half of whether or not I suppose of the persona in the story or simply the premise by myself. But quite often it's just a 50/50 risk no on the gender of the MC.

Interesting question. I've read that it's harder to write a good short story because you're trying to use the same techniques and devices that are present in a novel but in a much shorter space. Rather than declare, "I'm going to write a novel," why not play around? Writers can experiment with the many genres and non genres like literary and mainstream and also experiment with various lengths (microfiction, short short stories, short stories, novellas, novels). There are zillions of novels in print and many that are no longer in print. No wonder so many writers want to write a novel. The published authors make it look easy. I've read enough not-so-good novels, and life is too short to waste on bad writing. Every author should aim to perfect his or her talents and write the best, most compelling story (of any length) he or she is capable of.

For me it's because a novel gives the opportunity to really get inside someones head. I realise that's also possible with a short story but a novel is there day after day.

The stories that stick with me are the ones I can remember reading for weeks or months at a time. The ones when I carried the book around with me and found somewhere to sit down and read whenever I had a spare moment. While short stories are capable of being just as powerful, they simply don't demand that kind of attachment.

Also, and this is fairly shallow, I like books, I like the weight and the feel. The idea that I could hold a thick book with a cover which only hints at the depths to which its contents will plunge, and that I have written it, that makes me kind of light-headed.

I agree with the answers given already, but believe it's also worth noting exposure as well. Young writers aren't often exposed to stand-alone short stories; they're mostly given classic novels to read in school and popular child/teen literature are usually done in 'series' and even television gives them little "stories" about the same characters/situations that end up stretched into multiple seasons.

Also, I think a lot of what's always been popular is character-driven drama where the development of personalities takes precedence over the 'big event'. If there's anything I've learned about literature targeted at kids: Young people love going on about their angst, their wackiness, their unique talents, how no one knows the "real them", etc. and writers want characters that can relate so crank out a 49K bio and a good vs. evil firework ending which reveals their journey is just beginning. /rant.

I prefer to write full-length novels (for me, that's usually about 40+ thousand words, although I have seen other teens in my classes who say "I wrote a book!, and then they hand me 10 pages :P) just because it's so much more fun, and not to mention much more rewarding. Nothing beats sitting in front of your computer whilst the printer spits out page after page of the story you've worked so hard to create, and then holding it in your hands afterwards and thinking "I wrote this. This is all me". Of course, then comes the editing, which usually makes me think "Why did I ever decide to do this?" and makes me want to throw the manuscript out the window, but it's still worth it.

When it comes to short stories, however, I don't really feel that. There's no growing with characters, no developing. Don't get me wrong though, I write short stories all the time. I just think novels are better :D

I'm going to say that it's because novels are what writers are judged by these days. In Shakespeare's day he had to be a playwright-because, hey-not everyone could read back then, let alone afford to buy books. However people of all social classes went to plays. Obviously very few aspiring novelists will be published/make a living from it-but if you want to make a living from it, you pretty well have to write novels.

One word: Ambition.

They want to prove to themselves and the world around them they can write a novel right out of the gate. They think they're remarkable prodigies (or so it seems) if they manage to write a full-length novel, nevermind the fact it sucks goats and will never be published. If it works for them, so be it. I just dislike the ones who get on their high horse and can't be told their writing needs improvement.

People want to publish their stories, and more books are published than short stories. I want to eventually publish my stories, but I am thinking of publishing a book of a a few short stories. I agree with you! A book is very hard to write, so thats why I may write all of my short stories and then put them in a single book and publish that!