The Craft of Short Stories

[coalescent]

Chance writes:

What I Believe About SF But Can't Prove

That the ongoing collapse of the short story markets has little to do with distribution problems or any of that crap that is often cited. Rather, it is because most SF writers have no love for the short forms of fiction, and mostly view it as a stepping stone to novels, a diversion, the means to an end, not the end itself. And because of this most writers churn out mediocre story after mediocre story, not willing or unable to invest the time and skill to make something wonderful.

Some not particularly ordered thoughts:

This doesn't sound completely implausible. There's also a chunky group of writers who seem to view short stories as, essentially, adverts for novels. Mr Baxter has certainly been guilty of this in the past, though he's by no means the worst offender.

But is it the whole story? Certainly the Big Three are, as far as I know, still shedding readers, but how many people are the 'zines/small press/online venues reaching, and are they reaching people who wouldn't read the Big Three?

In addition, why are writers like, say, Kelly Link--who certainly takes the time to make her stories work--not being published in the major (genre) magazines? If the answer is 'because they're not submitting to the major magazines', again, why is that?

Further, is it anything new? I was reading the first section of Hell's Cartographers last night. This is a collection of autobiographical essays by sf writers, published in 1975. The first section is by Robert Silverberg, and one of the things that really struck me was that in the first part of his career, in the late fifties and early sixties, he made a decent chunk of his living from short fiction. He was doing other kinds of writing as well, but the the short fiction seems to have provided the bulk of his income for a few years at least, and it did so not because he was crafting a few highly-paid jewels but because he was simply churning out an insane amount of words on a daily basis.

It's also a truism these days that you can't make your living from short fiction (though maybe if you had Silverberg's output you could?), and I suspect that may be a big reason why writers focus on novels.

And lastly, and I suppose most importantly: if this is a reason for collapsing short fiction markets, can anything be done about it, and if so what?

EDIT: On a similar theme, this (not entirely serious) post by Alan DeNiro:

Short Stories, 2015

In light of what science fiction writers are “supposed” to do–be predictive, prophetic, whatever–and with a lot of paradigms floating around lately in terms of perscriptive notions of how to fix genre writing, let’s take some potshots at the future. Short story readership is in decline…I think we can all agree on this? So where does it go? What’s the event horizon? And secondly, how does this change–if at all–the creative processes at work?

Make sure to read the comments.

SON OF EDIT: via sartorias, who points at Gregory Feeley's blog, who quotes from the introduction to a collection by Robert Sheckley:

"Despite the efforts of NESFA Press and others, almost everybody is looking at novels as the measure of a writer's true quality. If this goes on without challenge, everone from Damon Knight to Harlan Ellison, from Lucius Shepard to Ted Chiang will end up as second rank, and not worthy of Grand Master awards no matter how fine their stories. And to put it bluntly, there are a disproportionate number of excellent short story writers in the SF tradition, but not a lot of first class novelists."

-- David Hartwell

Comments

[del-c.livejournal.com]

Chance has it exactly backward: it's that readers have no love of the short form, so they won't pay what it costs to write a good one. It is possible to write a short story for the price readers are willing to pay, but only if you spend far less effort and care on the product than is necessary to ensure the quality.

Hell, you can barely persuade the buggers to buy a novel that isn't three inches thick in paperback.

[del-c.livejournal.com]

Two more swallows of coffee and a reread of what you wrote convinces me that my comment is more redundant than I thought. I was quibbling with Chance, but I see you were already doing that.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It was a good point, though. I'm often surprised that it's true; you'd think that busy twenty-first century lives would create a reading selection pressure towards short sharp shocks, not away from them.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

And lastly, and I suppose most importantly: if this is a reason for collapsing short fiction markets, can anything be done about it, and if so what?

If it is a reason for collapsing short fiction markets (and I think it is) why would you want to do anything about it? Other than speed the process that is.

David Pringle used to boast that Interzone was the only remaining monthly short fiction magazine published in the UK. As he found out there was neither the supply or demand to sustain this. Give up on the short fiction markets and the idea of apprenticeships subsidised by fans and move to the mainstream model.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

David Pringle used to boast that Interzone was the only remaining monthly short fiction magazine published in the UK. As he found out there was neither the supply or demand to sustain this.

Ah yes, which is why Interzone went under. No, wait ...

Give up on the short fiction markets and the idea of apprenticeships subsidised by fans and move to the mainstream model

What do you mean by 'the mainstream model'? And do you not think short fiction magazines are a thing worth preserving in themselves, regardless of their relation to the rest of the genre or to the experience of the writers involved? I think I do.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

It's reader resistance IMHO. I used to read short SF as a kid, and then I grew very resistant to short stories in general, to the extent that I almost didn't join 'shortform' when you set it up. I had developed the impression that short stories were either plot-centric (and hence glib, due to size constraints) or dull writing-exercises (what you called slice of life I think). This impression, prejudice I suppose, was so strong that it was hard for me to start reading short stories by unfamiliar writers. But how wrong I was. And looking back how many of my most memorable reading experiences are short stories, from the Heat Death of the Universe to the Colour out of Space. Why, then, did I become so resistant? Why have we all?

