Short stories and why I hate them
I hate short stories.
I bought a book of them recently, called Wizards, because it's got stories by Neil Gaiman and Garth Nix and Eoin Colfer and Patricia McKillip and Orson Scott Card and lots of others, and they're all about magic, and if I'd like any collection of short stories it really ought to be this one. (Except Fragile Things, because I really love Neil Gaiman and I think I could like that one overall, but I'm leery of spending my own money on it. Yay birthday! Also Water, by Robin McKinley and Peter Dickinson, which had bits that were excellent and bits that were rather dissatisfying but was overall likable, and anyway, was all about water spirits, which I can totally get behind. Ooh, also, "Book of Enchantments" by Patricia C. Wrede, because while some of those were disappointing, most were structured more like fanfic than a real story, which made them tolerable enough for me to notice that I liked them. Plus, one was set in the Enchanted Forest! And had the most delicious cake recipe I've ever eaten!) But like almost every other collection of short stories I've ever read, I'm horribly disappointed.
Granted, I'm only into the third story so far, so maybe I haven't given it a fair chance. But I'm not looking forward to reading it, which is always a bad sign. And so far, I've been dissatisfied by Neil Gaiman and completely eradicated of any desire I might've had to read Sabriel etc.
The problem is that there isn't the sense of catharsis that a good story gives you, that soul-deep satisfaction you get from reading a story with a fully developed beginning, middle, climax, and ending. You know how when you read a really good book, no matter what problems you might've had, whatever issues you might realize later, you can't even notice those at the time, and at the ending you feel simultaneously deeply happy and calm and a little achey? I don't get any of that from short stories. (This might also be the problem I had with all the books we read in lit class. The art of creating a good story is sadly underrated, while the ability to not satisfy anyone is regarding as great writing. I will never understand.)
See, in his story, called "The Witch's Headstone", Neil Gaiman develops this great expansive world with sweeping epics and intriguing and endearing characters, just as he always does, and then gives us twenty pages of it. There are so many hints of so much beneath this story, and yet all we get is the simplicity of a seven-year-old's single story. It's classic Neil Gaiman, but the Reader's Digest version, which leaves you feeling a little hollow at the end. And Neil Gaiman is one of those authors who really knows how to get that cathartic, satisfying ending along with his elaborate and lovable worlds and interesting and understated characters (not to mention fantastic prose), which is why I adore him so. So I figured he could make me like his short story even if no one else could, so I was extremely let down when I didn't love it. (God, I really sing his praises, don't I? If he ever needs someone to just go around and promote him, I'd be the perfect candidate.)
Garth Nix, on the other hand, actually writes a line in his story which I can perfectly use to describe it: "some tormented beast of legend". He cobbles together William the Conqueror, Robin Hood, and Arthur, throws in a touch of that old cliched magic rivalry between races, creates a Mary Sue-ish and yet unsympathetic protagonist, and calls it an original story (and writes it sloppily and obviously, to top it off). I used to want to read his books, as I'd been told they were good, but now I never will.
The one I'm reading now seems to have a decently intriguing world developed and a pretty good plotline, even if it is a little heavy-handed in the explanation. (That's another problem with short stories: you haven't got the time to let things develop naturally, and have to force explanations or leave things a mystery. This author took the former; Neil Gaiman used the latter.) Its protagonist is slightly Mary Sue-ish, but not too badly, and it might just be the synaesthesia combined with the whole First Born magic thingy. But it's also in first person POV, which I haven't appreciated as much in the past five years or so as I used to. (And I'm not sure I entirely trust my judgement before then. Except for, of course, Roald Dahl and C. S. Lewis and Harry Potter and the classics like that. But, now I think of it, those weren't written first-person either.)
But I've got fifteen more to read, and hopefully I'll like a few of them, enough so I don't regret spending so much money on this book, and if I find a new favorite author out of it it'll all be worth it. I hope.
What about you? A fan of short stories, or do you agree with me?
