# Crafting the Short Story



## Pluralized (Jul 5, 2014)

After haunting this place for a while and having written over two hundred stories (of varying quality and length, nothing more than 4k), and having read a lot of short fiction, I still find myself perplexed at just what constitutes a coherent short.

In novel-length works, we have the luxury to prattle on about characters' likes and dislikes, what makes them tick, and build them a quest. We can construct elaborate settings that drip with realism and take readers there with our imaginations. We can afford to delay the gratification of unanswered questions for a long time and still keep a reader interested. However, in the shorter works, particularly flash fiction, things have to happen quick and happen precisely as they must. 

Having written very few that I would call "complete" stories, here's my query: What constitutes 'complete' in flash fiction? Absent a three-act structure, how do you build something that feels complete enough to satisfy? Most will take the deus ex machina route, including many of the classics, and just kill off a character suddenly or wake them from the proverbial dream at the end. We're in an era in which new and fresh ideas are scarce, and our jaded sensibilities preclude following in those tired old storyline ruts. 

I'm reading all I can take in, and it seems the really great short stories are the ones that produce a solid waft of characterization and move the plot through some tangible space, somehow changing the protagonist's situation in a meaningful way. Curious what you all think about strategies for effective short fiction. 

**Forgive me in advance, as I know there are probably some who've visited and re-visited this through the years. It's just an important part of where I'm at right now as a writer.**


----------



## kilroy214 (Jul 5, 2014)

Before I joined this forum, my answer would have been simple. A story is as long as it needs to be.
Now that I've joined this awesome forum and have been exposed to other's work and seen how said works can be deconstructed,  I can't really say for sure. The lines have gotten a little fuzzy.

From what I can tell, as long as it sounds complete, I guess that's a short story. Doesn't matter if it's six words or 60000.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jul 5, 2014)

I have read a lot of your work and never thought you had a problem ending what you wrote.  There have been a number of stories where it seemed like I was reading a chapter but the chapter came to a close. 

I write only short stories but not sure where I would fall as a writer when it came to a end.  I go for the Twilight Zone kind of ending. I try and set the stage, give it some meat then end it with a twist. 

I just finished re-reading Animal Farm by Orwell it is a 138 pages no idea how many words, it reads in a afternoon. Would you call that a short story? It does kind of fall into what you are talking about as far as content and length. 

The best long stories are the ones I do not want to end, I want to know what happens to the characters after the final pages and get into debates with other readers as to what the future held for them.  The best books also mean that I have withdrawal when finished and have a hard time starting another book because mentally I am still involved with the story line and characters.


All of those books have very deep character development, the story is sometimes secondary because we are so interested in the characters personally, that we allow the writer to go off on tangents and find it acceptable. 


So for me a shorts story is driven by the story line, and longer or complete book has the characters as a focal point with just a lot of interesting stuff going on.  A sequel is always welcome because even though the story ended with the last book and page the characters continue to live in our minds.

Probably different for everyone but my take on the difference between the two


----------



## garza (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm still experimenting. My first real efforts started when I joined here. Indeed the reason for joining here was to learn to write fiction. I wrote a good many short stories at university and one formula novel for one of the supermarket check-out stand romance publishers, but that was over half a century ago. Since then, until joining here, it was non-fiction made my living.

I know nothing about structure. That's something I've never thought of while reading, and I've read all the published short stories by all the short story masters that I've been able to find. I've not read any of the books about how to write, so I don't know the technical terms or understand them when I see them. My tendency is to write a short story like a news bulletin and bring it full circle so there is closure at the end and the story wraps around a point where life has turned a corner for the main character. When the circle is complete somehow, that's the end of the story. 

That may not make any sense, and probably will be of no help to anyone else, but that's my system.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 5, 2014)

I just published a piece of a flash fiction. I've been interested in the form for a while now. When I wrote it, I really went back to the basics to try to figure it out: what does my character want? What's the conflict? Is there an arc?

I feel like you need to break these things down to their simplest form sometimes in order to understand them, otherwise you'll go stark-raving mad.


----------



## garza (Jul 5, 2014)

Okay, there's one of the terms I don't understand. What is an 'arc'?


