Interesting. Thanks. Ah, I beg to differ. "Today I washed my car." is not a story; it's a report. It may be true or untrue, but it has no central conflict that you overcome; therefore, it can't be called a story. Of course, it all depends on how one uses the word, story. News articles are often called stories, but I'm referring to a complete fictional narrative story. Yes, I see that now. Perhaps I should re-title my post, "Elements of a Good Story."
That makes no sense, though. There's no such thing as 'good' stories or 'bad' stories, since it's all just subjective anyways. Your 'good' may be someone else's 'bad' and so forth. You may think 'Today I washed my car' isnt' a story, much less a good one, whereas it moved me to tears and is the most compelling, emotionally deep story I've ever read. I think it's worthy of a Pulitzer and a stint on the best seller list. It's just that good (to me). So, there's really no point it saying anything is a 'good' story or 'bad' because it's all just your subjective opinion, and there's not a single thing we can look at in the crafting of a story, nor even the reactions of readers, to judge whether a story is 'good' or 'bad.' There is simply nothing a writer can do to control the reaction to their story, except write a million random sentences and simply hope one has as profound and deep an impact as the story 'Today I washed my car' had on me.
No, let's go your way and say it's subjective, then at least if you're going to be intellectually honest you have to admit that art doesn't really exist, because anything can be art; therefore, nothing is art.
Exactly. There is no art. There's just stuff some people seem to like a lot, for a long time, for some reasons or another that the artist could never predict or affect. I mean, you put an original work of Michelangelo and a cookie in a room, and 79/100 people (mostly hungry children) may be more affected by the cookie, and that cookie will be what they remember tomorrow, proving there either is no such thing as art, or that cookies are art! And that cookie monster is quite the connoisseur.
'a' story certainly may be... every story is definitely not! even acknowledged 'experts' and the most respected, well-recognized 'authorities' on the subject of writing would not be as pedantic and unrelentingly pontifical as you are being here, eg... i have to wonder when you were elected 'god of the writing arts' and 'he who must be obeyed'... having written one self-published kindle novel does not a maven make...
Finally! This is why finger pointing threads and generalisations should best be written as a reason to discuss and not as an 'agree with my points' teambuilding exercise. 2 threads in almost a week and both point fingers with an almost condescending tone to the way they are written...IMO
I agree. I said above, these sorts of threads are generally nonsense. In fact, they can lead to some good discussion, so I suppose they're not nonsense. But those who like to hand down, as if on high, the requirements of a 'good' story and then pretend that their prescription is the only possible route to the end goal...well, that's nonsense, but you'll rarely get one who posts such things to acknowledge it
Or "Elements of Good Literature". The points you draw up are what is usually considered essential for "good literature". Concepts like symbolism, character arc and so on have been developed in the context of Western literature during the last few hundred years.
In which case, I am at a loss to understand your rather eloquent comments in a nearby thread extolling the benefits of quality creative writing programs. Because if there is no "good" story and no "bad" story, then creative writing programs would seem to have nothing of value to teach.
