Jump to content

Talk:Short story/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

history section is WRONG

Reference to Poe's "Philosophy" is misleading as the initial appearance of the idea of Unity of Effect. Poe actually wrote it several years earlier (1842) in his review of Hawthorne's Twice Told Tales.

really, really short stories

Is there an article on even shorter stories ? (other than haiku)

the 100 Words project "All daily entries must be 100 words in length. Not "approximately" or "almost"--but exactly 100 words. Proust noted that poets often create their finest work under the tyranny of rhyme. So it goes with 100 Words." http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/000073.html http://100words.net/

stories that are exactly some power of 2 in length -- 2 words (!), 4 words, 8 words, 16 words ... the 256 word story being the most common http://www.storybytes.com/info.html

Micro Fiction, in which each story was no more than 250 words. The World's Shortest Stories, limiting each story to exactly 55 words. http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Andy/Nanofiction.html


Quick Fiction is a literary journal, founded in 2001, featuring stories and narrative prose poems under 500 words. http://quickfiction.org/


I vaguely remember some short of short literary form of some exact number of words (I forget exactly) that was supposed to be a hobbit hobby ...

What about the phrase "short short story"? e.g. http://www.writing-world.com/fiction/shorts.shtml, http://www.shortshortshort.com, and quite a few books with this in the title... There is a wikipedia stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_short_story

Examples

Why was Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu" arbitrarily removed? What makes the current selections worthy and not that one? It's all subjective, but of course "The Call of Cthulhu" was discussed in university literature classes I attended, not just sci fi conventions. There's no reason to remove viable examples important to well-known genres.

Chekhov?

Pretty nice article thanks, though methinks it could be longer :). Just wondering if the omission of Chekhov was deliberate, and if so, why so? I'm no literararian so no idea which of his stories is the 'best' to put on here, but even the article on him (Anton Chekhov) here (wikipedia) hails him as the 'apotheosis' of the genre, so I'm figuring he should get a mention in the short list. I would do it myself, but, erm, I wasn't sure how to do the linking and suchlike. He should def be there though.

Short stories from blogs

Can wikipedia also sumarize the contents of short stories on Internet Blogs (it does sumarize Fan Comics,like "Grim tales from down bellow"). New Babylon

Famous short stories: Halo, by Bill Gates

Come, now, this can't be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.83.248 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More

I removed the paragraphs on Alfred's Chronicle and Bede's History as both of those works are historical and not fiction, and despite their status as early books of length they really have no place in this discussion.

Also a bit of the sentence on printing (do we need to know what Defoe did for the form without citing any examples? or other authors?) and tried to clean up a bit of the first section, regarding length. There are enough definitions on what constitutes a "short story" that 1-20,000 words should satisfy most everyone. More than 20,000 and you're looking at a novella.

I so sarded going through anything else. --Wangoed 01:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

I removed the link because by even Wiki's def., it is a novella- at over 28,000 words. I went to an online site, copied and pasted into word, and hit word count. Someone may want to cite it in novella entry.Iago Dali 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I also removed Billy Budd. I love Melville, but at ~23k it deserves to be in the novella section. Iago Dali 14:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat okay with this removal even though a case could be made for these being examples of longer short stories (I've never been a fan of the novella genre). Still, if you are taking them out please insert the info on the novella page. If you don't, I'll do it when I get a chance.--Alabamaboy 14:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add both titles under novella as adding links seems to be controversial these days. While I can go along with such nebulousness, Wiki itself seems to believe 20k is the ss limit, in numerous entries. Red Darwin 15:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Where do such rules come from anyway? Red Darwin 15:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As there seems to be some quandary over links-- both number and essense, would it be wise to institute an upper limit on those here. These seem reasonable, but should perhaps ten or twelve should be all that there is? Red Darwin 15:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Word Counts

The entries for novel, short story, novella, novellette, etc. all seem to conflict in regard to word count. I realize others may feel this gives credence to the conflict, but is there any source--pro or con--that can be cited, so that all these genres can at least be in Wiki accordance? If someone then disputes the Wiki claims at least they will not be able to point to internal confusion. Red Darwin 15:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The figures may overlap, but I think it just goes to show that the difference between a short story and a novella for example is more than simply word count. Emphasis on character development as opposed to story, or how it is written for example. Damien Shiest 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Title formatting of a short story

