Is the short story not as prestigous as the novel?

[mortalterror]

Unlikely. I'm sure it is theoretically possible that a comic book could transcend to the level of literature, but I have not witnessed it personally. Even Sandman, thrilling as it was, owed more to its artwork than prose. Feel free, anyone, to prove me wrong. If such a work exists I would love to read it for novelty sake, if nothing else.

The Walking Dead has really good writing as evidenced by it's wild popularity and adaptation on AMC. Preacher is even better and is getting an adaptation in either late 2015 or 2016. Fables had a television adaptation in the works and got bounced around from NBC to ABC but it looks dead in the water; so it will be a while before the masses hear about this one.

People said there would never be a good comic book movie and then Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight, Joss Whedon made Avengers, Sam Mendes made Road to Perdition, and David Cronenberg made A History of Violence. Comic books are just a medium like any other that require a good serious artist to bring out their potential. There's a reason why so many Alan Moore graphic novels have been turned into films like Watchmen. The man knows how to write. Then there's all that Indy stuff that's a little more artsy and gets some hipster cred like Maus, Persepolis, Ghost World, Epileptic, Palestine, etc. They tend to be more serious, lack action, are more naturalistic, and are about regular people, but I don't think they are actually any better. They are just giving people what they already expect from their art. There is a very prudish streak running through our culture that thinks art shouldn't ever be fun.

[easy75]

That's a matter of opinion. I can name a half-dozen short stories by W S Maugham as well as all of his novels; the same goes for Guy de Maupassant.
As I have written above, some of the best short stories are as original as their authors' novels but they don't have sufficient content to allow for the same development as a novel because they are intended to encapsulate a theme within a limited number of pages.

Emil, I was only speaking to the question raised by the OP : Possibilities why the short story isn't as widely esteemed as the novel.
Personally I love short stories, but against the novel they have an uphill battle. From a publishing standpoint, shorts are published either in a collection from one author, or in an anthology from a number of sources. Right from the beginning any individual story has to fight it's way out of the barrel and resonate with the reader. The short story is born in relative obscurity. The publisher, especially in an anthology does not promote any individual story by title. Maybe a selection of authors are mentioned. My point is that it is harder for a short story to win the same acclaim as a novel because of this and also because it just isn't perceived as requiring the same amount of time and effort.
It's like comparing appetizers to main courses. I mean, I love mozzarella sticks, but if I'm really hungry and it comes down to those sticks or a nice juicy medium rib eye steak....... sorry mozzarella.

[JCamilo]

Mortal:

The question is rethorical, but sort like, since I always had a liking for Teseus, Creta, Ariadne stories and Pygmallion those are the Metamorphosis stories that I recall best. As Decameron, the one I usually enjoy (at work, not going to google) is about the widow that is mourning her husband in the graveyard and finds a new lover. But often, because I think i found this story in several different places. (The same goes with Canterbury, I recall more one about the brothers (or friends) that kill themselves after meeting the devil and one arturian old version of sir gwaine marriage that others, because i find their versions scattered around).

Anyways, about Comic Books, just like cinema, they aren't just literature and certainly many are good as the best literature, musical, drama, movie, paintings, etc. You mentioned some, but even those comic strips have great work (Calvin, Peanuts, Spirit for example) and the influence on movies is quite old, Alex Raymond is influential to science fiction/horror, perhaps more than guys like Asimov or Clarke. But Avengers is not such good movie. It is popcorn. When it is dropped on the ground, very few will bother to bow down to get it. The second Batman yes, very good movie. But still, the best movie from comic books is Richard Donner Superman. It is no wonder, the two best comic book super heroes (and that have the best writers eventually albeit most of time crap) are those who provided the best adaptation. The original source for Batman and Superman is good. (But it will not be enough for the new movie).

[Emil Miller]

Emil, I was only speaking to the question raised by the OP : Possibilities why the short story isn't as widely esteemed as the novel.
Personally I love short stories, but against the novel they have an uphill battle. From a publishing standpoint, shorts are published either in a collection from one author, or in an anthology from a number of sources. Right from the beginning any individual story has to fight it's way out of the barrel and resonate with the reader. The short story is born in relative obscurity. The publisher, especially in an anthology does not promote any individual story by title. Maybe a selection of authors are mentioned. My point is that it is harder for a short story to win the same acclaim as a novel because of this and also because it just isn't perceived as requiring the same amount of time and effort.
It's like comparing appetizers to main courses. I mean, I love mozzarella sticks, but if I'm really hungry and it comes down to those sticks or a nice juicy medium rib eye steak....... sorry mozzarella.

