Is short fiction (in SFF) relevant?

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ran' post='1480533' date='Aug 14 2008, 17.15']Stego,



The question was whether short fiction was relevant, not whether magazines were. ;) So I stand by my position on this. Way too many authors have noted the importance of short fiction in their interest in SF, in their formative experiences as readers and writers of SF, and as a place where they continue to hone their skills.

A great short story writer is as difficult to find as a great novelist.[/quote]

It seems to be far more relevant to those "in the scene" (ie - the authors, publishers, critics, fantatics, etc.) then it is to the average reader.

[etcetera]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1480622' date='Aug 14 2008, 18.48']It seems to be far more relevant to those "in the scene" (ie - the authors, publishers, critics, fantatics, etc.) then it is to the average reader.[/quote]


Well, I'm an average reader, and I enjoy short stories (though I admit I don't read nearly enough of them because there's just not enough time to read everything I want to read) and I consider them relevant. More than that, I just enjoy the craft that goes into an exceptionally written short story. It's also what I turn to when I'm in a reading rut or feeling uninspired by novels I've read recently.

[Pug]

[quote name='cteresa' post='1479685' date='Aug 14 2008, 08.41']Another question, can anybody think of books, stories, arcs written in short stories? with a filling out or not.[/quote]

Elizabeth Bear's [b]New Amsterdam[/b]

[Werthead]

[quote name='Stego' post='1480310' date='Aug 14 2008, 19.52']And it's funny to me that the fixup wiki does not list Ender's Game.[/quote]

I think the Wiki is using the very strict definition of a novel which is formed out of individual short stories, whilst [i]Ender's Game[/i] (and [i]Blood Music[/i] and [i]City and the Stars[/i] for that matter, the other apparently obvious exceptions) are all single short stories expanded with extra material to become novels and thus explains why they are not on the list.

The absence of [i]The Dying Earth[/i] is rather notable though, and I'll remedy that shortly.

[RedRuin]

[quote name='Stego' post='1480305' date='Aug 14 2008, 19.51']If a short story writer is any good, they'll make a book or be picked up for a collection. If not, they will languish in obscurity. As such, there is no reason to ever read a magazine.

The same can not be said for novels.

Look to the great works of literature, I say. Decide how many are short stories. That should tell you everything you need to know.[/quote]

Stand poetry up against novels no-one buys poetry, but since when was commercial success anything to do with enriching life.

It's been said just as often that a novel should have been a short story. Look at the great works of literature and see literary theory explode as a mindless accepting of a canon of classics no longer has the snobbish standing they once had. Some are greats, but there's room for others, you've picked up on the a bias towards novels nothing more.

[Shryke]

[quote name='etcetera' post='1480662' date='Aug 14 2008, 19.37']Well, I'm an average reader, and I enjoy short stories (though I admit I don't read nearly enough of them because there's just not enough time to read everything I want to read) and I consider them relevant. More than that, I just enjoy the craft that goes into an exceptionally written short story. It's also what I turn to when I'm in a reading rut or feeling uninspired by novels I've read recently.[/quote]

Not to get into a "No True Scotsman" debate here, but Id' be reluctant to call anyone who reads tons of short stories an average reader. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, sales of short fiction are not really comparable to novels.

[quote]Stand poetry up against novels no-one buys poetry, but since when was commercial success anything to do with enriching life.[/quote]

And I wouldn't call poetry terribly relevant to most readers either.

[RedRuin]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1480714' date='Aug 15 2008, 01.25']And I wouldn't call poetry terribly relevant to most readers either.[/quote]

I'm guessing conventional wisdom tells you it's not relevant. The best fiction writing is poetic, images that leap out at you with intensity, one image that comes to mind is Checkov and the footprints in the nighttime snow that go from house to house, so long ago I read it I don't even remember the story.

[Larry.]

Depends on which group one wants to listen to, I suppose. Personally, when I taught high school English literature, I found short stories to be the ones that the students enjoyed the most, because it was concentrated power, rather than measured out portions that needed "breathing space" for the full effect to develop. Even now in genre literature, some of the more discussed and controversial stories are the short stories. Recently, Margo Lanagan's "The Goosle," which appeared in the Ellen Datlow-edited original anthology, [i]The Del Rey Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy[/i], stirred up quite a bit of talk because of the nature of that story and the reactions that some had to it was quite visceral. I don't see such reactions as much to novels, perhaps because the impact is often diluted by the longer narrative arcs that novels possess.

But some don't have the patience, perhaps, to consider a short story at length; sometimes, the story's power can be lost because many are conditioned to read them the way a novel would be read. Regardless of one's personal attitude towards short fiction, there does seem to be case to be made that short stories have served as a proving ground for several inventive novelists today, albeit mostly outside of the epic fantasy field (Martin being a very notable exception; I believe his short fiction is better than his novels, however).

[Ran]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1480622' date='Aug 15 2008, 00.48']It seems to be far more relevant to those "in the scene" (ie - the authors, publishers, critics, fantatics, etc.) then it is to the average reader.[/quote]

Given that those people "in the scene" are, many of them, the ones who actually produce the material the average reader is reading, it seems to me that this is an argument for its relevance. If short stories are the stuff that launch many of their careers, which forms many of their opinions and approaches, which hones their talents, and your "average" long fiction reader benefits from it, it's definitely relevant.

If it weren't for short stories, there might not be [i]A Song of Ice and Fire[/i], [i]Foundation[/i], [i]The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[/i], and so on.

