Do you read short stories?

[takyris]

Dude, YFI, this is the perfect chance to plug your own short stories, not some other guy's!

You know, like how I would say, "For folks interested in fine fantasy fiction, check out Amazing Stories #604 and #606, both of which contain stories by me! And stay tuned for the upcoming Clash of Steel anthology, also featuring fiction by me! And please feel free to hit my website, conveniently available in my signature.

You know, if I were that kind of guy.

For the record, I'm about 70/30 toward novels. The current state of the SF/F market makes it difficult for me to find the light, entertaining stuff I enjoy reading. Too much dark stuff, too much depressing stuff, and too much overliterary stuff that is deep and wonderful and stuff, but doesn't have a plot. Based on what I saw in Amazing Stories, though (the stories that weren't mine), I subscribed. It looks like it's interested in putting out fun fiction.

 

[your father is]

^

I'm sure everyone has already seen my sad attempts to grab attention in this thread.

Back to short stories (by other people), I also highly recommend The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. These bastards have rejected me more than anyone else. The fiction that makes it is top-notch.

As far as fun or light short fiction, I keep an eye on Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine, Black Gate (when it comes out), and now Amazing Stories. Any others people are aware of?

Clash of Steel looks promising, too -- I love swords & sorcery!

Or, if you're bored, check out Why the Elders Bare Their Throats, by some guy named Weekes.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Very rarely. The things that attract me to fantasy and sci fi are interesting settings and complicated plots. Nice character development is a big plus, too. I don't think those traits are the strong suits of short fiction, which have to be more focused and presume that the reader grasps the basics of the setting.

Horror works a little better, although I think horror works best when you have an interest in not wanting bad things to happen to the main characters. It takes a lot of skill to pull that off in just a few pages.

I do try to read the Ceramic DM stuff here, though.

 

[jester47]

The things that attract me to fantasy and sci fi are interesting settings and complicated plots. Nice character development is a big plus, too. I don't think those traits are the strong suits of short fiction, which have to be more focused and presume that the reader grasps the basics of the setting.

I dunno, I believe that if you are good enough writer, and you master dialogue, description, and how to tell a story, you can get whole epics into 1 book.

Case in point: if Robert E. Howard was Robert Jordan's ghost writer, the entire story of Wheel of Time could fit into one one-thousand paged book.

I can't read to waste time. If you can't detail the setting, move the plot forward, and develop characters all at the same time in the same sentence or paragraph, you will be hard pressed to get me to read your story. A short story creates limited space, and limits give people somthing to work against.

I used to hate short stories. Now I find them preferable. In a novel, I am of the firm belief that you should write chapters in a similar way you write short stories. But I am picky.

Aaron.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I dunno, I believe that if you are good enough writer, and you master dialogue, description, and how to tell a story, you can get whole epics into 1 book.

Case in point: if Robert E. Howard was Robert Jordan's ghost writer, the entire story of Wheel of Time could fit into one one-thousand paged book.

Absolutely. But I find very few writers are that good, consistently enough to put together a good collection of short stories. And for a long time, it was a dying art form in the science fiction and fantasy genres. Every author out there wanted to write a 1000 page opus in three parts, and that's what got published.

Hopefully the internet and the return of some fiction oriented magazines will help reverse the trend. Look at most of the authors mentioned in this thread, and see how much of the stuff was printed years or decades ago.

Part of the problem is that I read all the Asimov, Bradbury, Burroughs, Lovecraft, etc, 20 years ago or more. If there's current stuff out there of that caliber, I'd be happy to read it.

 

[your father is]

^I was just reading G.W. Thomas' editorial in CyberPulp Magazine #2 and think he makes a good point about plot and the lack of it in many modern genre shorts. He says:

EDITORIAL: THE THING IS THE PLOT By G. W. Thomas

I'VE been spending the summer getting back into the writer groove. This means pouring over guidelines, reading sample copies, coming up with ideas for stories and articles. In all the fiction magazine guidelines there is a phrase that stands out above the rest: "We want character-driven stories."

My understanding of that phrase is a story that is constructed on a character's personality or innate qualities. My experience tells me that these stories are often soft on plot and examine the character's feelings and reactions to a situation. My taste (the most subjective of all) tells me these stories are hard to get into and often dull, featuring very little action, few ideas and no monsters.

