Stolen from the LiveJournal of Ben Peek this time:

Short Fiction Conversation

Since Stephen King wrote about the state of short fiction a couple of weeks ago, it seems that there has been a constant conversation turning around about if he's right, or wrong, if short fiction is doing well, or it isn't, if it's dead yet, if it's not.

The latest in this debate has involved Jeff VanderMeer talking about how mediocre the majority of short fiction is now, and how the writing in the 70s pushed more boundaries, and was more adult, and something he could get behind more; and there's Elizabeth Bear (matociquala), talking about how such a view compares the work that survived that period, which is not the whole field from then, with an entire field now, and that doesn't really make for such a fair comparison. Also, writers these days are "Working their butts off, sweating blood, taking things apart and putting them together repeatedly, doing multiple drafts and a good deal of hard thinking, fussing over every sentence, putting their blood and sweat and painful hard-earned experience into every character detail--broken hearts, and broken bones. talking about how writers are trying hard," so it's unfair to say that the work as a whole is mediocre cause that implies that they're not trying hard enough.

[...] But it struck me, as I was reading both the Bear and VanderMeer opinions, that within their remarks, sat what I consider one of the reasons short fiction doesn't reach further audiences, and that is in how we talk about it. I've watched people in this scene scramble over children's television like Dr Who, scream fucking murder at bad episodes of Lost, rub themselves over superhero comics, burn the ones with stains, and actively praise and condemn directors and stars of movies, all without one concern that the people involved in that might read their opinion... but when it comes to short fiction, and indeed, long fiction, the conversation is with the positive, and as soon as it hits the negative, statements like VanderMeer saying, "I'm not naming names," and Bear's, "But they're trying really hard," are the usual, and reveal the closed in, club like scene of the writing world, in which authors worry about hurting the feelings of the fragile flowers around them. How, for example, with such statements being said, fiction can get a little more punk, a little rougher, and a little wild, I have no idea. Indeed, with authors themselves saying, "Well, I'm not going to point fingers, even though some people try real hard," is it any wonder that the majority of the work is often considered mediocre, tasteless, and plain?

There is a culture to these things, I find, and one only has to look at the culture to see the cause of an end product.

It's interesting to me that, for all the complaining that goes on within comic book fandom about ... well, other people complaining, basically, and how that audience negativity supposedly poisons the well or whatever, Peek points out that such vitriol is vastly preferable to indifference, because it means that people, beyond the critics and the would-be writers, actually care about what the medium is producing. And to my mind, he's not far wrong.

I think the whole "short fiction" term needs some definition and some breaking down to help clarify the thinking.

For example, if "short fiction" means "short sold/published fiction" then the feedback comes from sales, from editiorial reaction to quality and sales, and sometimes from peer-reviewed awards. Is there a "published writers old boy network?" Of course there is, but bad reviews from peers don't always have to be posted on internet bulletin boards.

If "short fiction" means "short fiction presented free on the internet" then feedback is of a different kind, and the motivations for writing and posting are slightly different. Freed from commercial and mass appeal concerns the content of such works can be wildly different. It can appeal to a small niche (fan fiction or slash, for example). It can be a fictionalised blog. It can be a test bed for new writers beginning to hone their skill. It can be a performance medium.

Negative feedback in this arena can have negative effects. Many writers write as a means of socialising (strange as that may sound); the story is a formal means of promoting a dialogue, and perhaps of gaining a sense of belonging (to a community of writers or readers) or of asserting self-worth. Criticism which is not couched very diplomatically can destroy the reason the writer writes.

If "short fiction" describes "short stories written for artistic reasons, published or unpublished" then we have another issue altogether. What is art? Should the artist be influenced, affected, discouraged, or distorted by critics and supporters? Art is subjective, and even the views of other artists hold limited weight, especially regarding new forms and structures.

I worry that the criticism about "the short story" is like the criticism of "popular music these days" - the criticism is "they don't provide output that inspires me like the stuff from my youth did". But that's because most people read 80% of all the books they'll ever read below the age of 25. The stories and sounds and enthusiasms of their formative years retain massively more weight than more recent input.

I grew up on Moorcock and Tolkein and Lovecraft. That's surely a good pedigree for a writer whose interests are around fantasy. But many younger readers find these stories simplistic, or inpenetrable, or wordy. Is the real problem that the short story, like any artform, has its fashions and forms, and they change with the spirit of the age for a new generation?

I don't know... that seems to be such an uneven comparison as to be useless. With comics and television shows, he's talking about existing series with established fanbases, who are going to watch and judge each episode against what they've come to expect. (And, I should note, the opinions expressed are still largely supportive when one is talking about a property that is being run by its original creator... Even when quality falls off in a beloved creator's show or comic, the expression of fans at the time is usually cushioned.)

Short stories are a completely different animal. You usually read them because of the author's name, or because of a general interest in the subject matter, and as such you're not likely to have such a strong reaction to the ones that you don't care for... They aren't usually derailing a series, or making lasting changes to a beloved property. And, unlike movies, comics and television shows, an individual short story is unlikely to be such a topic of conversation online that it would draw in the opinions of people who weren't making the effort to search out a place to comment on it. (I hated "Transformers" and gave a rant on it because people all over the web and elsewhere were talking about it at the time. I don't do that with some bad movie that nobody else will have seen or heard of... what's the point?)

And tying into this, the work that brings out the most vitriol online is the work done by the mega-popular. The top movies at the box office, the best selling comics, the highest rated television shows. Short stories don't tend to occupy this lofty position on a pedestal (and the authors who could occupy it don't tend to write a lot of them) and so aren't prime targets to people who just want to tear them down.

Move down the charts and find the small, struggling self-published comics, the little seen independent films and the obscure television shows that are clinging to life and compare the average amount of positive to negative comments bandied about online. Only the real fans of those things are involved in the discussions, and so rather than help stamp them out and kill their chances, they tend to couch their criticisms in a way that is balanced against all that the effort has going for it.

.