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 5, 2014)

I certainly would not discount a classic three act structure. Increasingly, I am drawn to older forms and more restrained approaches instead of trying to create something 'new.' Maybe once I master the traditional I can come up with something truly new. Besides, by not dwelling upon form I can focus on the story.

As far as a story being "complete" at the end, I think that there are varying types and degrees of completeness: death and departure, victory and defeat are all possibilities. The muddled ending is tricky to pull off, both for the reader and the writer, unless there has been a heck of a lot of personal growth along the way.

I am wrestling with some of these musings myself, Plu, so either take comfort or dread from that, as you see fit.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 5, 2014)

garza said:


> Okay, there's one of the terms I don't understand. What is an 'arc'?



In layman's terms, is there a change at the end of story? It could be a change to a character or a reader. Basically, by the end of the story, the characters and the reader should understand some new facet of human nature that they didn't know at the beginning of the story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 5, 2014)

I looked down on the short story until I joined these contests and found out they were fun to write. I decided to be happy with my short story (less than 650 words) if it does one good thing.

To me, some of the answers above are saying the same thing, just what counts as something good to them: a good twist, "Basically, by the end of the story, the characters and the reader should understand some new facet of human nature that they didn't know at the beginning of the story", and "the story wraps around a point where life has turned a corner for the main character". My last story, now that I think about it, was basically trying to express my frustration with how we are (maybe) causing real damage to the earth and no one seems to care. So there are lots of possibilities.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 5, 2014)

I think an arc is the same as a plot but with some fairly liberal ideas about what constitutes action.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 5, 2014)

A story might be thought of as a sort of promise, and it's complete when the promise is kept. Crafting an engaging promise is probably the hard part; once it's found, keeping it mightn't be that difficult. As noted, promises often have to do with making sense, perhaps of some conflict or other, but as also noted, can be as simple as getting back to the origin. Short stories, and especially flash, have the ability to be sensible in a more poetic way, than is usually accomplished in longer fictions, thus opening wider, the authorial crafting of a sensible system. There is definite individuality and knack to getting particular promises right, and if one reads extensively of a master, one rarely finds them straying very far into new territory.


----------



## garza (Jul 5, 2014)

J.T. Chris. Well, obviously if everyone is the same at the end as at the beginning, then you can say there was no story at all. That's understood, isn't it? That's what I mean by life turning a corner. 

Why hang a silly name on a basic concept like that? I'll wager that comes from some of those 'how to write' books. It sounds like the language used by the wannabes that usta hang out around the slick mag offices in New York. They had all sorts of cutie names for everything to do with writing and photography. They made fun of those of us who wrote for a living and called us prostitutes.


----------



## stormageddon (Jul 5, 2014)

Pluralized said:


> Having written very few that I would call "complete" stories, here's my query: What constitutes 'complete' in flash fiction? Absent a three-act structure, how do you build something that feels complete enough to satisfy?


In my opinion, the complete-ness stems from the feeling of satisfaction, and not the other way around. How do you write a satisfying short story? That's akin to asking what the meaning of life is - there are over 7 billion different answers v.v I think most of the important ones have already been nailed down by the wonderful brains posting in this thread, which leaves me free to be unhelpful ^-^

The best short stories I've read - the ones with staying power - are the ones in which everything has its place. They never bore, never feel cliched regardless of the subject material. They have a conclusion, whether in terms of plot or character progression. They drive a point home, however simple or elaborate, and they make me care. There's no framework or guideline for all that stuff. Part of it's intuition, part of it's practice, most of it is perseverance.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 5, 2014)

I actually believe that the prominent role of collaborative script-writing in the writing industries is at the root of the creation of the jargon and methodology which provide the medium for hierarchical communication in those endeavors. In this environment, the arc may materialize after a first meeting in the form of initial writing assignments. A fossilized hermit crab laboring individually may derive somewhat less benefit and considerably less of the remuneration which drives the prominence.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 5, 2014)

garza said:


> J.T. Chris. Well, obviously if everyone is the same at the end as at the beginning, then you can say there was no story at all. That's understood, isn't it? That's what I mean by life turning a corner.
> 
> Why hang a silly name on a basic concept like that? I'll wager that comes from some of those 'how to write' books. It sounds like the language used by the wannabes that usta hang out around the slick mag offices in New York. They had all sorts of cutie names for everything to do with writing and photography. They made fun of those of us who wrote for a living and called us prostitutes.