Yeah, I was mostly being sarcastic, repeating other people's arguments to show I understand the other side of the fence and am not just arbitrarily deciding I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I used to think it was all just so subjective. Then I started studying writing and giving a serious shot to making it as a writer, and realized the disservice that sort of thinking was to me. For instance, I recently entered a local contest for flash fiction. 101 words, winner gets 500 bucks, and they're judging the BEST entries. Sure, this includes a lot of subjectivity, of course, as people are people, but they're also openly saying there will be some level of judgment involved. So, as a writer, I tried to write something that could be seen as the 'best' instead of hoping I win simply because the person reading my entry may happen to like the fact I wrote about an alligator. Subjectivity exists, of course, but relying and sticking to the 'it's all so subjective' defense is risky as a professional writer. Because while the writer may think it's all just subjective, the publishers and agents and editors sure as heck aren't relying on subjectivity. Basically, every single professional I know in the industry (not a ton, but a few handfuls) stress the important of doing the objective things 'right' that one can control, and of course believe there are these things. Nobody I know went from thinking there were objective qualities of 'good' writing, to thinking it was all just subjective. Yet, most everyone went from thinking it was all just subjective to realizing there really were objective measures (and usually that point occurred before the word 'professional' started to enter their title of 'writer'). It sucks, because writing is often personally important and emotional for the writer, but at the end of the day there are people that get paid a lot of money to decide what is objectively good and bad about your manuscript, and whether they're going to offer you a contract or publication or book deal. Even if these objective qualities are constructed by us or society or whatever, it still behooves a writer hoping to become a professional to learn them. I've seen good writers go nowhere in their [hopeful] careers because they simply wrote what they were going to write without much attention or consciousness to what they were trying to do. When they got rejects, they'd say how nobody 'gets' them or that what they write just isn't in favor with audiences these days or the editors/agents were just having a bad day. At some point, they either give up, thinking it's all just so subjective they have no control and simply aren't ever going to be understood or liked, or they learn the things they do have control over and MAKE audiences understand and respect and be moved by their writing. Sure, not every last reader, as there is still always a layer of subjectivity, but as many as they can maintain power over. And the troublesome thing when working with writers is in conjunction with the 'it's all too subjective' argument is a denial of craft or skill. They sell themselves short, saying someone just didn't like a story and oh well, bad luck, nothing they can do. But you point to parts of the story that aren't engaging, or sending the wrong message, or are confusing, and point to craft and technique elements that will improve that, and then they do that and the story improves, and then simply credit a sway in the subjectivity gods as the reason people started responding to the story. No. You very literally employed fiction techniques and skills to improve your craft to make a story better (BETTER) and still can't see any objective thing that improved the story, despite doing very tangible, reproducible things to improve it. Boggles the mind (and is frustrating if you're the one in the teacher's position). I think it's just that writers are pretty self-conscious. They're afraid if there's a 'right' way to write, that they'll be told they're wrong and all is lost, doooooom. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose, and the responsibility of knowledge isn't always fun. And most of the 'it's all just subjective' crowd aren't bad writers, or doing anything wrong, they just don't realize the control they could have, and the myriad ways one can control their own story. It doesn't mean writing in certain povs or certain tenses or with certain style, but finding the best possible version of yourself and finding the best possible story you can tell, the best possible way you can tell it. The fear I think is we'll all be turned into Hemingway, or whatever academia darling is the flavor of the month. But most [even average] writing programs don't want to turn writers into anyone but themselves, as mentioned above. Instead of saying 'you're writing in the wrong tense' most [even average] instructors are going to try to help the writer find how writing in the tense they prefer can become effective, etc. It's usually a focus on how to get what you want to do working better. It's weird, though, all the stereotypes and presumptions that go into it. People think anyone who studies writing, especially in academic environments, will end up all writing the same. Sure, it happens, just like in any genre where stagnation sets in before fresh voices turn everything on it's head. The exciting thing about 'literary' writing (an inadequate name, but what people have called it) is that if you can make a story powerful and meaningful, you'll find success no matter the topic, subject, theme, etc. George Saunders gets a story published in the New Yorker and widely anthologized about a guy who works at a futuristic restaurant where they wear prosthetic