I grew up on pulp fiction and the descendents of pulp fiction (writers who learned from pulp writers, someone like Robert Silverberg for example.) I like a good plot. I like fascinating ideas. I like characters too but I'm not there to learn every little detail of their past. To me this is the literary equivalent of getting cornered at a party by an obnoxious person who tells you their life story.) My favorite characters in thirty years of reading have been Tarzan, John Carter, Conan, Kull, Perry Mason, Sherlock Holmes, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, The Sacketts, Phillip Marlow, Doc Savage and host of others. These are all plot-oriented characters. I am also fond of the science fictional heroes of Edmond Hamilton, Lovecraftian investigators who end up as sludge, and the clock-ticking suspense of Cornell Woolrich. Classics, but plot classics as are most good Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror stories.

So it can be a little disconcerting when everybody is looking for "character-driven stories". I know as an editor this is not a phrase I use in my guidelines. I have always been on the look out for 'storytellers'. (People like David Bain, C. J. Burch, Stephen D. Rogers, Mark Orr and Jack Mackenzie to name a few.) This magazine is another place to find plot stories. Our characters aren't the cardboard cut-outs of the hero pulps. But they do have a job to do. Get on with the story!

Now I could be a lone wolf howling on this subject but I don't think so. Writers talk to each other and many storytellers have found the same thing I have. Magazine fiction today is not plot-oriented. But take heart. The super-popularity of the Harry Potter series shows kids like plots. (The fact that the publishing industry was floored by the sudden rise of J. K. Rowling just shows how out of touch they are.) Those kids, growing up on the stories of Harry and Ron and Hermione, as well as the good hobbits of J. R. R. Tolkien, will create a new audience of plot-hungry readers.

As the Immortal Bard says: "The plot is the thing!" Long live the plot!

I like literary stuff, and I like character, but I do think plot is too often overlooked in what is, after all, work intended to entertain.

 

[takyris]

Part of the problem is that I read all the Asimov, Bradbury, Burroughs, Lovecraft, etc, 20 years ago or more. If there's current stuff out there of that caliber, I'd be happy to read it.

I don't know how old you are, so I don't know what 20 years ago means to you, but I'd suspect that at least some of tht is rose-tinting. I had the misfortune to come upon some of the folks you just named as an adult with his critical reading skills fully developed, and I wasn't impressed. Not everyone you just mentioned, of course, but at least two of 'em -- some stuff that was dated in terms of feel, some stuff that was overly simplistic, and some stuff that would have impressed the heck out of me if I hadn't already seen it on Star Trek, Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, Farscape, and possible Andromeda (which is not to say it was done badly -- just that, even though it was done first historically by that writer, I'd seen it first other places, so it wasn't as neat a surprise for me). I wish I'd read them as a teenager instead.

Not a knock on you personally -- one of the great things about the old-time authors is that they were focused on entertaining people, which, as "your father is" noted, has in some markets fallen by the wayside in favor of trying to impress the reader with how smart the writer is or how incredibly literary they can be. So I heartily endorse the old writers' sensibility of "make your story something that somebody coming home after a long day's work will want to pick up and read for fun".

 

[ragboy]

^I was just reading G.W. Thomas' editorial in CyberPulp Magazine #2 and think he makes a good point about plot and the lack of it in many modern genre shorts. He says:



I like literary stuff, and I like character, but I do think plot is too often overlooked in what is, after all, work intended to entertain.

I call this 'New Yorker' fiction. It's written by a New Yorker about a New Yorker (usually whining about how his wife doesn't care about him and his novel's in the dumps while they're on vacation on Long Island -- Who the hell goes on vacation in their OWN CITY?) and then it's published in the New Yorker. Bleh!

Give me a two-fisted Lester Dent-style tale any day.

And some of the best, well-balanced between character/plot, stories I've ever read were from the pages of Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine, Asimov, Year's Best Science Fiction, Year's Best Fantasy...etc...

I prefer King's short fiction, as well. PKD's long fiction, for some reason. I never could get into his short form. Tony Daniel is one of the best short SF authors I've read. Michael Swanwick is a master of the short. Neal Barrett, Jr. for some regional mystical realism. I've actually been away from short stories for a while. This thread sent me over to Amazon for a collection update.

Thanks!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't know how old you are, so I don't know what 20 years ago means to you, but I'd suspect that at least some of tht is rose-tinting.

Inevitably. But I'll stand 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' or 'I, Robot' against anything that's been done in the last 20 years in terms of vision and creativity. The only stuff that comes close is some the cyberpunk stuff of the late 80s (Gibson, Williams, Sterling). Asimov, especially, was absurdly prolific in a number of genres; some less than stellar work is unavoidable.