It's honestly not all that advanced of a term. I find it easier than saying, "a character or the reader changes at the end." Why are you that hung up on it? Seems kind of silly.


----------



## garza (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm not hung up on it. I've never thought of hanging any sort of fancy name on any of the basic concepts of story telling and that took me by surprise. Why not say character development? I dwell in the land of plain language.


----------



## Riptide (Jul 5, 2014)

I always thought the arc was the whole beginning, middle and end, you know, the plot stuff of intro, rising action, climax, falling, ending kind of thing.

Anyway, I don't write much short stories and when I do they're less than 1000 words and for fun, but... I guess if they end... Haha, I'm really stumped!  As long as they have a conflict that is resolved in some way it's a story and how many words you put in it dictates if it's short or not.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 5, 2014)

garza said:


> Okay, there's one of the terms I don't understand. What is an 'arc'?



The term "arc" reflects the visual representation of a narrative plot, like so:







The arc represents, at one end, the elevating tension and rising stakes. The falling portion of the arc represents a release of tension and an absolving of consequences and/or danger.

Somewhere along the way, people began talking about character growth _while_ _the character moves through a narrative arc_.

This became abbreviated to the term, "character arc."

So now, when people say "character arc," what they're really talking about is, "How does the character change as a result of moving through the plot?" :encouragement:


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 5, 2014)

It depends on what kind of story you're trying to write, but at base, I'd say a story (of whatever length) consists of a problem and the (at least attempted) resolution of that problem. So, an event occurs and the story shows how that event affects a character or characters, how their situation changes as a result. Or maybe a character is in a new situation and needs to adapt somehow. Or a conflict arises between two characters and they try to solve it. Or the problem might be something else entirely, something that's more on the side of the writer--an issue or a question to be explored. In any case: some kind of problem, some kind of resolution. 

Think I learned the term "arc" in high school when we read Aristotle's _Poetics. _​So yeah, one of those silly how-to-write books.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 6, 2014)

If it opens at the right spot and closes with the right note, I feel accomplished. What happens in-between can be a lot of things, but I just try to trim the fat and leave out everything that doesn't matter to get to the end.


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

Kyle - That makes sense, though I'm not certain I'm comfortable with over-analysing a piece of writing.  And, come to think of it, it's strange I should say that because in news stories written for broadcast I've tried to create the kind of structure you describe. It can't be done with newspaper because the style does not allow it, bu it can be done with stories written for broadcast or for magazines. You can turn almost any police situation report into a short story with that kind of structure and by doing so create more interest on the part of the listener/viewer/reader. 

lasm - I forgot about Aristotle. So there is one 'how to write' book I've read. 

The explanations from the two of you have been filed in my 'On Writing' folder where I collect such ideas.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jul 6, 2014)

Some food for thought concerning short stories and the way they are told.  After reading the thread I can only think back of the comment made by the writers of the Seinfeld show " There would be no learning here and no one is going to like the characters."  This proved to be one of the few new concepts in telling a story that broke new ground. Their theme, "This is about nothing" The show lasted for ten years or more on American TV.  I bring up this example as all of the methods mentioned above, all come down to some type of formula.

Is there a new way to tell a story? is there "I hate to use the term" a way to think outside the box to tell a story in  different method.  The only other new form of story telling that comes to mind is the advent of the pre-quill and the Star Wars series.  There may be no new way to tell a story?  We all start a book on the first page


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 6, 2014)

garza said:


> I'm not hung up on it. I've never thought of hanging any sort of fancy name on any of the basic concepts of story telling and that took me by surprise. Why not say character development? I dwell in the land of plain language.



I suppose instructors should all rethink their writing pedogody now just to appease you.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 6, 2014)

Garza
there are also "story arcs," which are basically stories within stories, especially TV episodes where each episode stands alone but there may be a arc that goes through several episodes
(like romance between two main characters, or say the Borg war on Star trek.).  I agree, you can over-analyze writing to death.


