What Ails the Short Story - Stephen King article - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Buddy Glass · 10-23-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crow

Of course, people will always flock to good writing. I still think it's only a matter of time before the right person or people come along and construct the short story in a way that can be enjoyed by everyone in this modern age.

But that's just the problem. Short stories aren't for everyone. A lot of people don't 'get' them. In a sense it's a more artistic art form than the novel because it takes incredible skill to pen a truly good story. Have your average person read Salinger's "A Perfect Day for Bananafish", Raymond Carver's "Night School" or Franz Kafka' "A Hunger Artist". These are all great stories, but they are not for everyone. Or rather, they are not understood or read by everyone. Not everyone understands what T.S. Eliot called the objective correlative.

I think you need to be more specific. "...construct the short story in a way that can be enjoyed by everyone in this modern age" is a load of vague crap. Like saying you think it's only a matter of time before a politician comes along and constructs society in a way that can be enjoyed by everyone.

bloodredsnows · 10-23-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

This disease infects every aspect of our culture, not just media. I heard someone refer to it once as tickle-me-Elmo syndrome. That is, all companies are interested in is finding that one thing that will be the must-have Christmas gift or the summer blockbuster or the next Brittany Spears or the next Harry Potter.
Merely being profitable isn't good enough anymore. It has to be super duper fill-the-stadium-with-fans huge. That usually means pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that usually means producing crap.

Agreed. The sad part is that people who put great effort and thought into original work get screwed because they refuse to pander to that low denominator. Brings new meaning to no good deed goes unpunished.

ClancyBoy · 10-23-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddy Glass

I don't see what makes Steven King a particular authority on the state of American literature, but oh well.

Who would you prefer? Oprah?

Stewart · 10-24-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddy Glass

I don't see what makes Steven King a particular authority on the state of American literature

While he's not an "authority" per se I think that, having grown up in a time where the short story was prevalent (50s through 70s) and being inspired to write his own and seeing a majority of them published, that he may be allowed an opinion on the subject. Just because his actual prose rambles and is not all that great doesn't exclude him from being able to air his thoughts.

Buddy Glass · 10-24-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Who would you prefer? Oprah?

No, contrary to what you may think little boy, there are other authorities on the state of the American short story. Let me mention a few.

Richard Ford - perhaps one of the best living short story writers. At least two of his three collections - Women with Men and Rock Springs are superb and now considered modern classics.

John Updike - despite lots of garbage and the fact that his literary output is too abundant for his own good, he's written a lot of very good short stories. My personal favorite is "The Slump" in which he centers around a Kierkegaardian theme.

James Salter - one of his collections - its title eludes me - won the PEN/Faulkner award, I think, and another, Last Night and other stories, is his most recent work. His style is very similar to post-Cathedral Raymond Carver.

Alice Munro and Susan Minot have also written some of the best modern short stories.

So no, I don't think Oprah would be my second choice after the overrated Stephen King.

Buddy Glass · 10-24-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

While he's not an "authority" per se I think that, having grown up in a time where the short story was prevalent (50s through 70s) and being inspired to write his own and seeing a majority of them published, that he may be allowed an opinion on the subject. Just because his actual prose rambles and is not all that great doesn't exclude him from being able to air his thoughts.

Careful. Notice that I did not say anything about King not being able to share his thoughts or have an opinion on the matter - I only called his alleged authority into question.

Stewart · 10-24-2007, 06:33 PM

Did I miss someone referring to him as an "authority"?

mwd · 10-24-2007, 07:12 PM

Buddy, I think you bring up a good point, in that implicit in King's argument is that there was a time, long ago, where short stories were popular. Personally, I'm too young to really know if this is true, though I do find it interesting to consider that maybe the short story is just an underappreciated facet of literature, has always been, will always be. Even in the "golden age" of short fiction, I imagine that not many pulp magazines lasted very long ... there were just a lot of them, and more were constantly popping up.

Also, I like all the writers you mention (particularly Richard Ford), but I'm not sure if writing good stories necessarily makes one able to comment on the state of short fiction in general. Like, are good writers always good readers? Hmm.

Buddy Glass · 10-24-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

Did I miss someone referring to him as an "authority"?

He wrote an article in which he discusses at length the history of the American short story and its present state in contemporary literature. Someone, including himself, must consider him an authority of sorts in order to let his thoughts and comments be published.

Duh.