penises over their real penises and his aunt dies, but then her corpse comes up missing and low and behold she's a zombie, back from the dead, to continue bickering and preaching to the family. Not exactly stuffy alcoholic-professor-battles-cancer people think all 'literary' writing is, that's for sure. But he studied writing, is literary to the bone (teaches at Syracuse in what's a pretty awesome creative writing grad program) and simply decides to write about whatever he wants--ghosts and mutants and spec-fic--and uses all the objective, literary craft elements and techniques he's learned so he can deliver the best possible story he can. Michael Chabon wins a Pulitzer, is a literary darling, then later writes something people call 'fantasy' (kind of) and wins the Nebula and Hugo awards. I really doubt you win a Pulitzer, Nebula and Hugo award by bowing to the gods of subjectivity. And nobody will say Michael Chabon doesn't write fun, entertaining, engaging stories. He covers the objective 'quality' stuff, and the subjective stuff, and what do you know is one of the most celebrated writers of his generation (according to the Virginia Quarterly). Or maybe he just wrote down whatever without much thought to craft, and hoped he'd happen to win those awards and become a best-selling writer and that he'd get lucky, since it's all just so subjective. Sure, subjectivity comes into play, but there are a LOT of people out there judging whether your writing is 'good' or not based on objective things (whether perceived or real, that still exist), and it's best to at least learn the parameters by which you'll be judged, even if you think in an idealistic, perfect vacuum of a world it's all subjective. It's not. Look around at the writing world and at least realize there are people very literally and directly judging the objective worth of your story (whether an award committee or a lone reader) and if one wants to be a profession writer, they better learn to play the game even if they don't agree with it. Pretending the game doesn't exist is the realm of amateur or personal writers, which is completely cool and respectable by me. But denial of how the system works for professional writers isn't how one becomes a professional. And to the OP's point. While at times in a tone that could be seen as condescending, and while not anyone close to an exhaustive list, the things listed are rudimentary things the powers that be (that have the power to judge your writing, and affect your career) are looking for those things. If you have no plot, they'll assume you can't write a well rounded, complete story, and aren't a reliable, quality writer, and not take a chance on you. They won't say, 'well, I'm happy today and really like stories about alligators, even if plotless, so I'll risk my career and reputation on a writer that is missing one of the key things colleagues of mine consider mandatory, who knows, people may end up loving it." Nope, sorry, it may not be fair or fun, but the writing world is pretty competitive and ruthless, and people are actively judging you on pretty objective things (and passively letting subjectivity guide them too), so to ignore the objective things that the current publishing world considers to be 'good' or 'high quality' fiction is to insist on staying blissfully ignorant. Don't get me wrong, I'm jealous, I wish some days I could go back to thinking writing was just this fun thing I did for fun because it was fun and I liked having fun funning around funnily. But I now at least have the confidence I have a shot at making it. Not that I might get lucky or might find subjectivity sway in my favor, but that I, through my conscious efforts and design, create my own success as a writer. It's not as fun or as reassuring, but it sure is an awesome thing to have on my side.
I'll have to agree. If you post something in a "Short Stories" section and blatantly can't even begin to describe or decipher the basics, like the theme of the story, then writer has failed. I guess my question would be; should we have any standards? People are going crazy questioning the OP and asking if his word is gospel. It's not about gospel really but about standards really. In fact, it already is gospel. You know who has standards? Readers.
Yep, and where are you trying to get your fiction published? If not in the Western literary landscape, then somewhere else where cultures and powers-that-be will be judging based on what they think is 'good.' Unless people hope their writing will be so subjectively amazing as to change entire societies and literary industries (hey, it's happened, I think) then I'd suggest figuring out what is expected, what's seen as good, and doing that. And it's far (FAR) less restrictive than people think. There are an infinite ways to create a 'good' story, even in today's marketplace that is more competitive and cutthroat than ever. The things one must do, and one can have control over aren't even all that hard to understand in theory (things like be relevant, because if your story isn't relevant it won't resonate, and readers won't care, and won't buy, and you won't sell, and won't get published). Doing something like 'be relevant' is harder to do, but not impossible, of course. And this is the sort of lesson that one can see in literature. Romeo and Juliet still resonates today, because it's still relevant. A writer studying writing will try to figure out how such an old, archaic text can still be relevant, so they can also try to be as relevant. Of course, there's no way to tell if one succeeds until a book is on the shelves, or hundreds of years later, but there are things we can do beyond simply hoping our story is relevant.
