As a budding author, I find that I struggle most with story structure. Given the fact that I am studying Fiction Writing in college, the primary media by which I write is short fiction (though I do not intend for this to be the end-all-be-all of my writing, just as a baseboard to understand and learn how to write good prose). One of the things that always perplexed me about writing short prose is the structure of the story. It is nearly impossible to fit the entirety of a Hero's Journey structure within a short story. So today, I did some research. I found this blog post where the author discusses an epiphany that they had recently while studying at university. I highly recommend giving that source a full read, for I am sure that I will not do the topic justice, but for the sake of those with TL;DR syndrome, I will attempt to put it down here in my own words (but credit to this concept and idea goes to the author of that blog). The general structure that most authors observe, for longer works of fiction, is the try-fail cycle of a Hero's Journey, where the hero of the story confronts a problem, accepts the challenge of it, and goes through a series of attempts to solve the problem, failures as a result, and new attempts at solutions. This cycle rinse/repeats until the hero learns something vital that eventually allows them to either fail or win (and this solution informs the rest of the story in some impactful way). The issue with short fiction is the lack of blank space. When writing a short story you are very limited in word length, so as a result, it becomes a struggle to fit the entirety of a Hero's Journey within those confines. So how do we write a full story then? Well, to quote the post: "It is important that the steps [of the Hero's Journey] “take place” in the context of the story—that’s what makes it a story. But it isn’t necessary to show each step. It is enough simply to mention them. In fact, it can be enough simply to imply them." When this is further explained, and as the author examined more of their favorite works of short fiction, it is common for short stories to be one of two parts of the Hero's Journey structure. The first is the opening of the story, where the main character is confronted with the problem and the climax is their choice to either confront it head on or find a way to avoid it. Then the rest of their narrative (try/fail and overarching conclusion) is thus implied. The other is the conclusion of their character arc, where they've learned what was necessary of them, and they resolve the problem they have been plagued by. The importance of this (and what shocked our dear blog author so) was the notion that the entirety of the Hero's Journey must be present, even if parts of it are simply glossed over or implied. Again, credit for this goes to the author of that blog post. I would love to hear what you all think of this notion, and how you may (or may not) use it later in your fiction. SoulFire, Out
Yes, a longer story tends to have more 'trails' than a short story. When it comes to Short stories, I tend to suggest Cliver Barker's 'In the Hills, the cities' as it is a short story that goes through every stage that a longer story would have so it makes it a great study piece. To the main point, be it a long story or a short story the purpose of any story is tell a change that happens to a character, and this change is brought about through meaningful conflict, be it a few conflicts (Short story) or a long-chain of conflict (Long story).
I'm not so sure a full length story has to be a chain of failed attempts. I think it can be just the best way of expressing a person gaining experience and perspectives that help balance out their more aggressive goals/intentions. So, you show a justification for what they eventually accomplish in that blank space. It doesn't need to be failure, it just needs an aura of "not feeling whole yet". Generally all people don't feel whole enough to make a decision until they've hit rock bottom... But you don't necessarily have to have them hit rock bottom either, you can have them create a "raft" that is unsteady and PROBABLY will fall apart, but then doesn't. So, if you make a castaway story for example, the usual formula is how they end up there being implied in order to intensify the stranded feeling, them getting the lay of the land, trying small bursts of activity, hurting themselves, until eventually they become absolutely hardened and feel they must leave the island. Well, you can actually shape the story slightly different than that, starting with them being stranded you can have them be already capable of surviving BUT there is a lingering sense that all they will ever do, no matter how successful will not ever fully matter to them because they want to share their life with others. In this way the failure itself is implied. And their greatist fear becomes IMPLIED failure, that even if they get off the island, they are still alone. So eventually they make that raft, pray it hangs together, get home... but the implied expectation of failure comes true in the form of them no longer knowing anyone. And maybe they overcome the island because they realise they KNOW how to be alone, where as everyone else, doesn't. In that story there is no FAILURE, just the threat of failure and the realisation their experience has made them more able to exist in the world. For me personally, I like the idea of a hero, who doesn't save the world, who does the most taboo thing ever... He gives up early on in the story (his decades long struggle earlier only implied). He becomes an ordinary guy, and when faced with challenges chooses not to fight for the whole story (succeeding in being at peace). Only to at the very end, be seen as the hero because he is a tether to reality for a large group of people ready to go wage war or something (you'd put that group rising to power in the background). They start to see and observe him and they learn from his example. But in relation to what you are saying about blank space, I think it is about understanding why the story matters. Then once you know why it matters you set up the context. Context is best created by highlighting a few events, so that when you reference back, there is substance. Substance doesn't mean FAILURE, that is just a shortcut way of justifying that the person has grown. You can display GROWTH in any way you please, because the POINT of the story can ALWAYS be molded into a conclusion, so long as you have strong and memorable moments in the story that will help define and flesh out its meaning. So, for me, the best thing to do is ask myself, "what aspects are important in the end?" and you focus MOST on those events, rather than a failure success loop.
Its the pace and steps to for fill a short story that is what is neccesary making it simple and straight forward to where your character(s) are, their goal and the work to get there and the end do they complete their goal, objective or go a different path. To be perfectly honest though I live and breath long stories, I struggle and struggle for simple and short stories, I am not satisfied with appitizers I need a meal both in reading and writing. Not sure if my short explanation helped any but its the way I view short stories and I hope it does help.