I bought a book of them recently, called Wizards, because it's got stories by Neil Gaiman and Garth Nix and Eoin Colfer and Patricia McKillip and Orson Scott Card and lots of others, and they're all about magic, and if I'd like any collection of short stories it really ought to be this one. (Except Fragile Things, because I really love Neil Gaiman and I think I could like that one overall, but I'm leery of spending my own money on it. Yay birthday! Also Water, by Robin McKinley and Peter Dickinson, which had bits that were excellent and bits that were rather dissatisfying but was overall likable, and anyway, was all about water spirits, which I can totally get behind. Ooh, also, "Book of Enchantments" by Patricia C. Wrede, because while some of those were disappointing, most were structured more like fanfic than a real story, which made them tolerable enough for me to notice that I liked them. Plus, one was set in the Enchanted Forest! And had the most delicious cake recipe I've ever eaten!) But like almost every other collection of short stories I've ever read, I'm horribly disappointed.
Granted, I'm only into the third story so far, so maybe I haven't given it a fair chance. But I'm not looking forward to reading it, which is always a bad sign. And so far, I've been dissatisfied by Neil Gaiman and completely eradicated of any desire I might've had to read Sabriel etc.
The problem is that there isn't the sense of catharsis that a good story gives you, that soul-deep satisfaction you get from reading a story with a fully developed beginning, middle, climax, and ending. You know how when you read a really good book, no matter what problems you might've had, whatever issues you might realize later, you can't even notice those at the time, and at the ending you feel simultaneously deeply happy and calm and a little achey? I don't get any of that from short stories. (This might also be the problem I had with all the books we read in lit class. The art of creating a good story is sadly underrated, while the ability to not satisfy anyone is regarding as great writing. I will never understand.)
See, in his story, called "The Witch's Headstone", Neil Gaiman develops this great expansive world with sweeping epics and intriguing and endearing characters, just as he always does, and then gives us twenty pages of it. There are so many hints of so much beneath this story, and yet all we get is the simplicity of a seven-year-old's single story. It's classic Neil Gaiman, but the Reader's Digest version, which leaves you feeling a little hollow at the end. And Neil Gaiman is one of those authors who really knows how to get that cathartic, satisfying ending along with his elaborate and lovable worlds and interesting and understated characters (not to mention fantastic prose), which is why I adore him so. So I figured he could make me like his short story even if no one else could, so I was extremely let down when I didn't love it. (God, I really sing his praises, don't I? If he ever needs someone to just go around and promote him, I'd be the perfect candidate.)
Garth Nix, on the other hand, actually writes a line in his story which I can perfectly use to describe it: "some tormented beast of legend". He cobbles together William the Conqueror, Robin Hood, and Arthur, throws in a touch of that old cliched magic rivalry between races, creates a Mary Sue-ish and yet unsympathetic protagonist, and calls it an original story (and writes it sloppily and obviously, to top it off). I used to want to read his books, as I'd been told they were good, but now I never will.
The one I'm reading now seems to have a decently intriguing world developed and a pretty good plotline, even if it is a little heavy-handed in the explanation. (That's another problem with short stories: you haven't got the time to let things develop naturally, and have to force explanations or leave things a mystery. This author took the former; Neil Gaiman used the latter.) Its protagonist is slightly Mary Sue-ish, but not too badly, and it might just be the synaesthesia combined with the whole First Born magic thingy. But it's also in first person POV, which I haven't appreciated as much in the past five years or so as I used to. (And I'm not sure I entirely trust my judgement before then. Except for, of course, Roald Dahl and C. S. Lewis and Harry Potter and the classics like that. But, now I think of it, those weren't written first-person either.)
But I've got fifteen more to read, and hopefully I'll like a few of them, enough so I don't regret spending so much money on this book, and if I find a new favorite author out of it it'll all be worth it. I hope.
What about you? A fan of short stories, or do you agree with me?