Ste, JB

I think Wheatley's right. The key skill is telling a tale, I thinks that's the 'born with' bit. You really have got it or you haven't. And the best style of all is the invisible one.

Pete

Where do these bloody smileys come from? They drive me nuts...

Manchester.

Ste

...'so much to answer for' in the words of Morrissey. Now there was someone who could use words.

[quote]And the best style of all is the invisible one.{/quote]

Absolutely. It looks so easy when it's done well, but it really is incredibly hard. For me, writing short stories is helping, as I'm forcing myself to concentrate on story, rather than being clever and arty. I've spent too long trying to write novels, but to no avail. So short story writing is helping me enormously with my style (plus reading other's stories on this site). I hope I can take this style and transfer it to longer fiction. Easier said than done, though, as the short story form is so very different to the novel form in many ways.

Emma - have just read 'The Garden Party'. What an extraordinary story. The characters are very Chekhovian, aren't they? Really rather unpleasant and shallow. Reminds me also a bit of Madame Bovary. I love the last dialogue between the brother and sister, about life. It sums up these superficial people so well. Thanks for pointing me in the 'fallen angel's' way!

<Added>

oops used the wrong parenthesis at the end there. Grr.

Darren, I think there are things specific to the short story - notably the scale of ideas and characters, but lots of the skills are the same as for a novel. The small compass forces you to develop everything properly: there's no room to hide or relax. The other plus is simply that they're quicker to write. I came to them late, and started by using them as exercises - one voice, two-hander, multiple viewpoints, etc. and it was very good for me as a writer. I have also been able to dip in and out of themes that might later develop into a novel.

Natural born short stories writers get rather fed up with novelists regarding the short story as a five-finger exercise, as if they're not art in themselves, mind you!

Glad you've taken to K.M.

Emma

I agree totally with the 'invisible style' comment Pete. It's the hardest trick.

JB

<Added>

Oh and thanks Darren!

And the best style of all is the invisible one

Yes and no. I don't want to notice the prose over and above the other things, but I know that the writing that really turns me on has a richness and substance to it. If it's very plain, then that plainness has to have its own force. When it succeeds, I suspect the invisibility is more apparent than real.

Either way, what really needs to happen is that the writing is so perfectly matched to its subject that you read it as a whole, without being individually aware of the different elements (except when you're being another writer, and actually trying to work out what they are). It might be Carver, or it might be Anthony Burgess - it's right for what it's trying to do.

Emma

Yes - it's about being kept in the 'fictional dream' and not being snapped out of it. Clunky phrasing and poor choice of words can drag you out of the narrative, as can overuse of the passive voice and the use of poorly handled backstory. Readers want to be kept in your story and not allow the writing to disrupt this (unless you're on some postmodern metafiction trip). However, a beautifully crafted sentence will stop the reader, but for all the right reasons - they aren't pulled from the narrative, rather are drawn further in as they appreciate what it is the writer is doing so well.

I do enjoy anthologies. A compendium of authors to dip into. To write you have to read, to cook you have to eat the food of other cooks.
I haven't read the Carver book, but have heard it very favourably spoken about.
I always admired Ernst Hemmingway for his clean, uncluttered writing. We can all admire others work, but I don't think many of us would attempt to mimic it.
Interesting thread this.
Caroline.

An anthology can give you a very effective Cook's Tour of the range of possibilities. If an unregenerate novel reader said to me, 'Why do writers get so excited about short stories?' I'd probably hand them something like V S Pritchett's Oxford Book of Short Stories to explain the fascination.

By comparison, reading a collection of an individual writer, however wonderful the writer, can be a bit too much like eating a whole box of chocolates at a sitting.

Emma

Foooorrressst? Fooorrrressst? Laafe is just a baaax aff chacalates fooorrressst.

Anyway, here's my own quote:

Generate. Don't imitate.

JB

Carver knocked me sideways when I first read him as a youth. He still reverberates with me today, perhaps more so than any other writer. "Cathedral" is probably my favourite short story ever.

Anyone else read "Beginnings" - the original version of "What We Talk About ..."?

These were supposedly the versions that Carver intended, and he was cut up about the changes his editor made.

Personally I think his editor did him a massive favour.

Funny how threads can be resurrected after lying dormant for four years!! Interesting to read about the amendations Carver's agent suggesting being made to his manuscripts when he was alive. Makes you wonder about how much of his pared down style was actually his own.

From what I can gather, the pared down style he became famous for was all due to the savage pencil of the editor. Carver was reportedly devastated at the changes, but if you read the two books side by side there's no comparison - to my mind at least. The versions that were edited down glow off the page like fiercely polished diamonds.

I really love Carver's essay "A Meditation On A Line From St Teresa" as well.

Who was it that said you write, then you get rid of the good stuff, and what is left over is what you should keep? This a good example.