You are right that an individual short story cannot be judged within the same context as a novel and is most likely to be published as part of a collection. However, in cases where the originality of the story is outstanding, it will resonate to a similar degree as a novel.
In the case of the two authors I have mentioned, W S Maugham's short story 'Rain' has been filmed a number of times because it is striking in its portrayal of the weakness and hypocrisy that are part of human nature.
Similarly, Maupassant's short story 'Boule de Suif' has been adapted for the theatre and cinema for much the same reasons.
Both writers produced novels of exceptional quality but were also capable of creating stories that, though smaller in scale, are equally telling in their impact.

[easy75]

You are right that an individual short story cannot be judged within the same context as a novel and is most likely to be published as part of a collection. However, in cases where the originality of the story is outstanding, it will resonate to a similar degree as a novel.
In the case of the two authors I have mentioned, W S Maugham's short story 'Rain' has been filmed a number of times because it is striking in its portrayal of the weakness and hypocrisy that are part of human nature.
Similarly, Maupassant's short story 'Boule de Suif' has been adapted for the theatre and cinema for much the same reasons.
Both writers produced novels of exceptional quality but were also capable of creating stories that, though smaller in scale, are equally telling in their impact.

The connection to film is a good point, and a good measure of a story's resonance, impact, etc. Now that you mention it, I can think of several films that are adapted from short stories. Another way to judge resonance might be literary pop culture references. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but what I am thinking of are things like the Looney Tunes caricatures of George and Lennie from Of Mice And Men. Or the phrase "Catch 22", or "All that glitters is not gold".
If short stories could (or have) left a lasting impression like those on the cultural mainstream, maybe someone could view them with the same significance as the long novel. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it might be fun to see if there are any out there.

[Emil Miller]

The connection to film is a good point, and a good measure of a story's resonance, impact, etc. Now that you mention it, I can think of several films that are adapted from short stories. Another way to judge resonance might be literary pop culture references. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but what I am thinking of are things like the Looney Tunes caricatures of George and Lennie from Of Mice And Men. Or the phrase "Catch 22", or "All that glitters is not gold".
If short stories could (or have) left a lasting impression like those on the cultural mainstream, maybe someone could view them with the same significance as the long novel. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it might be fun to see if there are any out there.

I tend to the view that pop and culture are mutually exclusive. Consider the genre of the novella for example: this form of the long short story or short novel is probably best exemplified in The Great Gatsby in which the author offers the reader a multiplicity of thematic material in less than 150 pp., all encompassed in writing of the highest quality which once again proves that, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, the novel doesn't have to be the first port of call for a reader.

[easy75]

I tend to the view that pop and culture are mutually exclusive. Consider the genre of the novella for example: this form of the long short story or short novel is probably best exemplified in The Great Gatsby in which the author offers the reader a multiplicity of thematic material in less than 150 pp., all encompassed in writing of the highest quality which once again proves that, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, the novel doesn't have to be the first port of call for a reader.

Well played old sport!

Lol, I couldn't resist.

[Emil Miller]

Well played old sport!

Lol, I couldn't resist.

Touché

[mortalterror]

Mortal:

The question is rethorical, but sort like, since I always had a liking for Teseus, Creta, Ariadne stories and Pygmallion those are the Metamorphosis stories that I recall best. As Decameron, the one I usually enjoy (at work, not going to google) is about the widow that is mourning her husband in the graveyard and finds a new lover. But often, because I think i found this story in several different places. (The same goes with Canterbury, I recall more one about the brothers (or friends) that kill themselves after meeting the devil and one arturian old version of sir gwaine marriage that others, because i find their versions scattered around).

Then they put the corpse of her husband up on the cross. That's one of my favorites too.

Anyways, about Comic Books, just like cinema, they aren't just literature and certainly many are good as the best literature, musical, drama, movie, paintings, etc. You mentioned some, but even those comic strips have great work (Calvin, Peanuts, Spirit for example) and the influence on movies is quite old, Alex Raymond is influential to science fiction/horror, perhaps more than guys like Asimov or Clarke.

Oh sure, comic strips go way back. I often see "Little Nemo" which ran from 1905-1914 cited as an example of an early exemplar of the medium. It's got some pretty nice art, though I've never read the text bubbles to learn the story. Then there's "God's Man" a novel in woodcuts which was published in 1929. That's the modern origins, though I suspect we've had cartoons and caricatures as long as we've had publishing. There were numerous popular chapbooks, woodcuts, broadsides, and pamphlets written for the common people in the Renaissance and late middle ages. Manga in Japan is said to go back to the 12th century, although the modern form dates from after the second world war.

But Avengers is not such good movie. It is popcorn. When it is dropped on the ground, very few will bother to bow down to get it.

