Short stories are an outdated form

[APEist]

Oh, please, short stories are far easier to write. The majority of people have a much harder time trying to expand their ideas into long-windedness than they do being for precise about them. How many novels have you written versus how many short stories have you written, if you're a writer? Writing a novel is truly a grand investment, not just of time, but of will and skill to write so much about so little.

Short stories are dead as an artiscally relevent money-making medium.

I agree completely with Watershed's posts on this topic.

The only reason I love short stories is because, as Watershed put it, I'm a novice writer trying to portray ability. Short stories are great for that, and are really the best medium when attempting to squeeze into the world of professional writing. Because of their brevity, an entire board of teachers/critics can read through one a time or two and then offer you their critique, which is probably the best way to improve as a writer.

But as far as a money-making entertainment medium, shorts are dead.

[PeterL]

But as far as a money-making entertainment medium, shorts are dead.

Short stories have never been a money-making form, at least not for writers.

[spookymulder93]

You could probably find a lot of short stories on the internet now. People have their own blogs where they could write stories for their members to check out. How many of them are actually good is another story.

[blazeofglory]

In fact short stories are not read the way they used to be just a decade or so and now people of have many choices and few people turn to short stories and yet we have a passion for writing

[kelby_lake]

I've read a lot of great short stories and see how powerful the medium can be, but then again I've also read a lot of bad ones that make me realize how much the medium is flooded with crap.

I feel that in today's day and age, there simply is not room for the short story. Short stories served a big purpose before the development of television and movies, being an entertainment form that provided a complete story or idea in a short investment of time. However, now that we have television and movies, we can get our entertainment in the short term from other sources, and the short story with a relative inconsistency of quality and accesibility from one to the other, looses its appeal. Who still keeps up with modern short stories? Where do you find them, and of them, how many of them are really worthwhile?

See, the problem with short stories is twofold. The first is that they are easy to write, so any not so decent writer can write a glut of them and fill the marketplace with them. The second is that due to the brevity of the medium, many stories that are written well with good ideas end up being under-developed anyway. Since, there's so many short stories and they get read so quickly, it's kind of hard to really become enthralled with it as a medium, especially considering the inconsistency of quality. Great ones are hard to come by, because they really need to feel as though they totally fit within their length. There's many to be found within the anals of literature, because they were preserved, and the other ones tend to fade.

I still see the value in reading the classic short stories, but nowadays shorts just seem relagated to writing students flexing their skills and to authors that want to have a whole bunch of movie pitches. Hahaha. No, I'm kidding, but what I mean is that you don't see authors doing it much at all anymore. Stephen King did some back in the 80s or whatever, but looking at the form, it seems to be dead commercially. Gone are the classic short story magazine and instead are websites brimming with mediocre stories upon mediocre stories that must be sifted through to find the gold, a sifting that's not worth it.

It's a dead medium outside of short story communities within academia, and unless we have some source of really GREAT contemporary shorts, it's going to stay dead, because TV and movies are simply better and easier to access nowadays.

Maybe you should look in the annals of literature then

[spookymulder93]

literature's anus.

Laugh out Loud.

[Evaril]

Oh, please, short stories are much harder to write than novels, because they aren't long enough for the author too have room for mistakes. Short stories are thriving artistically. If you haven't read any good ones recently, that means that you haven't happened upon any.

I disagree. A good novel is much harder, not only more time-consuming, to write than an equally good short story. To write a novel as subtle, as symbolic, as carefully-worded as a good short story, like Madame Bovary, requires much more dedication, thought, note-taking, and memory work, to name a few.

[dafydd manton]

From personal experience, I can write 1000 - 2000 words, with few major problems, but I couldn't write a full length novel, because I don't know how to develop characters, themes or situations, and I wouldn't have a clue how to formulate a sub-plot. On that and that alone, limited though it may well be, I'd say that the short stuff is easier to write, although not as much in demand.

[LMK]

I do remember the last time I read a short story in a magazine, although, I don't read many magazines anymore. The story was good, though not my taste (a bit to syrupy for me).

I enjoy reading short stories and find them, by far, more difficult to write than longer works.

[JCamilo]

That because you are limiting short stories to something that is "shorter than a novel". Some can fill pages with non-sense, because a good deal of writting a good novel is not adding what is unecessary. Length just do not define quality.

Obviously, the physical effort is minor, but to write a good short story you need considerable effort. The same way a painting shows only a frame of a scene and a movie the entire sequence, a short story is to what a novel. And of course, the painter will have a lot of work to select which elements they will add, which will be used to cause more impact. It is very difficulty to do it with quality(And notions of undervelopment of characters is not even sustained by a genre which had Chekhov and Poe).

Short narratives are among the oldest form of literature, they are there together with epic poetry, in form such as fables, parables, etc. Most novel forms developed from the linking of short narratives. They are not going to fade because so far they survived every change in society and technology.