If they're just "perceived," then they are subjective. Apart from some very basic parameters (like grammar), writing is judged subjectively. This is true whether the people doing the judging say so or not. Even the OP's criteria boil down to subjective determinations. A rudimentary story will have a plot, characters, perhaps a theme, perhaps a transformation of character. When a story is judged along these criteria, it isn't judged by the mere objective criteria of whether or not the thing is included in the story, but rather by the largely subjective determination of whether the author has handled them effectively.
If I'm not the God of Writing Arts, and if the experience I've gained through the stuff I've written over the years does not make me said god, then why do you care what I have to say? As Lindsey Buckingham would say: "You can go your own way..." That's Fleetwood Mac for all of you born too late to know.
Why should I be humble about anything? If there's no right or wrong, if everything is subjective, if there is in fact no such thing as art, then my opinion is as right as anyone's. Why should I capitulate to someone else? So that everyone will think I'm a nice guy? I've come to learn that's a mug's game. Yes, I believe it's my way or the highway. Yes, I'm okay with that.
Sorry to answer you in a multiquote. Personally, I consider multiquotes distasteful, but seeing my own face repeated over and over in a string of responses irritates even me. To your point, yes, I would agree that I'm talking about what is considered good literature now, in the West. And that's how it is, isn't it? I mean, writing good or bad is judged by the culture and the era from which it originates. The rules of good literature in England in the 19th Century were different than the rules we have today. Exactly. In fact, here's a true story: I was once doing an interview for an article for a new age magazine. I went out to this ranch where this new age church was having a group meditation meeting or some damn thing. Anyway, the owner of the place was a woman and her teenage daughter and her daughter's friend came up to her while my wife and I were interviewing her and asked if they could use the hot tub. The woman said to her daughter, "Sure you can, there's no right or wrong." The daughter and her friend walked off and I heard the girl make a snide comment to her friend, "Yeah sure, no right or wrong." And I just knew in that minute that everything this woman preached about relative morality was complete BS and abandond whenever the congregation went home. Obviously she had very strict rules of right or wrong that she enforced with her daughter--just like any good parent would. A person can be wrong about what's right, but it's always wrong to say there is no right. Indeed. Excellent point. And all I wrote is what I've learned from classes and books on the subject. I'm not the descending dove here; I'm just a parrot.
I washed the car - the conflict would be between said soap and grime to create clean car. Not everything I post in the short story section is a short story to be honest - sometimes it is a concept or a scene or just an idea I want feedback on. However it isn't a novel either. An example would be a piece entitled Iron Falcon or one called Men Dancing - there was specific feedback I wanted relating to story building in my novels. With one I needed advice on improving my martial arts scene and the other I had, had row with someone about whether it was too camp. Those scenes have since been adapted and used in novels but I didn't know what to do with them at that stage. Final Flight is my favourite but it is more of an epilogue to a series than a short story. My current one Socrates and Nate's first day - has mushroomed and I am no longer sure where it is going. I have done others when I was tinkering with flash fiction - took several attempts to work out what flash fiction was, and then produced one that needs a little work but is now a piece of flash fiction. If I want feedback for something that is not a novel but is too long to ask a general question about it goes in the short story section - unless you have a better idea where else to put it I will continue to do so.
Well, I think you're supposed to post a completed short story. What good would anything else ever be? Why don't you write a short story, for God's sake? You know, you can't judge a snippet or a rough draft idea or any other story fragment. Is that what you're trying to avoide: real criticism? What if the criticism turned out to be good? I think it should go in this general section.
Not everyone wants to read or write "good literature". If you're focused on storytelling, then plot and storyline are important, theme and characterisation can be kept simple, and symbolism and moral are not really necessary. If you you want to write a fairy tale, you only need plot and storyline. A theme and moral will fit in well, but characterisation and symbolism can be zero. The only element I think is absolutely necessary for a story is a storyline - a series of meaningfully connected events. I totally agree that writing is about skill, not just subjectivity. I just object, from a scientific perspective, to the claim that something needs to contain all these elements to be a "story". Modern literature is just a small part of the storytelling tradition. In a sense, we tell stories every day that have nothing to do with literature. For example, gossip is a form of storytelling. Gossip isn't just an objective retelling of a sequence of events. We unconsciously employ storytelling techniques so that our gossip gets a storyline (a series of meaningfully connected events), a plot (conflict), and often also a moral.