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

But if you are busy [and tired] you don't want short sharp shocks - you want a world you can stay in for a few days at least. And if the trend towards thicker books which don't even finish the story is any indication, people want a world they can stay in for longer than that.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, which is why Interzone went under. No, wait ...

You must live in some parallel universe to me where Interzone is not bi-monthly, did not have its old debts written off and did not have a cash injection from Andy Cox.

As Del notes above good short fiction is disproportionately expensive in terms of effort and money and a niche audience cannot sustain this in a monthly magazine.

What do you mean by 'the mainstream model'?

Original anthologies and single author collections. Obviously the mainstream model isn't completely different, young writers still use short stories as calling cards, but it is a rarity for writers to make their mark in this way and there is much less sense of a need for constant market exposure.

And do you not think short fiction magazines are a thing worth preserving in themselves, regardless of their relation to the rest of the genre or to the experience of the writers involved? I think I do.

No, I think very few things are worth preserving "in themselves." They are only worth preserving if they are any good, which, returning to Chance's point, they aren't.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I don't have a subscription to any of the short fiction magazines. This is because looking through copies of Asimov's and Interzone and TTA that I've been lent, I can't justify paying out for a magazine where I'll get the odd gem of a story, some pretty good ones, and quite a lot of uninteresting filler. I don't find they consistently provide what I want to read enough to make it worth subbing to them, so I read the freebies from SH and SciFiction, and save my money to buy short fiction anthologies.

I'm not sure whether the fact that I don't love most of the short fiction published is because I've got specific tastes and high standards for short fiction, or because the writers are churning out mediocre stories. I suspect it's both.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

and a niche audience cannot sustain this in a monthly magazine.

First of all you seem to be hung up on the 'monthly'; I don't think the frequency matters nearly so much as the existence of the magazine itself. Second of all, it's up for debate whether Interzone reaches its maximum audience or whether there's potential for more readers. I suspect the latter.

Original anthologies and single author collections.

Do you think this encourages a higher level of craft, and if so why?

No, I think very few things are worth preserving "in themselves." They are only worth preserving if they are any good, which, returning to Chance's point, they aren't.

OK, what I was saying was that while I agree they shouldn't be preserved because of some nebulous idea that they have a purpose within the genre, and that purpose is to provide a training ground; if they should be preserved, it should be because they are worth reading.

I wonder whether, if the magazines went away, we wouldn't have more excellent short fiction, we'd have the same amount of excellent but less of the average and good stuff. I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing.

It's also not clear to me that original anthologies and single author collections are a more sustainable model than magazines. I mean, there are hardly any original sf anthologies these days, and the single author collections are largely coming from small presses.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Once again, I am reminded that I don't understand people.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Hooray for shortform! :)

Why, then, did I become so resistant? Why have we all?

I suspect a lot of people would go with the reasoning elsethread, that in a busy world people want somewhere they can escape to for a nontrivial amount of time. It's surprising to me that that's true, but it's even more surprising in the specific case of sf, which has such a strong tradition of important short fiction.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I can't justify paying out for a magazine where I'll get the odd gem of a story, some pretty good ones, and quite a lot of uninteresting filler.

Provocative calculation: count how many good stories you'd get in an average year of Asimov's. Count how many good stories you'd get in the two original anthologies you could buy instead of the subscription. I suspect Asimov's would have a lower hit rate, but a higher absolute rate, simply because it's going to publish more stories.

But you know I'm doing the same thing; or at least, I'm gradually letting all my subs lapse (mostly because I can't afford to renew) and then my strategy will be to pick up individual issues based on the authors in them. I'll buy anything with a new Baxter story, or a new Ian McDonald story, or whatever. Of course, this gets a lot harder when the magazines don't get good newstand distribution and I don't live particularly near a Borders.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Or maybe you just haven't spent much time thinking about the reason for the popularity and the longetivity of the Bollywood dhansu masala movie. :)

[akicif.livejournal.com]

Ah. Reading most of the above, I thought the focus was mainly on magazine publication of short stories and I was wondering what had happened to anthologies - especially after talking in the pub last night to Andrew Wilson about the Nova Scotia anthology (coming to a Worldcon near you).

It seems as if a lot of the trouble with anthologies is they're just plain harder work for the editors/publishers than the equivalent sized chunk of novel. On the other hand, once all the work's been done, then it shouldn't be that difficult to sell the thing to another publisher (though I can't recall seeing many UK editions of US anthologies or vice versa).