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

J.T. - Yes. I would appreciate that. I need these technical terms explained in simple English that I can understand. I'm sincerely trying to learn to write fiction. That's why I'm here, and the technical terms used are not familiar to me. The explanations offered by Kyle and lasm are helpful and much appreciated.

midnightpoet - My regular TV viewing ended in the mid fifties when I went away to university. What you describe sounds like the Saturday matinee serials I saw at the movies in the forties and early fifties. Each episode was part of a larger story, but each episode could also be enjoyed by itself. One in particular I remember was _Rocket Man_. Great entertainment for a ten-year-old. My mother watched every episode of _I Love Lucy_, and I think the same structure was used there, though I could be wrong. I only saw two or three episodes. By the early fifties, age 12 or 13, I was into girls, ham radio, photography, and hot rods, leaving little time for TV, day or night. Any extra time was spent writing.


----------



## stevesh (Jul 6, 2014)

It seems like you're trying to pour ten pounds of structure into a five pound story. The nature of short fiction (especially 'flash' fiction), I think, is that it's shorter on formal story structure, but demands more of the reader than a longer form. That seems fair to me; the time the reader doesn't spend reading a longer story is time he can use (and we can reasonably expect him to use) to think about what the story means. Look at the posts in the Six Word Stories thread for some good examples. Of course, the challenge for us is to pack enough information into a thousand words so that the reader has what he needs to work with.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 6, 2014)

Garza
check out www.tvtropes.com; interesting reading about writing fiction.  I remember those serials also, I'd haunt the local movie theater on Saturday afternoons when I wasn't at the library.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 6, 2014)

*


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

Kyle - Only now did I see your graphic illustration of a story arc.and see why it's called that. Simple and clear. Thank you. As with _Hustler, _an appropriate graphic can do a great job of helping one understand the text.

midnightpoet - The link you suggested has all sorts of topics that look interesting. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 6, 2014)

Some thoughtful and useful replies, everyone -- thanks. 

I suppose the plot arc is something I can grasp okay, but the challenge for me is understanding the balance between my stories having 'excerpt' quality and feeling like a complete tale. Or, a complete enough tale to satisfy most, while fulfilling all those narrative promises. That's an important lesson, understanding the concept of the 'promise' in fiction. Thanks for that.

One of the things I always try to do is to 'have something happen' in my stories but don't always make it full-circle and it feels like 'part of a larger work.' That's what I want to get better at. In traversing the 500 or 1000 words in a flash piece, how to end it so a reader knows it's over and stands on its own feet. Without using death as a prop (or, not use it so _bloody_ often). 

Something I wrote that I feel is incomplete: Neil Hates Interpersonal Contact (Warning: Adult Content/Language)

So, I guess the main problem is just taking a narrative on a mindless journey, finding out there's nothing left for me to do with the character. That's probably where more reading comes into play, and that's my main strategy for learning how to deal better with this sort o' thing.

Something I wrote that I feel is complete, though not great: Juarez (Language Warning)

However, there again - the easy out is killing him off. I'd rather resolve stories in a smarter fashion. I'll keep working on it. Thanks again to all who've posted, I think this concept is useful for many to explore.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 6, 2014)

Some philosophy I learned about short stories from a great teacher was that the best short stories offer glimpses into a moment in someone's life, and often times, it's the brief moments which are the most powerful. Those little moments tell us the most about human nature. 

I've tried to take the same approach, utilizing short stories to focus on those little, fleeting moments. Trying to cram too much into a short story will work against you. Keep it simple.


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

One of my favourite photographers as a kid was Henri Cartier-Bresson. He was noted for trying to capture a 'decisive moment'. That's what short fiction, and especially flash fiction, can do best. I describe it as the time when life turns a corner. All of my flash fiction is meant to show that moment. Each of the sketches in _Seven Miles on a Dirt Road_ is intended to show a 'decisive moment' in a person's life as well as trace common threads that run through the lives of all the people who live in that extended community. By extension, of course, I hope to approach the kind of universal meaning Faulkner achieved with his Yoknapatawpha County stories.


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 6, 2014)

To clarify (or muddify as the case may be), my idea of a complete story is the Hegelian arc of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The protagonist lives in a particular world (thesis). Something goes wrong or shifts (antithesis). The protagonist rights the wrong or adjusts his worldview to accept the shift (synthesis). There is a lesson somewhere about life, even if the protagonist doesn't see it.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 6, 2014)

Nickleby said:


> To clarify (or muddify as the case may be), my idea of a complete story is the Hegelian arc of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The protagonist lives in a particular world (thesis). Something goes wrong or shifts (antithesis). The protagonist rights the wrong or adjusts his worldview to accept the shift (synthesis). There is a lesson somewhere about life, even if the protagonist doesn't see it.



