Short story structure

[Hex]

So, I have been hanging out at the critters critiquing site and I've just had my first ever short story critiqued. At the same time I've been reading Orson Scott Card's book on writing Science Fiction and Fantasy.

Here is my question: some people argue that there is a structure which stories must have. A character must encounter a problem, seek to solve it, be thwarted, resist whatever's thwarting him/ her and, finally, come to a resolution (or something along those lines).

Can this really be true? Say it's not so.

I've been reading some short stories, trying to identify this structure within them, and in general the ones I've read don't seem to have it. But then perhaps I'm being thick.

So are there rules that govern the structure of short stories?

Edited to say: this isn't (just) me being precious about criticism of my story. It does need the injection of a comprehensible structure. What worries me, though, is whether there is an understood formula for writing short stories that I appear to find difficult to recognise when I read them. And I'd like to know the rules. I am also much more inclined towards OSC's approach which (I think -given I read the book in chunks, and not always in order) says that there are various different stories (ideas, character, milieu etc) and the important thing is to let your readers know what to expect or the ending is likely to fail to satisfy them.

 

[slack]

There are many different types of stories -- some have plots, some do not. The plot structure you refer to is the three act structure. You really can't go wrong using this structure. It has great versatility, and has been used in countless ways, especially in film. Read over any script and you'll likely see the structure emerge.

In the three act structure, the character doesn't just encounter a problem, he is thrown into it, compelled to deal with it, and this forces him out of his everyday existence. You see it in the Lord of the Rings, for example, when Frodo is forced out of the shire. It's called the Big Event because it's meant to be big. Large enough to rattle the character's world.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The structure you have described, Hex, is the structure for a novel. A short story need not follow that same structure.

And a short story doesn't have to come to a resolution in the same way that a novel does. There should be a sense that something has happened, something has changed -- although the thing that happens may simply be that the character admits defeat and resigns him- or herself to what already is. Otherwise, what you have is a vignette rather than a story. And as a general rule, even though a short story may pose more questions than it answers, there should be a clear ending, the readers shouldn't be left hanging. Nevertheless there are exceptions: "The Lady or the Tiger" is a famous example.

But here is where SFF differs from mainstream short fiction: a story need not be in the classic short story at all. It could be a fable or a fairy tale, for instance.

 

[mosaix]

It's common to get comments like that at Critters. I think the one you missed is that the protagonist is supposed to be changed in some way.

However, Hex since receiving similar critiques myself I have found that most SF short stories I have read since do have that structure.

 

[Hex]

However, Hex since receiving similar critiques myself I have found that most SF short stories I have read since do have that structure.

I wondered if I was being thick, or maybe not reading the right kind of stories (must admit I went straight to Unexpected Magic by Diana Wynne Jones and read three stories that didn't seem to me to follow it, but I kept getting distracted by things like brightly coloured swim suits, so maybe they did).

Don't suppose anyone has an example off the top of their head of something that *does* follow it?

Teresa - thank you. You are always knowledgeable and sensible. It makes me happy to know I don't need to follow that structure (it seems bizarre that anyone would think you did need to all the time - but people are so *confident* when they assert things like that, and I have horrible moments of Doubt).

I have no objection to using the three act structure (thanks slack!) but I don't want to be forced to use it. Maybe I'll try it next time, though.

Thank you for your help

 

[mosaix]

Don't suppose anyone has an example off the top of their head of something that *does* follow it?

Straight off the top of my head, Hex how about Asimov's robot stories?

 

[The Judge]

I've got a collection of Heinlein short stories, and although I haven't sat and analysed all of them, from memory they all do contain the basics of a problem, a protagonist trying to overcome it and a resolution of some sort -- one of my favourites is The Green Hills of Earth. I think that's probably the base of most story-telling because we need that sense of conflict and resolution.

Nearer to home, one short which has all those points the critter requires is here

 

[Hex]

I loved the story. Did you ever read it to a child? I'll read it to mine and see what they say.

(in general, though, it reads very like the sort of fairy tale/ Oscar Wilde stuff that they do like - and as I'm sure everyone knows, repeating yourself is what childcare is about, pretty much exclusively).

Sorry to misuse your lovely fairy tale. I have:
Protagonist: tree
Problem: loathsome bog, lack of sun.
It takes the vine coming along to make the tree try to change its situation (because before that it doesn't believe it can).
The resolution is happily ever after (as it should be for a children's story).

The story that got crittered was about a slave (I put the intro in critiques here), who doesn't start acting on his own decisions until fairly late in the story. That made applying the structure as presented by the critter not entirely straightforward.

Also, I need to read more science fiction. I haven't read any for years.

 

[J Riff]

Heh, try the manual for writing for Star Trek if you can find it. It is extremely specific. This character so much time, that character so much, no stories about X, Y,Z, unless A,B,C. First climax around minute eighteen, secondary characters must not etcetcetc.
Very similar to Harlequin romance plots, which there is also a manual for.
SF short stories are a goldmine. From the 30s to the present, there are many, many interesting, experimental stories out there, great stuff.

 

[Hex]

So, my four year old liked your story very much, TJ, for what that's worth.

As the reader, I found it difficult to pronounce the title without getting tangled.

 

[The Judge]

Thanks, Hex. I'm glad you and your 4 year old loved it. I didn't realise the title was such a tongue-twister, though!