And Frankly, you are ignoring the simple history: Its the Novel that is constantly "dying", challenged by Joyce and by Borges. Short Stories found after the romance their path to aesthetic integrity and right now, everything indicates the attention spam is shorter, the reading of long lengths diminished, the of inovation of novels minimal. It is not short stories who are facing a greater difficulty.

[Alexander III]

I've read a lot of great novels and see how powerful the medium can be, but then again I've also read a lot of bad ones that make me realize how much the medium is flooded with crap.

I feel that in today's day and age, there simply is not room for the novel. Novels served a big purpose before the development of television and movies, being an entertainment form that provided a complete story or idea in a relatively short investment of time. However, now that we have television and movies, we can get our entertainment in the short term from other sources, and the novel with a relative inconsistency of quality and accesibility from one to the other, looses its appeal. Who still keeps up with modern novels? Where do you find decent ones, and of them, how many of them are really worthwhile?

See, the problem with novels is twofold. The first is that they are easy to write, compared to verse, so any not so decent writer can write a glut of them and fill the marketplace with them. The second is that due to the brevity or longity of the medium, many novels that are written well with good ideas end up being under-developed anyway, or many good novels are far to over-devloped ruining them. Since, there's so many novels and they get read so quickly, it's kind of hard to really become enthralled with it as a medium, especially considering the inconsistency of quality. Great ones are hard to come by, because they really need to feel as though they offer the same artistic sensibility as verse. There's many to be found within the anals of literature, because they were preserved, and the other ones tend to fade.

I still see the value in reading the classic novels, but nowadays they just seem relagated to writing students flexing their skills and to authors that want to have a whole bunch of movie pitches. Hahaha. No, I'm kidding, but what I mean is that you don't see authors doing it much at all anymore, though of course in the previous stanza I said there were to many, but...um...yea....Gone are the classic novel magazines and instead are websites brimming with mediocre novels upon mediocre novels that must be sifted through to find the gold, a sifting that's not worth it.

It's a dead medium outside of novel communities within academia, and unless we have some source of really GREAT contemporary novels, it's going to stay dead, because TV and movies are simply better and easier to access nowadays.

[spookymulder93]

I've read a lot of great novels and see how powerful the medium can be, but then again I've also read a lot of bad ones that make me realize how much the medium is flooded with crap.

I feel that in today's day and age, there simply is not room for the novel. Novels served a big purpose before the development of television and movies, being an entertainment form that provided a complete story or idea in a relatively short investment of time. However, now that we have television and movies, we can get our entertainment in the short term from other sources, and the novel with a relative inconsistency of quality and accesibility from one to the other, looses its appeal. Who still keeps up with modern novels? Where do you find decent ones, and of them, how many of them are really worthwhile?

It's a dead medium outside of novel communities within academia, and unless we have some source of really GREAT contemporary novels, it's going to stay dead, because TV and movies are simply better and easier to access nowadays.

I kind of agree with that. I mean tv gets a lot of hate but there are some good shows out there.

A lot of the tv shows I watch got me into reading the classics.

Who's to say that television can't become what the novel was back in the days of the classics. A lot of tv shows and movies borrow themes from the classics and update them so they can appeal to a modern audience. I think if modern writers could do something like that the literature of today would be better too. I mean some of the classics while they may be good would bore the crap out of the average teenager today because they wouldn't be able to relate to that time period. Obviously this isn't true for everyone I'm just saying for the average person.

[MaineTim]

It's a dead medium outside of novel communities within academia, and unless we have some source of really GREAT contemporary novels, it's going to stay dead, because TV and movies are simply better and easier to access nowadays.

For the record, I don't agree with your assertions that long-form fiction is dead, or that there is a dearth of good, recently-written fiction. I seem to find more than I can consume each year, but it does require a little effort, and in large part you won't find it on the best seller lists. But what I'm after here is a clarification: in what way are TV and movies "better"? More accessible, sure, I can see that. But "better"?

Mind you, I love movies, but I don't see them as a superior (or inferior) medium. I don't do much TV, but my gut feeling is that the signal-to-noise ratios for all three media are very similar: a high proportion of dreck in each, but enough "good stuff" to keep this consumer occupied.

[PopCultmagUK]

They say the cream rises to the top, but then so does pond scum... So yes, there is a mixture of good and bad stories out there. Or maybe it is down to individual taste and what one person likes another hates?

With the development of eReaders, phone apps and other technological delights, I think we are about to see the return to a 'golden age' for short stories.

Incidentally, I thought I'd chip in with some short story writers of my own that I admire and enjoy.

O'Henry, Terry Southern, Will Self and Kurt Vonnegut (but his novels are much, much better). I'm rather fond of Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn's Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, which still ring true today and never fail to make me laugh out loud, essentially these are books, but each chapter is its own contained short story. Wonderful stuff.

[The Comedian]

With the development of eReaders, phone apps and other technological delights, I think we are about to see the return to a 'golden age' for short stories.

That's an interesting idea. Why do you think so?