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Provocative calculation: count how many good stories you'd get in an average year of Asimov's. Count how many good stories you'd get in the two original anthologies you could buy instead of the subscription. I suspect Asimov's would have a lower hit rate, but a higher absolute rate, simply because it's going to publish more stories.

If I buy two Year's Best anthologies, that's 40 stories. I'll probably find 30 or more of these to be excellent stories, judging by past anthologies. Asimov's will be doing well to find 2 to 3 stories an issue I find really good.

Plus, if I can pick up a book that I know I will enjoy 90% of, that's much more appealing than having to read a much larger number of stories on the off chance that each one will be good. I let someone else do the selection for me.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

If I buy two Year's Best anthologies

Well, yes. But that's not a fair comparison, which is why I specified original anthologies. The point was more about venues you might go to get new short stories from.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Oh alright, I failed to read the comment properly.

I think my point still stands. The hit rate I get from a magazine is not worth the money when I can spend it elsewhere and get a higher hit rate, whether it's from Year's Best anthologies, or buying collections that are recommended to me. I'm don't buy original anthologies unless I have a fair idea I'm going to like the contents beforehand.

[chance88088.livejournal.com]

it's that readers have no love of the short form, so they won't pay what it costs to write a good one.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement - readers do not even think about what the writers are being paid for the story. What they care about is how much they are paying for how much enjoyment they get out of it.

I almost never buy any of the genre magazines because I got sick and tired of liking maybe one story in an issue. On the other hand, I've bought three single author collections in the last month alone: Magic for Beginners, Mothers and Other Monsters and The Shell Collector. Not because I want the authors to make money (though it makes me happy if they do), but because I know they will be good reads - worth the money I spent on them.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

in a busy world people want somewhere they can escape to for a nontrivial amount of time.

I just find that so strange. In a busy world surely you want to be able to escape somewhere for short, convenient periods of time? I like short stories precisely because I can get through them from start to finish in an average bus journey. They slot into my life easily because they don't need any sort of serious time commitment.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Original anthologies and single author collections.

Do you think this encourages a higher level of craft, and if so why?

I think single author collections do encourage a higher level of craft. Collections provide a portfolio of the author's work as a short fiction author, it makes them significantly more visible as a writer of short stories, therefore they're likely to have put more time and effort into producing stories that sit well in a complete 'portfolio'. Also, an author who has written enough short stories to fill out an entire collection will necessarily have had a fair amount of practice at short story writing. Producing collections encourages authors to take their own short story writing more seriously.

And I think single author collections encourage readers to pay attention to and appreciate the craft of short story writing too. Reading and being able to compare a series of stories by the same author gives readers the opportunity to notice and value the techniques involved in short story telling, especially when they're able to see those techniques gradually improving, developing and working better in some stories than in others.

And readers being more sensitive to the craft of short story writing means more demand for higher quality work.

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

Possibly because it's tiring to keep changing worlds? If you're brain-dead after work, you're more likely to prefer something longer where you already know how the world works and so don't have to keep working it out. And there's character familiarity - ideally there's still development (heh) but they aren't a totally new person to understand.

I don't know if any of the above holds for me, though. I'm far more likely to read short stories online, and then it kinda doesn't count to me as the "sitting down with a book" kind of reading so much as a continuation of all the online time-passing I'm doing anyway.

[chance88088.livejournal.com]

Last Anthology purchases was the McSweeney's Enchanted Chamber one. I think there were one story that really didn't work for me, a couple other that were ok and the rest I liked quite a bit.

Last two collections I read - Magic for Beginnners - Enjoyed every story, a couple less than others, but still enjoyed.

The Shell Collector - pretty much loved every story in the collection.

Probably as much as a subscription to Asimov's (I think I spent around $40 for all three) and I doubt I would have found as many stories that I enjoyed in total. And I didn't waste a lot of time slogging through things I didn't care for.

(Though I dispute your contention that YB shouldn't count - if they are new to me then they are still new. None of that tedious winnowing through the magazines, and it gives me people to look for in the future. That's how I found Steven Millhauser.)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm far more likely to read short stories online,

Tom talks about being length-blind: if it's a single page of HTML, he'll just keep reading until he gets to the end, without necessarily checking how long that's going to take. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

it makes them significantly more visible as a writer of short stories

Hrm. Is this true? I'm just trying to think; I found Greg Egan through Interzone, and people like M.Rickert and Paolo Bacigalupi through general buzz and awards nominations. The only writer offhand that I can think of that I found via a collection first in recent times is Ted Chiang. And that's probably because I wasn't paying enough attention. :)

Reading and being able to compare a series of stories by the same author gives readers the opportunity to notice and value the techniques involved in short story telling,

Sure, but reading and being able to contrast a series of stories by different authors gives you another equally valid way in. It doesn't tell you as much about that single writer, but it certainly can tell you as much about short story telling in the abstract.