Anyway, yes, you're right about the character and the problem. And to take the critter's other points:
a) the character must seek to solve the problem -- the tree tries to find the sun
b) he's thwarted -- he can't break through the cloud
c) he resists whatever's thwarting him -- because the rosevine is in peril he exerts himself more and continues pushing through the cloud
d) to reach a resolution -- he finds the sun, and also finds love (ahhh...)

Plus mosaix's point that the protagonist has to change in some way -- the tree was alone and privately defeatist at the start, but by the end he has triumphed and is no longer alone.

So, yes, it is possible to get the whole of that structure into a short -- not, I hasten to add, that I approached it in such a schematic way, I simply told the story. As for your slave, might it be the critter was reacting against his passivity as much as anything, perhaps? Is it possible for you to bring in an earlier instance of the slave trying to fight his situation?** Of course, that first time he can fail, and fail badly, which allows you to continue the story as written.

** And the situation he fights first needn't be exactly the same problem as he appears to battle later. For instance, a short story about a man bullied by person X can have him standing up for himself against person Y and still fit into the arc -- because his problem isn't X as such, but his own timidity/lack of confidence.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think yes and no to this. While these are good pointers and most short stories will fit that shape, I think it's not always vital and can lead to a situation where every short story has to be very close-ended. I read an excellent story recently about an accident at a mine which was really just a remeniscence of the unpleasantness of taking a man to hospital: it worked fine. A lot of Ballard's short stories don't follow the pattern, likewise Wyndham, Barker and Bradbury.

That said, too far down that road and you end up with a vignette or a scene cut from a longer work. The structure you pose, when boiled down comes to difficulty-overcoming-conclusion is very broad.

 

[william b]

I think some people are really in love with certain definitions of short story. Really the only essential thing is some kind of tension that sustains interest from beginning to end. I've read Orson Scott Card's book on writing SF and Fantasy. As I recall he talked about a MICE quotient (Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event stories). He's a published author and I'm sure it's a useful way to think of story, but I sort of liked David Gerrold's book, Worlds of Wonder: How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy better. In that book, Gerrold says a story is about a problem. There are two kinds of problems: crises and challenges.
Other authors say a short story is simply about a turning point in a life. A novel can be thought of as a longer narrative that builds to a turning point.
There are a lot of ways to think about it but I think it always comes back to that tension. Whether it's the tension of not knowing exactly what's happening, what the character is going to do, how it will all play out.
The reader basically wants to know "What is happening? Who is it happening to? and Why should I care?" (That's from Gerrold's book too).

 

[Hex]

Cool. I can absolutely make a reader think "What's happening?" all the way through a story

(more seriously: thank you. I must go and find Gerrold's book as well).

 

[william b]

Cool. I can absolutely make a reader think "What's happening?" all the way through a story

(more seriously: thank you. I must go and find Gerrold's book as well).

Your welcome. (and I know what you mean )It is worth reading. He has a really nice approach in that book.
But don't forget, it's also Who it's happening to, and why should we care?
Mr. Gerrold talks about how a story is typically about the person who is hurting (or experiencing tension, as we've been saying).
I also liked Immediate Fiction by Jerry Cleaver.
Making Shapely Fiction by Jerome Stern is the book that describes the idea of tension and reader interest...but it's there in almost every book in the form of "conflict," "struggle," "story problem," and so on. Tension is a more general term and I rather like it.
I sort of worry about writing groups and especially internet critiques.
Asking anonymous people (who perhaps enjoy ripping apart other writers' work) seems a little risky to me. I think I would look for someone I really trust for critiques.

 

[Ripley!WatchOut!]

Kal Bashir Review

Here is my question: some people argue that there is a structure which stories must have. A character must encounter a problem, seek to solve it, be thwarted, resist whatever's thwarting him/ her and, finally, come to a resolution (or something along those lines).

Can this really be true? Say it's not so.

So are there rules that govern the structure of short stories?

There IS a well defined structure.

It is harder to decipher in short stories but easier to see and understand in long stories (say a movie) and then apply that to the short story.

The best person I have ever come across for explaining this is a guy called Kal Bashir. He shows you that a story is actually an intricate process of journey through a new world or state where change occurs. These fundamentals form the framework of a whole set of rules. It's fascinating work. I highly recommend you take a lot of time to go through his videos on youtube. I recommend buying his hero's journey/transformation/new world product but that does cost money.

In short, whether you like it or not - there IS a structure and a process that you follow and it's much more than simply three acts.

 

[Hex]

Hi Ripley!WatchOut! Thanks for the mention of Kal Bashir --I'll go and look him up.

My problem at the start of the thread was that the list of things the character needed to go through seemed pretty detailed for a short story -- I understand that's how novels work, though.

 

[iansales]

One point to bear in mind: use a formula to write fiction and you end up with... formulaic fiction.

 

[Ripley!WatchOut!]

Hi Ripley!WatchOut! Thanks for the mention of Kal Bashir --I'll go and look him up.

My problem at the start of the thread was that the list of things the character needed to go through seemed pretty detailed for a short story -- I understand that's how novels work, though.

With a short story, you tend to just have one problem to solve.

The best way to discuss this though, would be to throw up some short story examples.

 

[Ripley!WatchOut!]

One point to bear in mind: use a formula to write fiction and you end up with... formulaic fiction.

This is not true. I mentioned Kal Bashir above. He's gone through heaps of academy award winners and they all follow a structure, and they're all different.

You just need to go through each episode of Star Trek to see that each follows the same story structure yet each is a great episode and story in its own right.