I believe I learned in school that a short story's title is placed within quotation marks, not italicized. Before I go through the trouble of making this consistent in this article, is there any objection or other rationale? Not to be draconian, but consistency is helpful and avoids confusion. SidP 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

confirmed at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Quotation_marks

Famous short stories

Previously, this article's lists of famous short stories were fairly disorganized. I've tried to improve this by combining notable famous stories into one list; I've included a link to each story's wikipedia article and a link to an online text version of each story. I've also alphabetized the list by author. What do the rest of you think of the content and the format of this list? Personally, I think we should try to keep the list fairly short. Also, I'm not 100% happy with the formatting I've come up with: a bulleted, linked list with links to (online text) in parentheses. Is there a prettier way to present this information?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the shor story

in a world where novel s arecosidered great literature one must ask if the short story still has a future ,if the old fables are just simply out dated and that the inventivness of big books has now shadowed the once noble short story.Novels shoud be considered when chossing something that will be used to teach hsstudents .As a writer I belive that iam considered a ant among giants [my colleagues].Since i started writing my story people have been increaseingily saying the short story is dead ,that an there no moneyin writing them.is this true[link title —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.152.227.226 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Famous short stories

This section seems entirely arbitrary - what criteria, if any, is being used to determine what should and should not be in this section? Proto::► 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is a sampling of famous short stories. If one opens different literary anthologies (world lit, sci-fi, and so on), these stories will be in them. There's is nothing NPOV about listing those stories which general scholarship has deemed worthy of being noted. To address your concern, I changed the head to "A selection of famous short stories." Unless you can state why this is NPOV, the tag should stay off.--Alabamaboy 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to back up this broad and sweeping assertion that it's these stories specifically, and not any others? Unless you can prove it's not NPOV by producing a reference, the section is suspect, surely? Proto::► 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence the word "selected," but if you prefer we could use the word "sampling." I can produce a reference showing that almost all of the stories on that list (except for a few obscure ones like the "The Mortal Immortal" by Mary Shelley, not sure who added that to the list) is reprinted in a literary anthology of note. The list doesn't pretend to be the end all and be all of important literary short stories; instead it is a "selection of famous short stories." Instead of labeling the entire section NPOV, say which stories either shouldn't be on this list or which stories should be added and state why. The article is not complete without providing a few samples of famous short stories. How is that NPOV? While it would be easy to grab a world literary anthology and list all the stories they list, I prefer the way this list has been developed--by editors here adding and subtracting stories until a consensus develops. But if you prefer the list to be from one anthology (or combined from several), let me know.--Alabamaboy 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Garfield and Friends

Why does the reference to the Garfield and Friends episode keep getting deleted? It's there for disambiguation purposes. Anthony Rupert 05:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason was explained in my edit summary.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I read that edit summary, but did you see my point? It's there for disambiguation purposes. If a user wants to create a new article but they do a search and then discover that the name they want to use is already in use, most users then usually use an otheruses template to disambiguate their new article from the other article with the same name. In short, if you think my point doesn't apply, then you must feel the same way about everything (and I mean everything) in the disambiguation category. Anthony Rupert 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but we all must use sound judgement when weighing the relative likelihood that a user would search for the obscure page you are trying to disambiguate. If the likelihood is extremely low, then the dab statement adds needless and distracting clutter to the page. I recommend you seek a third opinion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation makes articles less obscure, you know. And how is one good faith line at the top of an article considered clutter?
And when you say "sure", do you mean you don't see where I'm coming from, or you do see my point but you just don't agree? Anthony Rupert 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back.--Alabamaboy 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations!

