| Author | Message | ||
     Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
What is a short story? Is is it a rattling good yarn or something like a Van Gogh painting? This is what Elizabeth Taylor (the novelist) wrote in the early Nineteen Forties: "I don't like ones that are compressed novels (or rattling good yarns). It's a new & exciting form of literature. It is something done quickly, all in one atmosphere & mood like a Van Gogh painting. And is very much akin to poetry (well, lyric potry) for that reason. And is an expression of urgent inspiration." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
Well, let's not be prescriptive: "A short story is not a fish." | ||
| Steveduffy (Steveduffy) Username: Steveduffy Registered: 05-2009 Posted From: 86.156.102.61 |
It's no longer than 20,000 words and no shorter than 1,000. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
Probably 'short story' covers too many things. A short story is normally a compressed novel. Too seldom is it a Van Gogh painting. Perhaps the latter should be called something else, even if it is as long as a normal short story. I've never been happy with 'prose poem' or 'vignette' or even 'fish'. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>and no shorter than 1,000.<< I have to disagree with you there, Steve. I've seen superb short stories under 1,000 words (many of them by Des, though not exclusively). Hmmm, not sure what my answer to "what is a short story?" is. I'll come back to that after a good sleep. But I do know that for some reason I much prefer reading and writing shorts than novels. I've no idea why though. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
It ought to be something that you can fold in half and fire a staple through the middle of. If it's too much paper to get the staple through (or if you're not strong enough to accomplish it) then it's not a short story. Next up on our show: defining the meaning of life using only a blanket and a nice cup of tea… | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
>> What is a short story? Is is it a rattling good yarn or something like a Van Gogh painting? I think, Des, that you are really asking: What is a story? If you can determine what a story is, then you'd know what a short story is, right? (From Steve's length definitions, if nothing else.) What is a story? Answers to this question, in my experience, involve terms like "plot," "characters," and "theme." However, as Flannery O'Connor said: "I feel that discussing story-writing in terms of plot, character, and theme is like trying to describe the expression on a face by saying where the eyes, nose, and mouth are." At any rate, why bother looking for an answer? Most answers to this question are by definition formulas, and who wants to write a formulaic story? O'Connor's answer to this question, by the way, is appropriately vague: "A story is a complete dramatic action -- and in good stories, the characters are shown through the action, and the action is controlled through the characters, and the result of this is meaning that derives from the whole presented experience." This definition is comprehensive enough to include both yarns and poetic fragments (Van Gogh paintings?). Pretty good, if you ask me. And more useful than Freytag's pyramid.  | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Caroline, short stories under 1,000 words are usually referred to by other names: "short-shorts," "flash stories," or "microstories," to name a few. I think that's what Steve was referring to. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>Caroline, short stories under 1,000 words are usually referred to by other names: "short-shorts," "flash stories," or "microstories," to name a few. I think that's what Steve was referring to.<< Yes, I know, Chris. I guess I'm a bit defensive about flash fiction or what ever you want to call it. I've encountered people who consider it to be the lowest of the low in terms of fiction writing. That's simply not true IMHO. It's incredibly difficult to write a good story in around 500 words or less - shows tremendous skill as far as I'm concerned. So, maybe the question ought to be "what makes a GOOD story?", what ever it's length. Also, Chris, I take your point about "what is a story?", but there's definitely a different skill to short story writing as opposed to novel writing. They've both got "characters" and "theme", and, to some extent, "plot" (though you can have a "scenario" without a plot in a very short story), but what else is it that makes them different? And what makes them so different to write? What makes some people prefer writing (and reading) shorts to novels? I've no idea - I'm just throwing out more questions here! | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Oh bugger, I typed "it's" instead of "its".  | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.238.221 |