Good stuff, Nick!

I like to work with a four-act structure, so my approach is along the lines of:

Act 1: Thesis (The current world and lifestyle the protagonist lives in)
Act 2: Antithesis (A new, upside down world and lifestyle that challenges everything the protagonist knows)
Act 3: Thesis and Antithesis Clash (Battle for protagonist's soul)
Act 4: Synthesis (The protagonist learns from both worlds to adopt a new, all-encompassing way of life)

:encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

I feel kind of dumb. Over the past few years I've accumulated several hundred thousand words of fiction, including three fairly long works - one full novel, one sketchbook of novel length, one short novel - and countless short pieces ranging from flash up to four or five thousand words, and now I'm finding out about structure, arcs, acts, all of that. Another reason to shelve it all and start over with trying to learn fiction, or dump it all and give it up. I never had any idea all that is involved. That's far more complicated than non-fiction, and far more complicated than I ever imagined writing fiction to be. 

Methinks I was wrong these past years not to read the books about writing that I've been avoiding. I've got a serious decision to make.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 6, 2014)

All that stuff you can learn from reading good fiction. Heck,  even bad fiction utilizes basic story structure. 

"How-To" books on writing are fluff. It's not like putting together a model plane.


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2014)

Well they must be more than fluff. Everyone else here seems to know all the technical stuff I have never known, all the right terms that I don't know and they must have learned about it some way. I've read all of Faulkner, all of Hemingway, all of Kerouac, all of Joyce, all of Sartre, all of Camus, all of Dickens, all of about a hundred other writers who are supposed to be the best. I have a masters degree in English but never learned about arcs and such. I'm going back to doing a bit of newspaper work and forget about fiction. I have one last story I'm finishing up and that's it.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 6, 2014)

I won't knock "how to" books because some people can read them and learn a lot that way. I've learned a few things out of those guides, but mostly I find it overwhelming to try to take in all those technical things. I've learned far more by reading and analyzing novels, novellas, and shorts I like-- and absorbing new techniques as I come across them-- than trying to understand story structure and all that out of a how-to book. But different strokes for different folks, I say.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 6, 2014)

All that stuff exists to keep English teachers employed. If you've read the masters then you've already put in all the important work.   You can make a living out of this without knowing anything about an objective correlative or a narrative trope or whatever other buzzword you want to use.


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 7, 2014)

garza said:


> Well they must be more than fluff. Everyone else here seems to know all the technical stuff I have never known, all the right terms that I don't know and they must have learned about it some way. I've read all of Faulkner, all of Hemingway, all of Kerouac, all of Joyce, all of Sartre, all of Camus, all of Dickens, all of about a hundred other writers who are supposed to be the best. I have a masters degree in English but never learned about arcs and such. I'm going back to doing a bit of newspaper work and forget about fiction. I have one last story I'm finishing up and that's it.



Are you being serious? Can't really tell. Not knowing about arcs hasn't stopped you from writing up to this point. I don't know what they are, doesn't make a bit of difference to me. It's just a name for something which naturally happens when writing a story. Maybe I've read your post wrong. Would be a shame to give up writing fiction, though


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

A couple of Belikins followed by a good nights sleep and I see the difficulty I'd created for myself. Taking up fiction writing after 'retiring' was supposed to be a good way to keep writing without the pressure of deadlines and the straitjacket requirements of different publications - each with its own idea of how something should be written. Somehow I began to take my efforts to learn fiction too seriously. There was no need except from a sense of personal satisfaction. 

I've managed to overlook all the rules about structure for the few years I've been writing fiction. I shall now make a determined effort to continue to overlook them in the future and to deliberately break each and every one that gets in the way of telling a story.. 

Now if you'll excuse me I have a story to finish for this month's LM fiction competition.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 7, 2014)

You can buy all sorts of books that tell you how to pitch a baseball. None will teach you how to throw a fastball like Nolan Ryan.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 7, 2014)

All paths glow that lead to the same goal, grasshopper.:icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

_The path that can be named is not the true path_. Laozi 

(sorry I'm not familiar with writings of 'grasshopper')


EDIT - A quick google search turned up this from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0989260518/?tag=writingforu06-20
Is this the one I seek, or should I look for another?