This article is in desperate need of in-line citations. Most of this can be questionable, such as the history and origins of the short story. At one point, a name is mentioned as the first professor of dramatic literature which is too specific to not be cited. Frankly, this article can't be taken seriously without lots and lots of references.
As far as the list of famous stories, it really is arbitrary and it's hard for any Wikipedia editor to be a definitive authority on what should or should not be included. My suggestion would be to have a "See also" link to the Short Stories Category and leave it at that. More notable short stories are listed throughout the article and I'd be comfortable with that serving as "notable" examples. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated text

This article constantly repeats itself, most notably, the first paragraph of the article and the first paragraph of the 'length' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.106.21 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

False "Famous Short Story"

"Rugrats go to Stalingrad" by Draco Malfoy doesn't exist. Draco Malfoy is a character from the Harry Potter novels, and the title of the story is obviously ridiculous. Can someone delete this from the "Famous Short Stories" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.73.69 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gross Omission

How is it possible to have an article on the short story without any mention of Guy de Maupassant? Eliezg (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to the full text of Hemmingway's story "The Killers"

http://www.geocities.com/cyber_explorer99/hemingwaykillers.html

I tried to add it, but unfortunately XLinkBot reverted it, because it's a dumb robot.

- 38.97.106.165 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence at the end of the external links seems erroneous and unfounded, besides misplaced.

CaptainPellaeon1138 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried adding a few short story website external links such as editred.com , storiesville.com and storywar.com but they have been taken off. I notice that some are allowed to stay however.. shortbreadstories.com for example. Why is this? I think my suggestions are valid as they are all short story websites and may be of use to the aspiring author and/or peole interested in reading short stories.

217.64.116.101 (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Dylan 20th Jan 2009

WP:LINKSTOAVOID specifically says to avoid linking to "social networking sites [or] discussion forums/groups". If existing links also fail those criteria, they should also be removed. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?

Many short story writers define their work through a combination of creative, personal expression and artistic integrity.

I'm sorry, but that sentence is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.201.197 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Short stories are works of fiction

Short stories are not just works of fiction. There are plenty of short stories written by famous authors such as Toni Morrison, that are categorized as non fiction or creative non fiction. 75.21.80.93 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC) That is Cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.166.16 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Length

The short story, as a form in writing, is prose writing of less than 20,000 words (and usually more than 500 words) which may or may not have a narrative arc. If it is more than 20,000 words it is a novella or a novellete

[and then some more numbers]

Where are these numbers coming from? Who is the authority on how long a short story is? Surely "short story" is really a very vague term, and an attempt to codify its length is a bit artificial, isn't it? Furthermore, what do you call one if it's less than 500 words (some of Kafka's are that short)? I think I'll just rewrite the opening to this article if nobody else does - the only reason I bring it up here is because it's survived since at least last September, so I wondered if it might make more sense than it appeared to. --Camembert

In the Scifi/fantasy/horror field short story is normally defined as sub-7500. -Imran
The numbers are clearly presented as ballpark figures. Marketability has historically defined a short story. Old Weird Tales magazines advertised "Three Full Novels Within" when the texts only covered a total of fifty pages. Salinger's "Inverted forest" appeared in Better Homes and Gardens as a "novel" but it was only forty five pages long. And Lethem's book THIS STATE WE'RE IN published just this past year by McSweeney's Books was a fifty page hardcover that made no claim as to what kind of story it was, long or short. No body has ever seriously tried to define these terms. Kafka called his short short stories fables, sometimes sketches. Irving referred to Rip Van Winkel and all of the others in THE SKETCH BOOK as "sketches and tales". This is one of those cases where we all agree there should be an entry (The Short Story) but virtually anything you say about it would be an opinion, including there lenghth which defines it AS a short story as opposed to something else. --Trimalchio
Camembert, a story that has less than 500 words is a short short story. S.V.Taylor (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Short-short story

The short-short story article was created and mostly written by the now-apparently-inactive User:José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães, who extensively cited his own masters thesis. After discussion of how a masters thesis doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, the editor gave an ultimatum of a week for other editors to allow his thesis to be cited, before blanking the page (as well as his contributions to the short story and other articles) and apparently leaving the Wikipedia project.

