A famous author said, “There are more great novelists than great short story writers.” I didn’t know if that was true or not, and that’s probably why that quote has stuck with me these years. I do know that it’s more difficult to publish a collection of short stories than it is to publish a novel. Amy Tan’s “Joy Luck Club” was originally conceived and marketed by her as a collection of short stories, although its success has been as a novel. Perhaps that is not by accident.
But why would anyone say there are more great novel writers than great short story writers, and is it true? I had a eureka moment recently, an epiphany, the content of which may shed some light on that belief. One of the things that began happening in the latter half of the twentieth century is that plot began to decline. With the decline of plot came the prominence of character. Because of the compactness of short stories, space is of the essence; there’s little room in them for authors to create fully developed characters, while novelists have plenty of time to do so. Consequently, plot is the essence of short stories—not characterization. However, readers are programmed to look for characterization. The great short story writer has to balance plot with characterization within a very short space or develop a plot that is so tight that it becomes the intriguing force within the story.
When I wrote "This Is How It Ends", I gave little thought to plot, but, of course, it has several, since it is a memoir—not a novel (most novels have multiple plots, too), but still it uses techniques that are germane to fiction. I keep arguing that I have little grasp of plot. That’s not entirely true. What I have little grasp of is structure. The book has plot, regardless of how much attention I paid to it while writing it. I didn’t have to pay attention to it. What I was relying on were characterizations to move my book forward. And to do so, I didn’t have to concern myself with plot as much as I had to concern myself with making the book make sense. Unlike life, creative nonfiction, and fiction, must make sense. I had to decide how to reveal the story’s main plot, how to create intrigue and sustain suspense while giving the reader a story that is well worth reading. Characterization, certainly, doesn’t automatically lend structure to a story. If it did, life would always make sense. When I was writing "This Is How It Ends", I often said to people that I have my story, but the problem is, How to make it art? By that, I meant, how to take a story that has been told millions of time, make it fresh and make it make sense. Being a stylist, I realize, has nothing to do with the use of flowery scenery, big words, little words, or experimentation; it is in the structure and the techniques that are used to move the story forward that makes what’s really complicated look simple. Novelists have an advantage when it comes to being master stylists because they have more space to fully develop both character and plot. So I think the famous author is correct.
Comments