What makes some people prefer writing (and reading) shorts to novels? I'm lazy. Really! | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> I've encountered people who consider it to be the lowest of the low in terms of fiction writing. That's simply not true IMHO. It's incredibly difficult to write a good story in around 500 words or less - shows tremendous skill as far as I'm concerned. Even I don't care much for flash fiction -- and I've written and sold several flash tales. The form doesn't offer enough room to maneuver; it's too small to contain the traditional story elements, which is why such tales often end up in the form of anecdotes or simple jokes. The best of 'em, in my opinion, imply a larger story, but leave the reader wondering about the specifics: something like a movie trailer. (Brian Evenson used to be very good at these.) In my own work, though, flash tales tend to be one-sitting exercises; stories I began that for one reason or another refused to grow into something larger. I usually view them as failures, then, whether they get published or not. >> So, maybe the question ought to be "what makes a GOOD story?", what ever it's length. Probably too subjective, no? What makes a story good may be different for you than for me. What makes a story "work" is probably a more substantial question, and I have a few theories about that. But the truth is that each story is different. The writer must find a way to make that story work as he writes it. The solution he arrives at, then, as useful as it may be, may never apply to another story. All stories are different, really. Each time out, it's exploring territory without a map. >> but what else is it that makes them different? And what makes them so different to write? What makes some people prefer writing (and reading) shorts to novels? I think every writer has a natural tendency toward either long or short works. Poets, for instance, sometimes venture into short story writing, but rarely successfully into novels. And novelists who write successful poetry are just as rare. A short story should include all the basic story elements a novel includes, but the difference, really, is that novels can withstand a certain degree of digression -- meandering subplots, say, or navel-gazing deep thoughts -- that short stories really don't have room for. (In fact, novels profit greatly from these digressions; they add color, texture, depth. Sometimes they take the form of the author holding the reader's hand, guiding them to meaning. I've often thought that the absence of these sorts of digressions is exactly why so many readers eschew short stories: for those readers, short stories are too blunt, too ambiguous, too mysterious.) Of course, I'm an idiot, and could be wrong. In my own experience I can say that writing short fiction is easier. I have a handful of failed novels stuck in a file cabinet somewhere. I haven't figured out the knack of them yet -- they're endurance tests, it seems to me, and I must have a short attention span: I tend to tire of the idea before I can bring it to completion. That being said, I also have a preference for reading shorter works as well; in my view, novels (especially genre novels) tend to have great openings, weak middles, and lousy endings. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
Even I don't care much for flash fiction -- and I've written and sold several flash tales. The form doesn't offer enough room to maneuver; it's too small to contain the traditional story elements... ============ It all depends what "traditional story elements" are determined to be and I'd refer back to the quotation from Elizabeth Taylor in the first post on this thread. For example, if I can be pretentious (!), Ramsey wrote in the intro to BEST OF DF LEWIS in 1993: "'Dreamaholic', which in three hundred - three hundred! - words demonstrates his method, springs a succession of surprises which most writers would need thousands of words to accommodate..." des | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Traditional story elements = "A story is a complete dramatic action -- and in good stories, the characters are shown through the action, and the action is controlled through the characters, and the result of this is meaning that derives from the whole presented experience." | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
That is only one possible definition, presumably. The other question is whether there can be anything 'traditional' about the short story? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
By saying flash fiction was too small to contain the traditional story elements, I was simply trying to say that the limited space afforded to such fiction often prevents the inclusion of a complete dramatic arc. It's a rare short-short that can define a character, describe an action controlled by that character, complete a dramatic arc, and provide the reader with some sort of meaning. That's an awful lot to ask of <1,000 words. In her statement Taylor was championing a quiet sort of mid-century story, no? The kind written by Ivy Compton-Burnett or Elizabeth Bowen -- the sort of story with little happening in the foreground and much simmering beneath? (Jane Austen's novels work in a similar fashion.) Or perhaps she was speaking of modernism: Virginia Woolf, maybe. (I don't know. The quote is out of context.) At any rate, any of those types of stories fully fit in with O'Connor's definition, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, Des. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
