I received a wonderful email in my inbox this week - The Wild Rose Press has accepted a short story (as yet untitled). Yay :)
So, back to the original question, long vs. short? My full length novel "Human with a Twist" comes out in July, and I found it a very different experience 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 relationships and adventures. In a short story you have to find a way to tell a whole story and keep 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 reach the end still wanting 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 (who suffer the same plight as me) 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 :)
reading: currently fighting with my eBook reader which is claiming corrupt data