Boyd on short stories

Further to yesterday’s spectacular William Boyd pimping, here’s a bit more from him. I came across an article he wrote on the short story, which you can read in full here, on The Guardian’s website. How can you go wrong using Chekhov to pimp the short story? Amongst many other things, Boyd reminds us that “… in the 1920s, F Scott Fitzgerald was paid $4,000 for a story by the Saturday Evening Post (a vast sum today – multiply by 10 to get some idea of a comparison)…”

Yes please, Saturday Evening Post!

I also like this definition of a style of short story that was more prominent before Chekhov (but is also certainly still around today):

1 The event-plot story This term was coined by the English writer William Gerhardie in 1924 in a short, fascinating book he wrote on Chekhov. Gerhardie uses this appellation to distinguish Chekhov’s stories from everything that preceded him. Up until Chekhov, all short stories, virtually without exception, were event-plot ones. In these stories the skeleton of plot is all important, the narrative is shaped, classically, to have a beginning, middle and end. The revolution that Chekhov set in train – and which reverberates still today – was not to abandon plot, but to make the plot of his stories like the plot of our lives: random, mysterious, run-of-the-mill, abrupt, chaotic, fiercely cruel, meaningless. The stereotype of the event-plot story is the “twist-in-the-tail” famously developed by O Henry but also used widely in genre stories – ghost stories (WW Jacobs, for example) and the detective story (Conan Doyle). I would say that today its contrivances make it look very dated, though Roald Dahl made something of a mark with a macabre variation on the theme, and it is also a staple of yarn-spinners such as Jeffrey Archer.

… and on a random not, Roald Dahl was also part of the British spy set-up in the United States before Pearl Harbour, which I mentioned yesterday.

Later, speaking on the Chekhovian short story, Boyd says the following:

What is the essence of the Chekhovian short story? Chekhov wrote to a friend that, “It was time writers, especially those who are artists, recognised that there is no making out anything in this world.” I would say that the Chekhovian point of view is to look at life in all its banality and all its tragic comedy and refuse to make a judgment. To refuse to condemn and refuse to celebrate. To record the actions of human beings as they are and to leave them to speak for themselves (insofar as they can) without manipulation, censure or praise. Hence his famous retort when he was asked to define life.

… and I wonder what he thought of Vonnegut, in light of that! All writings in this style are amongst my personal favourite, and this definitely defines the style that I’m trying to steer my writing in at the moment (ergo my lack of productivity as I decide which previous and immature scribblings are within reach of this goal, but that’s another topic entirely).

There are five more definitions (including one which speculative fiction writers may find themselves more familiar with, in some cases) in the full article, and he touches on more than I’ve got time to comment on here. Even when I’m sick as hell, and sitting around all day… I’ve got stories to cull, after all, and others to rewrite! The article ends with comments on the decline and potential revival of the short story market over the last twenty years, and is somewhat hopeful. It’d be good for all of us, I guess, if Boyd is correct.

Read the article, enjoy, and for God’s sake people, I left LiveJournal, I didn’t die… some more comments please! It’s lonely on WordPress…

“Why are thy songs so short?” a bird was once asked. “Is it because thou art so short of breath?”

The bird replied: “I have very many songs and I should like to sing them all.”< ?p>

Alphonse Daudet