That quote is quoted in an Elizabeth Taylor biography from one of her letters to her lover (Ray Russell) in 1942. I re-quoted it here as I found it provoking rather than knowledge-giving or representative of her literary intentions, but I sense she (as an accomplished novelist-to-be) was differentiating between novels and stories, trying to make a distinction between a novel and a story (i.e. the latter is not a variant form of the former). I think O'Connor is probably maintaining the opposite point of view (from what you say) and it is an interesting distinction to follow up for its own sake. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Interesting. However, I don't think that Taylor was differentiating between novels and stories. By saying "I don't like ones that are compressed novels (or rattling good yarns)" Taylor was surely just describing a disdain for a certain type of short story -- the event-driven kind, I take it; the kind that read (like much of Alice Munro's do) like Reader's Digest condensed versions of event-driven novels. Taylor's own work -- much like Austen's -- is the kind in which "nothing happens," and is quite difficult to summarize; her type of fiction could never be described as a compressed form of anything. Again, I don't think Taylor and O'Connor are opposing each other at all. Taylor's preferences in fiction fit comfortably within O'Connor's definition. My two cents, anyway. (Again, I'm aware I'm responding to something out of context. And I am an idiot, as I said before. ) | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
No, not an idiot, Chris. I agree with you. Elizabeth Taylor's own stories that were eventually published later in her life are often event- or character-driven. It's just that when she was younger (in 1942), she made this important distinction - for me at least - between what most people see as stories being shortened novels (ie character and plot driven) rather than what she saw at that time as another job they could do, i.e. creating a shaft of enlightenment that can have have many other things built in by texture or innuendo (like paintings often do). | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.196.188 |
"That quote is quoted in an Elizabeth Taylor biography from one of her letters to her lover (Ray Russell) in 1942." I thought he was older than he looks. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
Yes, i could resist putting that in, Joel. Ray Russell was very important in Elizabeth Taylor's life but it wasn't, of course, Ray Russell of Tartarus books. For me another interesting thing is that Elizabeth Taylor was friends with Elizabeth Bowen. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
I couldn't resist... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Des: It's an interesting quote, no doubt. It would be useful to know which short stories (or rather whose) she had in mind. I don't suppose the bio makes that specific, eh? By the way, what's the name of that biographer/book? For reasons obscure to me I've been reading lots of writers' biographies lately. I'd love to add Taylor's to the list. And is there one for Bowen? That would be intriguing as well. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
'The Other Elizabeth Taylor' by Nicola Beauman (Persephone Books 2009). It's absolutely fascinating. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
There are lots of books about Bowen. I am a leading expert on her work. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Thanks, Des. Any recommendations on a good Bowen bio from "the leading expert on her work"? Also: Have you read "Slipstream," Elizabeth Jane Howard's autobiography? Apparently it discusses her relationship with E Taylor. I've been trying to obtain a copy (inexpensively) for years -- but the book's out of print here and my local library doesn't have a copy. (Damn them.) | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.130 |
No, I ought to get to know EJH more. Most of my Bowen books are about her work. The only biography I have is by Victoria Glendinnng: 'Elizabeth Bowen'. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.158.59.56 |
In her statement Taylor was championing a quiet sort of mid-century story, no? The kind written by Ivy Compton-Burnett or Elizabeth Bowen -- the sort of story with little happening in the foreground and much simmering beneath? ================= Yes, maybe. But Ivy Compton-Burnett only wrote novels (as far as I know) which were mainly dialogue with insidious undercurrents (brilliant, by the way). I don't think it's made clear in the ET biography, but I sense ET would have been a fan, at that time, of Katherine Mansfield stories? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 217.43.29.178 |
