Customer Reviews

New Short Story Theories

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In short (pun intended), this is one of the two or three best books out there on the theory of short story (see also _Short Story Theory at a Crossroads_ ed. by Lohafer and Clarey).

There are countless books out there for helping you craft your own short fiction. This book is not for that, nor does it make any claims to this purpose.

Instead, it is an excellent, critical look at the history and current state of the genre of the short story. If this is at all your interest, you must have this book.

Please disregard John Jr's review, for it is "almost useless" as far as this book is concerned.

John Jr (below) obviously has a little chip on his shoulder about writing theory and probably about academia.

No, this is not a how-to book filled with exercises and tips and explanations of different techniques. It is a book for the advanced student or writer, and discusses issues involved with the short story, placing the form in assorted contexts and dissecting it from those positions. It is not easy reading, but neither is it impregnable to the thoughtful reader. It will not tell you how to write short stories, but it will provide you with intelligent ways of thinking about them, and hence, being more disciplined and perhaps original in your work.

Just a note to my colleague John to say I am sorry he did not find the book useful. I did not intend it for creative writing classes, but for students interested in the generic nature of the short story. Perhaps he might find the earlier version of the book more helpful, but this book does represent the best current thinking about the short story I could find. And thanks to John for at least a kind word about my own essay. Charles May

It's the best book for researchers on short story theory. Charles E. May is a clever editor and a great writer. His articles are deep and clear. His editting shows a careful selection of articles which obey a logical sequence being all intertwined and interconnected. I do recommend the book for undergraduate students of literature as well as for graduate students.

I am reluctant to criticize a book that has been put together with intelligence and dedication. But that, in part, is the book's tragedy. What exactly are all these obviously intelligent and dedicated men and women studying? Jarrell's rambling essay is symptomatic of the entire effort. As is his imprecise use of language. For example: "A story is a chain of events" (p. 7). Really, Mr. Jarrell? So is literature another word for physics? In many of the essays (Jarell, Poe, Matthews, Pratt....), one dubious claim is piled upon the next, personal prejudice is made to dance as general fact, and personal opinion-- some reasonable-- masquerades as theory. Initially, I was excited to see there was a section on cognitive approaches. If one is interested in story comprehension, then it's a good idea to see what AI theorists who've tried to make programs understand stories have to say. To paraphrase Herbert Simon, we understand something when we can explain it to someone else, but we *really* understand something when we can explain it to a computer. Fine words are one thing, but when a program has to distinguish between one news item and another, then we need a real theory of how story comprehension works. Unfortunately, while this section is better grounded than others, the ratio of high concept to result remains very much greater than one. From Teun Van Dijk, we get the deep insight that a "theory of action discourse is more general than a theory of stories" and from Susan Lohafer we learn that stories must provide closure. Hmmm.

Who is this book for? Perhaps for the kind of reader who's long ago lost his/her pleasure in the story per se and must now savor the various self-serving rationales for why such a pleasure is to be had. It's a noble reason, but it also indicates, I think, why literary studies is so moribund.

If you are expecting a book about helpful criticism and technique of writing short stories, then do not buy this book. I've read most of the essays in it for my creative writing class, so I feel confident enough to say that this book is almost useless. I've come to the conclusion that the writers of these essays simply like to hear themselves talk! One of the essays even uses mathematical equations to describe short story theory!

The community of short story theorists is very small (they are probably all represented in this book) and so they have much freedom in expressing outrageous opinions, knowing that only the "elite" few will read their articles. Some of these opinions are that the short story is simply a training format for the novel and can never be its own genre. An opposite opinion is that the novel is too big, complex, and diluted to be a valid artistic form.

To say the least, the opinions expressed by many of these "theorists" (who themselves are mostly not short story writers) are silly and contrived. The only way to keep themselves in print is to come up with ridiculous new ideas about short stories, and they know they are safe from being read by the masses.

The only valuable thing that one can take from this book (which is why I am giving it two stars instead of one) is that it is good to know that such opinions exist, but then it is just as helpful to dismiss them after you have read them!

The only article I have found to be helpful is the unbiased (for the most part) essay by May concerning the development and technique of the "modern" short story.

But aside from this, you'll only be left screaming at the pages, telling these critics to shut up and quit trying to impress us with their overwrought language and the occasional French phrase.