I know that EJS and others here are awraded and accomplished short fiction writers, care to give any detailed tips to a would-be?
The trick to short fiction, IMO, is stereotypes. Yes, that's right, steretypes. Only one or two characters can be developed well, the rest must rely on what you know is in the reader's subconsciouss, whether they will admit it or not. This is also true for setting. We'rea all familiar with tokenesque fantasies, for example, so if your characters ride horses and meet elves you can assume that we will asume you are in such a fantasy kingdom. If you set it in the modern world, we will asume that the world is like today save for a few bits of magic you toss in explicitly. As for scifi, there are stereotypes there as well. The future will have certain elemeents: flying cars, holograms, space travel. Details are not necessary unless it is of major importance to the story.
And that's the real trick to short stories: you have to pick a topic that is small enough to be told in a few pages. Small does not necessarily mean simple, but it does mean, well, small. That's what I have to say on that matter, anyway.
1. A single story line. As in no sub-plots. That single story line might be very complex, but there isn't anything extraneous wrapped around it.
2. A small cast of characters. Which relates to what Christine was saying. There just isn't time to develop very many individuals.
3. Very tight exposition. There isn't time to meander through the setting, everyone's past history. Keep it pithy, and focused on only what the story line dictates.
Your reader will assume certain things about you milieu. Christine covered this nicely.
You need one plot element. You can use two, if the story is long enough.
The hardest part: Finding an idea that doesn't grow out of proportion. I wonder if I can write a book of short stories that follow the same character?
Rux
:}
Know your end - you have less space in which to get there, and what if your story tries to go another way?
Read short stories so you can figure out what works and what does not. That has been a big thing for me!
LDS
One thing I'd like to mention, which I think is a variation on something OSC said somewhere (How's that for a general citation?), is that you should have more than one good idea in your short story.
You may have a good idea for a plot, a setting or a character. But if you write a story to show off that idea, the story will be one-dimensional.
But if you have two good plot ideas, and you write a story about how they intersect, you have something a lot better. Or a good plot and a good character, or two good characters, or a good setting and a good character, etc. (Since I'm a plot-oriented writer, I generally go with the two intersecting plot ideas.)
Once he opens the door, and once she jumps, there is absolutely no action going on, no plot whatsoever. But it's a powerful short, short story.
Now, I think you can have both strong characters and strong plot, and I think the best stories do. But I know you can have a successful short story w/o much plotting b/c I've read them. I don't think you can have a successful story w/o strong characterization.
To second punahougirl's adivce, read short stories. Raymond Carver is excellent, Chitra Divakaruni, Ursula K. LeGuin, great Sci-fi stories, Writers of the Future anthologies are great, The Norton Anthology of Short Fiction has hundreds of "essential" stories. You might have to go to a university bookstore to get that one, but it's wonderful.
In speculative fiction, at least, it is certainly possible to have a short story that is not character-driven. There are plenty of stories in which the character is little more than a device for carrying out the plot idea. You don't need strong characterization if the focus of the story is not on the character.
To take an extreme example, Ray Bradbury's short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" has no characters. The story is about what happens to an automated house after its owners were killed in a nuclear war.
From what I've heard and read, it's the emotional connection with the characters that make most fiction resonate with readers. It's the challenges they face, the conflicts they overcome, or the ones that defeat them.
Most of the time, I think, writers, especially young writers, who focus on plot at the expense of character end up with a one-dimensional story that fails to resonate meaningfully.
Of course there are exceptions, and I'm sure Ray Bradbury is capable of it, but I also wonder if there isn't more "character" in that automated house than is obvious at first.
I'll have to read the story. Thanks, Eric.
Edited to add:
I've re-read my earlier post and see I'm contradicting myself a little.
The first post should say that I think most good short stories are character-driven. And when I said you can't have plot-driven stories, I probably should have said, "It's really hard to make a purely plot-driven story really affect your reader."
Sorry about being unclear.
[This message has been edited by danquixote (edited April 15, 2004).]
"Nightfall," by Isaac Asimov. Plot and setting are the key to this story; the characters are there to fit the needs of the plot.
"The Cold Equations," by Tom Godwin. The characters and plot are completely contrived to fit the idea of the story. (Granted, it might be a better story if the characterization was better, but that does not prevent the story from having emotional impact.)
"The Nine Billion Names of God," by Arthur C. Clarke. The characters are merely a way of explaining the plot idea.
This may seem like an odd request, but, if you ever feel in a good mood I'd like very much to read one of your better short-stories.
I would of course erase it when I'm done and respect all your rights to it, etc, but if you feel too suspicious and/or protective then I can't really blame you.
But if you feel you can trust me, which I would say you can, my e-mail is xenosword@hotmail.com
and thanks for the advice,
Alias