posted
I am well versed in technique for novel length, that is all that I've ever really tried; however, how does one approach writing a short story. Dropping a reader in a mileau (sp?) and telling a story in only a few pages, instead of a few hundred.
I know that EJS and others here are awraded and accomplished short fiction writers, care to give any detailed tips to a would-be?
posted
One thing I've noticed is that some people seem to liike novels better, others like short story better, and to each the other is quite difficult. I, for example, am primarily a novel writer and this has hurt me in terms of getting my name and my stuff out there. Recently, though, I have begun a short fiction campaign and if it means anything to you, I'll tell you what I learned from the POV of one who, like you, does novels better.
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.
posted
I think there are a couple other things that help contain a short story.
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.
posted
I've been wondering the same thing myself. Here's what I've conlcuded: You need to use stereotypes without using stereotypes. Basically, all your characters need to be types, but the main characters need to appear different enough that the reader won't suspect it.
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?
posted
I recommend that you get a copy of Rust Hills' WRITING IN GENERAL AND THE SHORT STORY IN PARTICULAR. I thought I was only able to write novels and longer stories until I read that book. (It's in paperback, it's short, and it doesn't cost a lot.)
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
|
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.)
posted
It's been my experience, too, that short stories can be a lot less plot driven, but are always character-driven. One example, I have a flash fiction anthology in which one story concernes the POV character walking onto a rooftop just as a woman he's never met jumps off. He sees her for a split second, the moment hangs in the air for two and a half pages (if I remember correctly) and then the story's over.
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.
posted
I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this point, danquixote.
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.
posted
I haven't read the story, but could one argue that the house is the "character" of the story? Does it experience some kind of journey?
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).]
posted
I'll agree that characters need to be competently portrayed, but there are many examples of very memorable stories in which the ideas of plot and setting are far more important than the characters.
"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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