----------



## Kevin (Jul 7, 2014)

Western cultural references are often an enigma to non-Westerners.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U11bGxlmnVk

I'm wondering if drawing diagrams of the arc, whether in baseball or writing, helps in the slightest.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 7, 2014)

You want to look up David Carradine.


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

Kevin - You may have me mistaken for someone else. I grew up in Mississippi and for the last 20 years have lived in Belize, Central America. I did spend a good deal of time as a reporter in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s, but I doubt that qualifies me as a 'non-Westerner'. 

As far as I can learn, the Kung Fu video is from a television programme. I've watched almost no TV since I went away to university in 1955. Anything after that, other than the first Apollo Moon landing and the Watergate hearings, I know nothing about. I have written a few documentaries that were shown on TV, and I've conducted workshops for radio and TV news writers, but I've not watched it for donkeys' years. So if you intended that as a cultural reference to enlighten someone native of the far East, you missed the mark. The video does not go very far in explaining the quote by 'Grasshopper' as it does not say who 'Grasshopper' is. Some clarification is needed.

J.T. - David Carradine was a movie actor and the son of movie actor John Carradine. That I already knew. I saw one of his movies about 30 years ago and was not impressed. He was not the actor his father was is the impression I remember from the movie. I don't remember the name of it.


EDIT - Ah, I think I see. The old blind man is the teacher, so he must be Grasshopper. I presume his wise sayings are scattered through the programme.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 7, 2014)

Grasshopper is Caine, David Carradine's character from Kung Fu.


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

_Kung Fu_, then is the name of the TV programme. Sorry. I never saw it.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 7, 2014)

Garza
didn't mean for that to be taken seriously.  Sorry about that.  my droll attempt at humor.:cool2:


----------



## Kevin (Jul 7, 2014)

Never mind, JT. Garza, as the United States, center of the West(ok Britain, I will grant you that Mike Meyers did contribute much, and you should be proud), and that T.V (at least formally), the most important source of this culture, I consider a haitus (sorry, television word) a separation(religious sequester perhaps?) from the most influential source of knowledge during the last fifty years (1955-2000) or so of the last century, that one born to this culture might no longer be of the culture, but instead be formally of said culture, in the same way that living away another planet for extended period of time would change one.  I wonder if you're familiar with Betty and Bud; Eddy Haskell, Dobbie Gillis, Ozzie, Harriet, The irascible Rickey, Gilligan, Peter Brady, Steve Majors, The Kit Car? How about Bay Watch, the Simpsons, Family Guy, or any other of the myriad high culture that have been created since? I don't wish to look down my nose, but tsk, tsk.

Now there are some models of the short story.


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

Ozzie and Harriet I remember, but they were on radio, not TV.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 7, 2014)

garza said:


> Well they must be more than fluff. Everyone else here seems to know all the technical stuff I have never known, all the right terms that I don't know and they must have learned about it some way. I've read all of Faulkner, all of Hemingway, all of Kerouac, all of Joyce, all of Sartre, all of Camus, all of Dickens, all of about a hundred other writers who are supposed to be the best. I have a masters degree in English but never learned about arcs and such. I'm going back to doing a bit of newspaper work and forget about fiction. I have one last story I'm finishing up and that's it.


I'm afraid none of these guys (and I do notice that they're all guys) carry much weight around WF. Hemingway some and maybe Dickens, but the rest of them are mostly considered just fodder for ivory tower types. Peruse the _whatca readin_ threads, and you may decide watching TV's a viable alternative. TV screenwriting is the source for arc-ish terminology, with a _dj sampling_ style nod to Aristotle.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 7, 2014)

G...when you put it that way... you didn't miss a thing. Just some stupid references.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 7, 2014)

.


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2014)

I decided to check my references, so in the past couple of days I've read some of the instructions for short story construction left by Hemingway, Faulkner, and Chekhov. From _The_ _Hemingway Reader_ I chose to study The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber'. From _The Portable Faulkner_ I chose to study 'That Evening Sun'. And from _The Short Stories of Anton Chekhov_ I chose to study 'The Doctor'.