And it's hardly fair to criticize those guys because dozens of hacks have stood on their shoulders, or because they seem 'dated'. Burroughs wrote the Barsoom books less than a decade after man had learned to fly; Asimov and Bradbury wrote their best stuff before we'd reached orbit.

The deluge of novelizations based on hot, marketable properties has damaged the science fiction and fantasy genres. Fortunately it wasn't fatal -- the internet came along in time and allowed readers to find the books that were getting squeezed out of the bookstores.

 

[takyris]

Inevitably. But I'll stand 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' or 'I, Robot' against anything that's been done in the last 20 years in terms of vision and creativity. The only stuff that comes close is some the cyberpunk stuff of the late 80s (Gibson, Williams, Sterling). Asimov, especially, was absurdly prolific in a number of genres; some less than stellar work is unavoidable.

I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. If you write some brilliant stuff, your other work has to suffer by comparison. Inevitable, and sort of a sign of success in some ways.

And it's hardly fair to criticize those guys because dozens of hacks have stood on their shoulders, or because they seem 'dated'.

I disagree. I don't intend this as a slam on your faves, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. As a writer, it's my job to read the classics, learn from them, see what they did right, and incorporate that into my own work. As a reader, the only responsibility I have is to accurately judge whether I'm being entertained or not. I'm not criticizing them because dozens of hacks stood on their shoulders or because they "seem" dated. I'm criticizing them because they don't entertain me. That's it.

It's the ugly democracy of the fiction world. You might've written the most deep and meaningful book in the history of the English language, but if nobody can understand it, then you've failed.

I personally enjoy the pulp stuff from earlier years more than I enjoy the golden age stuff (unless, as is often the case, I'm mish-mashing genre-terms again). The pulp stuff doesn't take itself too seriously. A lot of Asimov does take itself too seriously, which would be fine, except that the concepts he's carefully explaining are no longer new to me. That means it is dated. If the Asimov stuff I've read had a ton of other stuff going for it, being dated in one area wouldn't be a huge problem -- but (and this is just from the Asimov stuff I've read -- I stopped reading for exactly this reason, and perhaps I missed stuff where it wasn't the case) without the cool factor of the new ideas, I thought that Asimov's work was by and large stilted and his characters were wooden. It reads as though he was trying so hard to separate himself from the pulp forms that he decided to remove any possible traces of fun or excitement from his prose.

That's not a complete slam, mind you. A good thriller can work well with wooden characters. A good mystery can work well with wooden characters. Heck, much good science fiction works well with wooden characters. But it doesn't meet my own personal needs.

That's what it all comes down to. People read based on their personal needs. I love good dialogue, lively and fleshed-out characters, and a fun, fast-moving plot. If a story's main selling point is its setting, it's not for me. If a story's main selling point is its science or its sense of wonder, it's not for me. People are free to have their own personal needs -- that's what makes a market.

Publishers are not evil folks bent on destroying the rise of new ideas. Publishers print what they've seen people buy. I still see Asimov on the shelves, so there ares still people enjoying him. If more people agreed with you, he'd be on the shelves in larger quantities.

And one minor quibble: Hacks standing on shoulders? Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure there are some bad writers out there, but come on. Standing on someone's shoulders does not make one a hack. Shakespeare and Chaucer stole ideas and wrote bawdy humor for the masses. Gilbert & Sullivan were writing their day's equivalent of smash hit comedy blockbusters.

Generally speaking, elitism is not a great idea. Getting elitist about somebody who wrapped a story around their artificial intelligence social theories is not going to help the discussion.

The deluge of novelizations based on hot, marketable properties has damaged the science fiction and fantasy genres. Fortunately it wasn't fatal -- the internet came along in time and allowed readers to find the books that were getting squeezed out of the bookstores.

I deeply respect the contributions that the folks you mentioned made to the field I read and write in.

I also respect the contribution that the Wright Brothers made to the field of technology, but if I want to fly from San Francisco to Baltimore, I don't hop in the Wright Flyer.

If they're still worth reading for fresh readers, that's great. I can tell you from my personal experience that they weren't for me. Doesn't mean they didn't do what they tried to do. Just means that what they tried to do does not today include me as the target audience -- at least, not when I come home after a long day at work and want to read something for entertainment.

And if they are entertaining for some people, that's great. I'm not arguing against them being entertaining for some people. I'm arguing against your argument that nothing can possibly compare with what those folks did. 'Cause, well, by standards other than "Does Rodrigo like it a bunch?", I don't buy it.