It's not a great film, but it is a good one. We shouldn't sneer or turn up our noses just because something is a popcorn movie. There are good popcorn movies and bad popcorn movies. Action movies like Die Hard, The Fugitive, or The Terminator aren't just good action movies, they are good movies period. Not every artistic creation should be about an old married couple coping with Alzheimer's and death. There's space for both, and too often action movies, horror, sci-fi, and comedy get the short end of the critical stick. Right now, one of my favorite authors is George R.R. Martin for his fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire, known to most people by it's television adaptation Game of Thrones. Good writing is just good writing, even if it's about dragons, zombies, and medieval warfare. Art doesn't need to be bloodless, anemic, or cerebral to be good. I can't stand those Jane Austen books which are all about negotiating marriages and elaborate courtship rituals in parlours and dining rooms. The Iliad has parts in it where people throw severed heads at each other and hold off armies from the deck of a burning battleship. I could do with more of the latter.

The second Batman yes, very good movie. But still, the best movie from comic books is Richard Donner Superman. It is no wonder, the two best comic book super heroes (and that have the best writers eventually albeit most of time crap) are those who provided the best adaptation. The original source for Batman and Superman is good. (But it will not be enough for the new movie).

You're right. I don't have a lot of confidence in Zack Snyder. He's got a great grasp of the visual part of the medium (300, Watchmen), but I have my reservations about his narrative judgment after Man of Steel and Sucker Punch. Henry Cavill is probably the worst actor cast as Superman yet and I don't think that Ben Afleck can pull off Batman as well as Christian Bale or Michael Keaton did. Batman vs Superman could be as big a bomb as Affleck's 2003 version of Daredevil.

[Dreamwoven]

The connection to film is a good point, and a good measure of a story's resonance, impact, etc. Now that you mention it, I can think of several films that are adapted from short stories. Another way to judge resonance might be literary pop culture references. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but what I am thinking of are things like the Looney Tunes caricatures of George and Lennie from Of Mice And Men. Or the phrase "Catch 22", or "All that glitters is not gold".
If short stories could (or have) left a lasting impression like those on the cultural mainstream, maybe someone could view them with the same significance as the long novel. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it might be fun to see if there are any out there.

Many famous authors put together short stories in the form of published collections. The short stories my or may not have been published previously, perhaps the author judged them unsuitable for a novel length publication. But once authors gain reputation their short stories gain popularity and such collections suddenly become sought after. Sometimes published by the company after the author has died.

[mortalterror]

I tend to the view that pop and culture are mutually exclusive. Consider the genre of the novella for example: this form of the long short story or short novel is probably best exemplified in The Great Gatsby in which the author offers the reader a multiplicity of thematic material in less than 150 pp., all encompassed in writing of the highest quality which once again proves that, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, the novel doesn't have to be the first port of call for a reader.

*Pulls my copy of Gatsby off the shelf* 182 pages. Novels: 40,0000+ words, Novellas: 17,500-40,000 words, Short Stories: -17,500 words. Gatsby is 47,094 words, a short novel, but a novel.

Great Short Stories:
All Summer in a Day by Ray Bradbury,
The Bad Glazier by Charles Baudelaire,
Ball of Fat by Guy De Maupassant,
To Build a Fire by Jack London,
The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allen Poe,
Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor,
The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry,
A Hanging by George Orwell,
The Hellscreen by Ryunosuke Akutagawa,
The Lottery by Shirley Jackson,
The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell,
The Secret Sharer by Joseph Conrad,
Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell,
The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber by Ernest Hemingway,
The Snows of Kilimanjaro by Ernest Hemingway,
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien,
A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Was by William Faulkner,
The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Great Novellas
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Heart of a Dog by Mikhael Bulgakov
Lenz by George Buchner
Miss Lonelyhearts by Nathanael West
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
The Bear by William Faulkner
Bartleby the Scrivener by Herman Melville
Death in Venice by Thomas Mann
The Dead by James Joyce
I am Legend by Richard Matheson
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
Seize the Day by Saul Bellow
The Stranger by Albert Camus
Lazarillo de Tormes by Anonymous
Candide by Voltaire
Jacques the Fatalist by Denis Diderot
True Story by Lucian
The True Story of Ah Q by Lu Xun
The Scarlet Letter by Nathanael Hawthorne
René by Chateaubriand

Great Novels
Satyricon
Moby Dick
Pere Goriot
Madame Bovary
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
The Three Musketeers
Les Miserables
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
The Call of the Wild
Journey to the End of the Night
Mrs. Dalloway
Steppenwolf
The Great Gatsby
For Whom the Bell Tolls
Of Human Bondage
Lolita
1984
The Dwarf
On the Road
The Catcher in the Rye
Slaughterhouse Five
Catch-22
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I'd favor the novella over the short story too.

[ennison]

They do different things. So you would use a different set of judgements. Munro has confined herself to the short story but that seems less confining than liberating in her case.