I don't think the article's worth keeping as it is, as it appears to be Guimarães interpreting a few disparate mentions of the "short-short story" to imply a coherent genre, which (it seems) is never explicitly defined except by Guimarães. The article may be worth merging, though. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inactive, mate. I'm reading and watching your steps here. You were the one inactive for more than seven days since you did not see my ultimatum. Sorry. Why don't you read my whole thesis before making stupid assertions (kind of redundant my statement), instead of reading only my defense's speech and posting ridiculous comments on the poorest sites of the internet about my work? Don't debase yourself so much! I guess I already know you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of any other comments, I'll take "YOU BETTER DELETE THIS WHOLE THING OR YOU'RE GONNA BE IN TROUBLE." as "author requests deletion" and just redirect here. --McGeddon (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a devil to known a devil, which isnt found else where, but in their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.91.92 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I have to say the article SHORT STORY is VERY poor! Without references to the authors I must aver the responsibility for what is written is always on someone else who is supposed to hold power and authority - the prevailing, imposing and controling power over our society. Forever disgusting! Overall, the wikipedia project is a huge failure with quite incompetent and underqualified editors. User: José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães
  • A second attempt to post a good and decent article on the short-short story. Now all will depend on the likely interventions of the editors. If the interventions are proper, polite and decent, I may contribute with other articles; otherwise I'll be definitely out of the project. I want a peaceful dialogue but editors must not be so primary and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The problems with the article remain--you have a conflict of interest, and you are using your own research as sources for the article. Problem is, your thesis does not rise to the level of a reliable source. The Mose and Sanford sources look good, but the other do not appear to directly treat the subject of the short short story. Much of the article does not have sources. Without additional references that treat the article's subject directly and in detail, this article should be reduced to a short short article. My feeling is the redirect was a good idea, and my suggestion would be that you restore that, and work in what little of this article can be reliably sourced to the short story article. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree entirely. Sorry. What we see in the history of literature is that every genre has a trajectory in which a form develops as a deviation from an earlier one, reaches its peak of quality, and then is so repeated that it becomes overused and begets its successor. It has happened with the novel that in a certain way engendered the tale which engendered the short story which then, roughlly, gave birth to the short-short story. Obviously this is a very simple and brief explanation. There are other sources of influences. But that is what is happening, currently, to the short-short story which begot the flash fiction and the new sudden fiction, sub-categories, the latter, unfortunately, may end up as a miscarriage. If you merge the short-short story into the short story you will be drawing back, walking backwards, acting against the nature of Art and Literature. And it will be a huge step back since the flash fiction is already a settled genre as much as the short-short story. Let's walk forward! No drawing back, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples 2

Is Brokeback Mountain a short story? Haven't read it but it seemed quite a big book.

"Brokeback Mountain" is a short story from Annie Proulx's collection Close Range: Wyoming Stories. I don't remember exactly how long it was, but it certainly fits within the range of being a short story.--Olegkagan (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Americocentrism

Unfortunately, this article's history section is basically just a history of (Anglo-)American short story writing. (As one section above on this talk pages notes, there is no mention anywhere of Chekhov.) I have tagged it with {{global}} in the hopes that somebody qualified will see it and add to it. Srnec (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Science fiction genre

It's true that the Nebula Awards (and now Hugo awards too, i understand) define the short story by word-count less than 7500. There are parallel awards for novelettes, however, defined by word-count 7500 to 17,499. Because this article contrasts the short story with the novella (longer than 17,499 for purposes of the SF awards), some more explanation may be appropriate.

The Stub articles short story collection and novelette were not claimed by the short story task force (now I have added that parameter |short-story-task-force=yes). I don't recommend them; indeed, I do recommend that this article should be the target when "short story collection" is linked, and I regret using the other target in some infoboxen. --P64 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

Just a quick scan of the Overview section revealed lots of repetition and unreferenced observations out of place. I'm going to have a go at cleaning up this important article over the next little while. Thoughts and/or help, anyone?

Some good content here, too - just lots to do. --Chronotopian (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems faced is the tendency to try to list 'some practitioners': especially in the overview, this is just an arbitrary and impossible task. Even in the historical sections, it's difficult, though undoubtedly a necessary part of the article. I understand that students of particular authors will want to get their man/woman in there, and this will always be a contention with this article. Still, I think more other content and a better structure will make this kind of edit more obvious and less likely.