Here is the cover of the Elizabeth Taylor biography:  | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.167.138 |
Chris, I may have a spare copy of 'Slipstream'. If it turns out I do, drop me your snail mail and I'll send it over. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
"I don't think it's made clear in the ET biography, but I sense ET would have been a fan, at that time, of Katherine Mansfield stories?" I was going to say that Katherine Mansfield was who sprung to my mind when I read the quotation. In fact, could it not just be a justification of Modernism in general, in opposition to more traditional 'tale-telling'? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.157.25.171 |
I'm in media res reading the Elizabeth Taylor biography and I have now reached a bit where it is reported that ET thought Katherine Mansfield "moaned too much" ! ET seems to be more of a fan of E.M. Forster in her earlier years. Which seems apt for someone like me talking about this on the internet, because, arguably, EMF literally (and literarily) invented the internet in his story 'The Machine Stops' ( http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2073 ) (1909)! | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Des: I'm sort of dying to try the ET bio now. Thanks for the tip. Simon: Wow -- that'd be great. Let me know, eh? Email me at christophermorris&gmx.com -- only replace the ampersand with an at sign, natch -- and I'll give you my address. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233 |
Elizabeth Taylor writes to Ray Russell in 1944 about the novels of Ivy Compton-Burnett: "Not in the least up your street. The curiosities of literature. A dark madness pervades. Beyond the insanities, nothing happens. A bunch of rococo & unpleasant people stand talking in a room; first in one house, then in another, then back again at the first. Who shall sit down 13th at a table they discuss for a whole chapter. They all speak the same, even the children. They are all nasty. No one does any work - not even the governess." What's that remind you of? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233 |
BTW, ET loved I C-B novels and the two women were friends. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233 |
The Works of Elizabeth Taylor: From Wikipedia: NOVELS At Mrs. Lippincote's (1945) Palladian (1946) A View of the Harbour (1947) A Wreath of Roses (1949) A Game of Hide and Seek (1951) The Sleeping Beauty (1953) The Real Life of Angel Deverell (novel) (published as Angel)1957) In a Summer Season (1961) The Soul of Kindness (1964) The Wedding Group (1968) Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont (1971) Blaming (1976) Elizabeth Taylor was also a close friend of Elizabeth Jane Howard, who was asked by Elizabeth Taylor's widower to write a biography following Elizabeth Taylor's death. Elizabeth Jane Howard refused due to what she felt was a lack of incident in Elizabeth Taylor's life. See Slipstream, Elizabeth Jane Howard's memoir, for more details on their friendship. Short story collections Hester Lilly (1954) The Blush and Other Stories (1958) A Dedicated Man and Other Stories (1965) The Devastating Boys (1972) | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Des, there's a children's novel as well. I don't remember the title, but I bought a second-hand copy for my mother, who is almost as passionate an ET fan as yourself. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233 |
It'd be cheating to look ET up on Wikipedia again but I know ET wrote some children's fiction. Best wishes to your Mum, Joel. To echo someone elsewhere today: "Raise hands if you would have liked to have shared a meal, a party or a train trip with Elizabeth Taylor, Elizabeth Bowen, Elizabeth Jane Howard, and Ivy Compton-Burnett." | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 217.43.29.197 |
Re above: This is an interesting passage from 'The Other Elizabeth Taylor' biography I'm still reading; ========================= << "With Mrs Elizabeth Taylor we are safe - safe in the Home Counties somewhere between 'Mrs Dale's Diary' and glossy magazines and with Mrs Miniver hovering in the background. We are also invited once again to be lyrical or, if that is too much for us, at least to be sensitive . . . This novel is almost certain to be a success with thousands of readers, but there are really too many clothes and meals, or, to put it briefly, too much 'furniture'." Thus the "Times Literary Supplement"'s reviewer of 'In A Summer Season' in 1961. False as this perception is, it derived in part from Elizabeth's own life - a reviewer's judgement of a writer become bound up with his or her judgement of the book - this is the kind of person the writer is, he thinks, this is the kind of book he will write. And in many ways, it is true, Elizabeth Taylor's life was a 'safe' one... >> ======================== I feel that a 'safe' life (as perceived) does not necessarily lead to a 'safe' book. This is an example of an author and book being conflated. Why I invented 'Nemonymous'... |