[JCamilo]

Then they put the corpse of her husband up on the cross. That's one of my favorites too.

Yes, this one.

It's not a great film, but it is a good one. We shouldn't sneer or turn up our noses just because something is a popcorn movie. There are good popcorn movies and bad popcorn movies. Action movies like Die Hard, The Fugitive, or The Terminator aren't just good action movies, they are good movies period. Not every artistic creation should be about an old married couple coping with Alzheimer's and death. There's space for both, and too often action movies, horror, sci-fi, and comedy get the short end of the critical stick.

But I do not sneer at popcorn. I do like everyone else. Grab with the hand more than I can put inside my mouth, so some will always be dropped. And like most people I will rather grab with my hand from the bowl more popcorn than bend down to get those 2 lost in the ground or behind the cushions. Those are popcorn movies for me, enjoyable but not worth the effort because there is more to come. Be it the adventure movies or "movies to have Mery Strepp be nominated an Oscar", "Tarantino jerking off", Star Wars, etc. Those Avengers movie (since they found the formula, they will do it often) will be probally forgotten when the new Avengers movie reboot happens in 10 years. A thousand reboots will not erase the second Nolan's Batman, because that was more than popcorn. It is even better than sliced pizza.

Right now, one of my favorite authors is George R.R. Martin for his fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire, known to most people by it's television adaptation Game of Thrones. Good writing is just good writing, even if it's about dragons, zombies, and medieval warfare. Art doesn't need to be bloodless, anemic, or cerebral to be good. I can't stand those Jane Austen books which are all about negotiating marriages and elaborate courtship rituals in parlours and dining rooms. The Iliad has parts in it where people throw severed heads at each other and hold off armies from the deck of a burning battleship. I could do with more of the latter.

Well, the theme is often inferior to the execution. I feel no desire to read Martin, for once, lately I have little or not patience for huge books. I got old probally. I have no problem with bloodfeuds. Shakespeare has it, Homer has it, Ariosto has it, Volsunga Saga is admirable macho man display - even by the woman - with macho talks (things like "drink the poison and let the moustache filter it" at some point), Rolando is a senseless battle story. Also the serie is so bland that it does not make me curious to know anything about story better. I do not mind zombies, witches, dragons, etc. Except zombies which is a more modern thing, those monsters and all are more accepted in classical literature than not, the blame is probally the XIX century realism that turned all those things in faery tales.

You're right. I don't have a lot of confidence in Zack Snyder. He's got a great grasp of the visual part of the medium (300, Watchmen), but I have my reservations about his narrative judgment after Man of Steel and Sucker Punch. Henry Cavill is probably the worst actor cast as Superman yet and I don't think that Ben Afleck can pull off Batman as well as Christian Bale or Michael Keaton did. Batman vs Superman could be as big a bomb as Affleck's 2003 version of Daredevil.

I think Keaton was an awful batman (and I do not swallow that part about him being Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne had no part in either movie - the normal versions of the villains - Jack Naiper or Selina Kyle - had more story and time than Bruce Wayne) but Zack Snyder will win. He is a Comic Book fan and because of that his movies looked like a Comic Book, not a movie. I had the feeling I was seeing a very expensive storyboard in Watchman.

[Ecurb]

I vaguely remember that many 19th century English poets obsessed about writing "major works", by which they meant long poems. I'm not sure, however, that their long poems are now considered any more "major" than their short poems. Maybe they are, and I'm simply expressing my own prejudice in favor of the shorter poems.

From the writers' perspective, of course a long poem is more "major" -- it takes more effort to write it. Also, fashions in literature change. It seems to me (again, vaguely) that the 19th century poets thought long poems "major" because of Homer, Dante, Milton, etc. They aspired to equal the great works of the past. Nonetheless, their shorter poems were often their best (I think).

The novel has been "in fashion" over the past one and a half centuries not only in comparison to short stories, but in comparison to histories, biographies, essays and other forms of literature. While in Jane Austen's day, novels were considered frivolous entertainments compared to poetry or histories or essays, today they are considered to be a bedrock of literature.

Perhaps this is partly due to economic realities: it might be easier to sell a novel than a collection of short stories. When we think of films, for example, most of them are between 1.5 and 3 hours long. I assume there's no specifically artistic reason a 1/2 hour film or a 1 hour film couldn't be as "good" (as stimulating and moving) as a longer movie -- but the public wants to buy what it's used to buying, and would doubtless feel ripped off if paying full price for a 1/2 hour movie.

[Emil Miller]

*Pulls my copy of Gatsby off the shelf* 182 pages.

Leaving out the lengthy introduction, my copy of Gatsby in the Oxford World's Classics edition finishes on page 144. The last sentence being:

'So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.'