All these stories I've read several times before. They are favourite stories from favourite writers. Each of the stories demonstrates in its own way how a short story can be built. No fanciful explanations can compare with these very real demonstrations of how it should be done.  

My studies have led me to the conclusion that such ideas as the 'arc' are created to complicate that which should be simple. As Mr Wilkes said to me when I was 15, 'Just tell the story'. Mr Wilkes was editor of the Gulfport/Biloxi Daily Herald and the first editor I worked with,

I'm going to forget everything else and remember Mr Wilkes' words and the lessons available for free by Faulkner, Hemingway, Chekhov, et al.


----------



## Chad Lutzke (Jul 9, 2014)

Pluralized said:


> What constitutes 'complete' in flash fiction?



A lot of the flash fiction that I write (and enjoy reading) has an abrupt end; something that cuts so quickly you're left thinking about it; a very nontraditional ending.  Well edited film does the same thing.  It can bring a sustained shock or perfect comedic timing.  I'm not sure how to convey what I mean into words without giving examples so hopefully you'll get the gist of what I am even rambling on about


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 9, 2014)

garza said:


> My studies have led me to the conclusion that such ideas as the 'arc' are created to complicate that which should be simple.



I wrote my recent LM entry by focusing on two arcs (character arc, and narrative arc). To me, the idea of an arc is useful. To me, it keeps writing simple. I'd have a difficult time writing any other way.

To another writer, concepts like theme and arc may serve as nothing but distractions. To that writer, writing intuitively is probably the best approach.

And then there are some writers who work like hybrid authors, mixing intuition with conscious technique—like pianists, performing with both hands.

Whatever works for the individual, I say.

But I think it's important not to belittle concepts based purely on personal preference. What may seem like little value to you may be of great worth to another.

The idea of an arc in fiction is a concept I'm grateful to have learned about. To me, it's not trash—it's treasure. :encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 9, 2014)

What I need is the seed, the spark, the first idea to hang the story on. I asked before how anyone can write without that and was assured that many writers sit down and start typing without that first idea, that spark, that seed. I can't.

But once that initial idea is in place and the first words are written, the ideas to continue arrive in time to go on the page. I tried that idea of typing as fast as possible and not stopping for anything. I couldn't do it. I was constantly stopping to correct typos, to re-arrange words, to reconsider how best to say what I wanted to say. So I'm back to editing as I type. In the long run the effort at quantity over quality didn't produce a finished piece of work any faster. The flow from initial spark to finished piece must come naturally and can't be forced. At least not for me.

Writing to some sort of artificial formula won't work for me either. The only result is complication when there should be simplicity, confusion where there should be order.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 9, 2014)

garza said:


> The only result is complication when there should be simplicity, confusion where there should be order.



I think that comes down to what Kyle said. 

To each their own.
Different strokes for different folks.

What is complicated, unnecessary or difficult for you is easy for someone else. That's just how we are as individuals. To argue against another persons method is like arguing about why your favourite colour is better than their favourite colour. None of you will ever submit because of the simple fact that 'to you' your colour is best.

[Will use me as the example to avoid offences for the next example. Even though not necessarily true, we will just act and think as though it is on this occasion.]

What is so easy it is borderline stupid in it's simplicity for you might be as incomprehensible as rocket science to me. 

Again. Why should I tell you your method is overly complicated if it is stupidly easy in your view?
Equally... what I find stupidly easy may be frustratingly difficult for you and complicating things without necessity. 

To each their own. 

Kyles methods are nothing like mine. To me his are hard and complicated... but I don't fault him for it, because they work for him. 
Equally I expect he would struggle indefinitely to use my methods... even though I find them so easy it removes some of the challenge involved.


~Kev.


----------



## garza (Jul 9, 2014)

Greimour - My mother had a favourite saying  she inherited from her grandmother: _To each his own, said the little old lady as she kissed the cow._ I probably heard that a thousand times growing up. 

Kyle's method would be hard and complicated for me, as well. My training was as a journalist. Get the facts, write the story. There's no time to sit around thinking about plot structure and all that. Now I approach fiction the same way. Get an idea, write the story. 

The idea is essential; something to start with, what many might call a theme. It doesn't have to be much, but I need that. From there on all I need is the keyboard.


----------

