Hi IB, it seems you too thought I was laying down the law, and I would ask you if you've ever seen me try to do that before? No.

Short story writing does not need to be 'what Becca describes it as.' Of course it doesn't, but I haven't got the space to write a novel about it above have I? - (There are some very fantastic surreal short stories out there, Tom Boyle's early work, maybe? that conform to themselves alone.)

But the things I have said about 'The Potato' is why I personally, me myself only, rate it.

The 'no loose ends' thing doesn't refer to an unresolved ending, it refers to when the writer has got carried away with one character, his/her history, thoughts etc, for a little while, so goes off the main track taking the bemused reader with him.

As I said to Len, 'take a look' means 'take a look', if I meant 'follow her example' that is precisely what I would have written.

But what I wrote isn't a bad template for a new writer who wants to get to grips with some of the different requirements in the separate writing disciplines, if there were no distinctions to be made how could you ever teach the subject?

Dee's right as well in her comment about whether or not the writer intends to have their work published. I had made the assumption that writers were writing for the public, rather than for the back of the underwear drawer.
Becca.

Becca,

May I suggest that you read my comments very carefully. Your opinion is valued very highly on WW, not only the respect that one must have for the Site Expert but the quality of your own written work. Your comments are 'followed' and accepted that much more readily than the comments of most on WW. Although you underline that these comments are entirely your own- me,myself,I - your comments carry far greater value than most others, so when Becca goes to this length to analyse a short story as you have done, to me it assumes an understanding of 'follow this example'.


Dee,

I am sure that if Becca, when referring to adjectives, had meant to include the word 'unnecessary', Becca would have included it.

I feel that many Members on WW are relatively new to writing and should be encouraged to write freely, creatively and unhibited by quasi-rules.
Sure, always seek to improve but write because something inside you drives you along that path. As one becomes a more proficient writer so there will be a sharper and more critical 'voice' within one's head that tells one to improve this and that. This will firstly affect the 'craft' of writing - the HOW one does it with respect to punctuation, spelling, grammar and so on. Then follows the 'art' when selection of words - including adjectives - is being considered, for at this stage the 'real' work begins to emerge.

I am sure that the inclusion of 'unnecessary' adjectives can add a great deal to the appeal and beauty of a written piece... for I would not know what it is the mind of the writer in order to decide what 'unnecessary' may mean.

Len

While thinking about it, which is good for me, style is what the individual writer brings to the 'form', not the form itself.
One of the first restrains on a short story writer is the number of words. I personally think it's wonderful if a huge amount of information is contained in few words. But on the other hand I really like reading long short stories. The word limit is there because publishers want to be able to produce a certain amount of separate stories in one mag, so they do their sums and usually ask that a story is not longer than XX words, it's just practical. I'm not directly answering IB's comments here. I think Len mentioned word number and I had not intended at all to suggest that stories should be confined to a given number of words, but the publisher will have a word limit. I got the impression from both Len and IB that they thought I was laying down some law. Not the case, not my style.
But IB, short story writing is a distinct discipline and does follow conventions, that is not to say those conventions aren't evolving, because they definitely are, read works back two centuries and you see the changes very distinctly. Some writers want specifically to be on the evolving edge, some don't.
Most writers here want to get their writing better and the crits help us to do that. But what is it we're doing when we're criting? we're not just saying I like this or I don't like that. We often crit pieces of work that aren't to our personal taste, but we use the same procedures for them, so where do those principles,(sp?), come from?
Becca.

Sorry if I didn't read your comments properly Len, that's me doing the very thing I'd thought you and IB were doing. The way you describe the process for a newer writer is good, sounds right. I never went to creative writing courses myself but came by the ideas I listed through experience of reading a lot and writing, - which is why perhaps I was anxious to say they were not necessarily universal. The last thing anyone would want is to curb creativity by restraining rules. But as I just asked above, what is the process we're going through when we crit something? -I'm hoping someone can answer this because I'm not sure myself, - it's almost unconscious. What am I or anyone else on WW looking for when we're reading someone's work?

Hi Becca,

I think our opinions are converging. As regards number of words I specifically mentioned that Magazines will invariably have a limit for accepted work. In my past I always advised 'up to 1,500 words' for the Magazines I was concerned with for the reasons you suggest - limit of space.

No, Becca, I did not think you were laying down any 'laws' and - apart from specific Magazine work - I go along with you on the question of enjoying immensely, short stories of almost any length.

I wish I knew the answer to your last question.

Len

But Len, do you think there is a way of answering the last question? there must be some kind of sifting that goes on, at many different levels as well all at the same time.
Becca.

Innovation is good, but how can you innovate if you don't know what the conventions are?
Amnesia

<Added>

I'm talking about form, not content.
Anyone can write anything they want, but the idea is to communicate as effectively as possible

Amnesia, that's true.
Becca.

Yes, well said, Amnesia.

Dee.

Becca,

I think you answer your last question when you suggest that the sifting process at many different levels 'goes on' when one is looking at critique writing. While most of us can share a number of these faculties almost as common denominators which affect the functional aspects of writing... spelling, grammar, punctuation etc, it is when one goes deeper in order to provide the most constructive criticism we embrace our experiences, knowledge and even our personal likes and dislikes! We try to be objective... or should try. A very interesting question with so many different answers.

Amnesia,

You make a very good point. I am not too fond of the word 'conventions' for its meaning within the world of writing, suggests hard and fast, almost unbending rules. Of course, I do agree that there are general guidelines that will help the new - and not so new - writer.

I have had my tuppence worth now.

Len

I had made the assumption that writers were writing for the public, rather than for the back of the underwear drawer.

For shame. My writing is for the public, it's just not for sale.

Fair comment, IB, but there's hardly any money in one off short stories anyway, usually the publisher gets the work for free, and the writer builds up a publishing record which theoretically makes things a bit easier next time round.
Becca.

I used the word 'convention' rather than 'rule' because I think they mean different things. And neither do I think they should be taken on board wholesale or without a true understanding that comes from the practice of writing and reading [and analysing] different kinds of writing, learning from it. But without that understanding you can't push the boundaries.