Approaches to criticizing short fiction

For me, a short story is a story. It follows the three-act structure, but it requires some inventiveness to compress that into a short space; in some cases to a line or two.

I don't care about metre or rhythm, a short story is not poetry. Nor do I care about "style", it is engaging or it isn't. Same for "theme".

Because it is compressed, unlike a novel (IMO) every line demands scrutiny and must advance its act. This puts more pressure on word choice and impactful action and at times evocative symbols. Where it is okay in a novel to describe something for a few paragraphs that isn't terribly important to the story, that kind of thing should be squeezed out of the short story. The same goes for idle conversation, in a novel you might like to hear two characters sparring or joking in a conversation that has no bearing on the plot, it is just "fan service" in a way, people like to read about some pair having some fun. Or character building, for those two. But you wouldn't write a whole chapter of that, and in a short story, the same conversation might be the equivalent of a chapter: There isn't room for it. In condensed form, proportionately from novel-length to short-story length, it might be one good line for each, but if that isn't enough to convey the sense of friendly sparring, it might best be left out altogether.

No, I don't have a rigorous approach to short fiction, just that it cannot be flabby, it should evolve logically and recognizably through the three acts (or four, or five if you like Shakespeare's style).

It should present a normal world, then a problem, that grows worse, but gets resolved, one way or another, with minor and major conflicts along the way to sustain reader interest. Just like any other story.

Unhappy or tragic endings are more acceptable in shorter forms; readers haven't spent many hours becoming emotionally invested in the characters.

posted about 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37