You don't think your work will be judged if you're not trying to write 'good literature'? (not even sure what that means, but shrug). The 'meaningfully' connected part of the storyline is key. Poor execution can lead to a lack of meaning, whether weak or confusing. The craft of fiction applies to all aspects of fiction, and contains expectations. It's not like somehow writing plots is except from being craft-related. And all fiction, even the examples you cited, still has tangible evidence of craft and the terms/features given, just in varying degrees. A fairy tale doesn't do away with characterization, it's just not focus on or heavily represented. It's still there, though. Yeah, people unconsciously employ storytelling techniques that can the be studies, isolated and reproduced. And if you're gossiping and are confusing or telling your story poorly, you don't think people will judge you based on the quality of your gossip? Sure, you not find a review in the NY times or something critiquing your effort, but what people do is judge. And whether conscious or unconscious, people strive to learn and improve their story telling, even if it's just gossip or sitting around a fire. And I bet most gossipy stories still follow a general structure of what makes a story a story.
To me? Well I now write better action scenes and I also know the scene I wrote is camp but is not overly offensive and that most people didn't know it was two men even though they had masculine names. My punctuation has improved being from Liverpool has always been my biggest let down because I speak without it. I have posted short stories as well - intially I didn't understand Final Flight wasn't one. It is too big in terms of concepts and has a whole heap of stuff to come before and after it. Like with the flash fiction took me a few attemps to pick up a skill. Thanks to criticism and help I can now write both reasonably well. A snippet can be judged, any piece of work can improve - that snippet may develop character, story or have a skill that needs developed, i.e I knew my fight scenes were rubbish. I might have a question about something I am playing with - also the person reviewing can say if they would like to read more. I have loads of real criticism for my work, some bad, some dreadful, some amazing, some stunning. Very best is I have people who are interested and talk about my characters as friends. Also had three people read my first YA novel in a night. I have written one YA novel to completion, have three more at first draft stage, one novella begun, kept a blog and several short stories since I began writing last February. My writing has improved with each one. To get some level feedback on each bit is useful and to be able to test parts in ways that won't effect publication is invaluable. Maybe instead of general criticism you could start reviewing work and help people improve that is the only way the review room is about to become what you want it. Share your wisdom and move it forward. It is fun to watch writers grow and improve. As far as I am aware a longer piece as some of my snippets are around 500-2000 words long need to go in the review room. I write a mixture of genres so I place it under the appropriate one. Complete with an explanation of what it is.
I'm referring to what is considered "good literature" by educated people. The kind of literature which wins Nobel prizes, or that you leave out on the coffee table when you have guests. The other kind of modern literature is genre literature. Mystery, science fiction, romance, comic books, etc. Literature which, when it is good, focuses on storytelling, and when it is bad, on cheap gratification. (insert disclaimer that genre literature CAN be well written and contain all the elements of "good literature", etc) I totally agree with you here. I don't think I disagree with anything you say. I only object to the original few posts in this thread, which made it sound like a "story" by definition needs to contain plot, characters, theme, character arc, symbolism, moral, etc. Even a fairy tale contains some characterisation, because it is essential to the plot. For example, to understand why the Emperor was fooled into wearing non-existent clothes, the reader has to understand that he was vain. But you don't need to focus on characterisation when writing a fairy tale; it's usually so simple, that it follows from the plot.
absolutely not!... didn't you read the general site info?... if one posts a complete work that can seriously compromise its chances of being published... which is why site info recommends only posting a brief excerpt... besides which, posting complete stories would be too much for most members to bother reading...