Pictures will help, too. I'm on it. --Chronotopian (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you can start major cleanup to article without discussing here and without valid reasons.If you think you have some concerns, first discuss that and reach the WP: consensus. Justice007 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My reason was stated in the edit summary: repetition. Looking at the deleted sentences, do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronotopian (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, looking at the edit history, there was a previous set of deletions that I thank is mostly appropriate (I was being conservative with mine!) that were reverted. My doctoral work is on short fiction, so I don't mind helping to improve the article. How long do I have to wait for consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronotopian (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to do with origin research, we need WP:reliable sources to verify and support the content.Discussion is under way, other editors will soon take part to give their opinion. We have to wait and not further edits till any consensus.Justice007 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Please specify where is redundant content, I have realy no time to go through.Lead is whole summary of the article that should not be consider as redundancy, if any other sections include same content, would you please indicate where?. You just summarised the version that I reverted to origin.Justice007 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Justice007 is right that we shouldn't be deleting repetition from the lead section, as the lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article and "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". The edit to the Overview section seemed a small and reasonable enough first step of cleanup, though, removing the unnecessary repetition about the short story's spoken-word ancestor being the anecdote. Being WP:BOLD is often the best way to improve Wikipedia - we don't need to discuss and agree on every edit before making it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see how it works. Thanks for your patience as I am new editing Wikipedia, as you can see no doubt. I didn't mention my doctoral research to imply I'd include original research, only to say that I consider myself a good judge of descriptive content that seems accurate. So, to specify in the lead:
1) There seems to be a contradiction between the claim that the short story is often narrative in form, and the counterclaim (loosely worded and unclear) that it deals with 'creation of the mood' rather than plot. Also, this writing would not be appropriate for encyclopedic content, eg. the ambiguity of the term 'mood'.
2) 'more pointed than other works of fiction' is unclear. Ditto 'novellas (in the 20th and 21st century sense)'. This would need to be clarified, or at least a link included to the wikipedia article for Novella - ?
3) 'Guidelines vary greatly among publishers' seems to be more a creative writer's approach to trying to get short fiction published, rather than the previous tone, that sees the short story as a literary-historical form. Plus there's a [3] that seems orphaned here.
4) 'Many short story writers define...' - reference? Plus this sentence is not clearly correct, or clearly worded. Who? And do they?
5) The final sentence of the lead doesn't seem to offer any summative value - it's only a repeat of what will come later. Surely the summary lead should offer a road-map for the rest of the article, a historical/cultural intro? Thanks! --Chronotopian (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the Overview section would more usefully be merged into the lead section, given that the lead itself is meant to provide just such an overview, so Chronotopian was definitely heading in the right direction here. I'd suggest merging the two to make a new lead section, dropping any resultant repetition within that lead, and moving some of the more specific sentences (Shirley Jackson's crate, and some of the lists of authors and books) into the relevant sections further down. Any objection to that? --McGeddon (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed me too, no objection, lets see progress and thinks for your assisting.Justice007 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the edits you just made, and what you describe sounds good. Apologies to both McGeddon, Justice007 and other editors here. When you're new here - and on many pages elsewhere - it's easy to think Wikipedia is a deserted landscape, but obviously you guys have done a lot to develop this page before I got here, and I'm looking forward to doing a bit more collaborative editing.
I might also raise a point about the first sentence of the overview (unsupported): 'Short stories tend to be less complex than novels'. I think this is might be easily contended against by most short story theorists. If there's a reference, perhaps we can clarify a bit - ? I don't necessarily expect each of my points to be debated here, as you say McGeddon - I'll probably just go through slowly over the next few days and change each one carefully, and we can debate as and if needed. --Chronotopian (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes there are many phrases that are unsourced, but big problem is that we can not add or change as we like or as our personal view point is, it is considered here original research and that is not acceptable and encouraged even for the improvement and standard of the article. We must provide the reliable sources. In this regard you have to be careful, and I think as you are much active in your real life, it is possible to find sources in the published books written by academics, those are considered very reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Chronotopian said "If there's a reference, perhaps we can clarify a bit - ?" and I think clearly understands that any new claims have to be sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


I agree with what's been said here about splitting up the 'Overview' section into more distinct and useful sections. I suggest a section on 'Characteristics' as well as 'Adaptations' (for the film and TV stuff), and then moving the author-lists down into the relevant sections. Sound ok? If so, I'll do that, and we can work on expanding those sections. I've got a lot of good references to include once the framework is there. --Chronotopian (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I tkink that's a good idea to improve and expand the article.Justice007 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I made some of the changes as mentioned above. Checking through the 'examples of great short fictionists...' authors in the old 'overview' section were mentioned in the 'history' sections below, only these need interpolating back in:
William Trevor, Hermann Hesse, Vladimir Nabokov, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Dino Buzzati, H. P. Lovecraft, D. H. Lawrence
I'll do that later. Hope we're moving towards a more useful structure here. --Chronotopian (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Good work, I think section "History" should be the first/starting section and then others, what do you think?.Justice007 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the argument against that would be that the 'History' section is always going to be quite long, and most people visiting the page would probably want some kind of details on the characteristics and definition... the history is illustrative of this. I put the 'Adaptations' section at the end because, again, I think that's illustrative rather than primarily defining or core information on the subject. --Chronotopian (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Saul Bellow Canadian?

While Saul Bellow was born in Canada he is normally treated as an American writer.Rwood128 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of short-stories. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Romance ignored?

The description of plot form (exposition to crisis to climax) is not applicable to most romance. Romance is about 70% of today's fiction.

This article could be expanded to include 'pinch points' (wherein the strength of the antagonist is revealed) but these are entirely the domain of action adventure, science fiction, mystery, etc.

Let's do a QD Pride and Prejudice (Goodreads greatest romance of all time). Darcy alienates Elizabeth at the assembly. Darcy (good looking, very rich) proposes in Kent. Elizabeth rejects him. Elizabeth visits Pemberley. Hears housekeeper's praise of Darcy. Revises opinion. Darcy arranges Lydia's marriage. Asks Elizabeth for hand, again, and is accepted. Crisis? Climax? One can force-fit this into an Ivanhoe mold, but not by remaining true to Austen.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am trying to write romance, and am extremely frustrated that the theories around plot generally don't apply. One would think that (hope that?) the 70% majority would be better served.

MartinRinehart (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Too many sections

The contents of the section "1 Today" would be more appropriate in the "1945 to modern day" subsection of "7 History."

If short story salons are as relevant as they would appear (as they have been given their own section), than a more thorough history should be given. If they are only relevant in modernity, then they belong under "7 History: 1945 to modern day". Alternatively, they could appear in the subsection of "History" during which they became prominent.

"Nobel Prize in Literature" could be consolidated with "Short story awards"

The statement in the section "Length": "Interpreting this standard nowadays is problematic, because the expected length of "one sitting" may now be briefer than it was in Poe's era." requires a source.


Overall, the article could use some cleaning up of all the examples of short stories given. It is necessary to choose notable short stories to list as examples, else this article becomes "List of short stories" AntiImperialPlanetologist (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Rereading the History section, I think the main issue lies in the notability of the authors versus their impact on the form of short stories. For example, I do believe the inclusion of Borges contributes positively to the article, since his most notable works are short stories. The inclusions of authors such as Mishima and Murakami only serve to clutter the article. They are certainly influential, but their influence does not come from the short story medium. In the future, I plan to work on this article, but before then, I recommend others to reduce the number of authors listed by such standards. AntiImperialPlanetologist talk 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I also believe the /* History */ section should include reference to the rise in popularity of the Pulp magazine as an important medium through which short stories were distributed. The Wikipedia article for pulp magazines include the sentence:
"The collapse of the pulp industry changed the landscape of publishing because pulps were the single largest sales outlet for short stories."
Additionally, the article could use reference to horror writers. Poe is already referenced, but H.P. Lovecraft is another important contributor to short fiction. AntiImperialPlanetologist talk 14:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Short_story/Archive_1&oldid=1109810213"