[Rakehell]

[quote name='cteresa' post='1479685' date='Aug 14 2008, 09.41']Another question, can anybody think of books, stories, arcs written in short stories? with a filling out or not.[/quote]

Glen Cook's [i]Black Company[/i] started as a series of short stories, collected into a book eventually. The only other one that comes to mind immediately is Larry Niven's [i]The Magic Goes Away [/i]but there's a novel mixed in there.

Oh, and add one more voice to the "Zelazny writes great short fiction" chorus.

[Stego]

[quote name='Ran' post='1480533' date='Aug 14 2008, 17.15']A great short story writer is as difficult to find as a great novelist.[/quote]


Perhaps because so few are looking.

Short fiction was formative in a time of the magazines. That age is no longer, and the alert SF/F fan will notice the relative obscurity that short fiction has been and continues to plummet into.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ran' post='1481209' date='Aug 15 2008, 04.46']Given that those people "in the scene" are, many of them, the ones who actually produce the material the average reader is reading, it seems to me that this is an argument for its relevance. If short stories are the stuff that launch many of their careers, which forms many of their opinions and approaches, which hones their talents, and your "average" long fiction reader benefits from it, it's definitely relevant.

If it weren't for short stories, there might not be [i]A Song of Ice and Fire[/i], [i]Foundation[/i], [i]The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[/i], and so on.[/quote]

Then it's second hand relevant at best. Which is actually what I was going for with that statement.

It doesn't say anything about the quality of the work, but you gotta face it, most people just don't read short fiction. That severely stunts it's ability to be relevant to readers.

[Leveller]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1480622' date='Aug 14 2008, 17.48']It seems to be far more relevant to those "in the scene" (ie - the authors, publishers, critics, fantatics, etc.) then it is to the average reader.[/quote]

I'll agree with this. But industry folks are always going to be much more aware of the whole field. You gotta know the players if you're going to play the game.

[dornish prince]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1478748' date='Aug 13 2008, 15.49']What are the sales for short fiction is SFF like? What's the reading base like?

Personally, I don't know anyone who reads it who I don't know from this board. By personal experience, I'd say it's not all that relevant to the readers. Although it may be more so to the authors and such who are deep into the SFF .... "culture".[/quote]

still reading through so sorry if someone has already addressed this...also, thanks to xray for reminding me that warren ellis is very out spoken on this issue. several of these entries on his website link interesting pieces on this same topic.

also, shryke, the relevance in your case is that there are several instances where he presents hard sales numbers and the like.

[url="http://www.warrenellis.com/index.php?s=sf+magazines"]from warren ellis dot com[/url]

[Shryke]

Your gonna have to be a mite more specific then that DP.

[dornish prince]

[quote]Been meaning to circle back round to this for a while. Every year, Gardner Dozois’ YEAR’S BEST SCIENCE FICTION anthology runs the circulation figures for the main sf short-fiction magazines. I suspect his figures are a little off, as I’m certain there must be some direct-sales figures that go uncounted in his collation, but the Dozois summation remains the only broad year-on-year record I’m aware of. What follows, then, would be the monthly numbers for end-of-year 2006:

ASIMOV’S SCIENCE FICTION: subscriptions 15117
A drop of 13% from 2005. No numbers given for newsstand sales.

ANALOG: subscriptions 23732 newsstand 4587
Newsstand sales are “soft,” returnable — sellthrough is reported at 32%. I’m presuming the above number is the sellthrough number, not the overall circulation before returns. 7.3% loss year-on-year.

FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION: subscriptions 14575 newsstand 3691
According to Dozois, this constitutes a drop of less than 1% — losing some 600 readers overall year-on-year makes them the only magazine thus far mentioned that has made any progress at all in stemming the bleeding.

INTERZONE: “Circulation is in the 2000-to-3000 range.” Which I find a bit scary.

Someone recently said to me, “Well, what could you do to save them?” And I said, well, no-one’s asking, but there’s probably about twelve things that could be done. And they said, “Well, maybe, but what I really meant was — why try? Why not just bury them and start anew?”

And then someone else asked me why there’s still an sf magazine called “Analog.”[/quote]

this is from '06 of course.

ETA: i realize that this is just for magazine style anthologies

[RedRuin]

[quote name='Stego' post='1481442' date='Aug 15 2008, 14.41']Perhaps because so few are looking.

Short fiction was formative in a time of the magazines. That age is no longer, and the alert SF/F fan will notice the relative obscurity that short fiction has been and continues to plummet into.[/quote]

All you do is confuse success with commercial success. I am Legend, anyone? Call that a novel it's 159 pages long, certainly not a short story, a novella ofc, but shorter fiction can be fantastic. Why is there even a discussion lol.

*leaving for an intelligent board*

Bye

[Ran]

Relevance isn't about popularity. It's about what's important to the genre. The product you're reading today was, likelier than not, written by someone who writes short fiction, who reads short fiction, who learns lessons from short fiction.

So, it's relevant. SF/F as a genre will stullify and turn back to being pulp whiz-wham action when the last short story writer gives up.

Fortunately, we're nowhere near such an eventuality. The fall of print magazine sales is also seeing a rise of a lot of pro or semi-pro online magazines producing cutting edge work, many of them already being mentioned, many of them winning awards and promoting the next generation of top writers. There's very clearly a continuing need for short fiction among the up-and-coming and influential writers starting out today.

So ... yeah. If relevance to the genre is defined as relevance to the literary phenomena as opposed to the more plebeian relevance of commercial popularity, short fiction is obviously very important. And it will continue to be important so long as there are people (writers and readers alike) want to explore the very limits of what SF/F has to offer withou the mass time investment of producing/consuming fat books. The magazines will die, maybe, but the Internet's the wave of the future anyways, so who cares?

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ran' post='1481535' date='Aug 15 2008, 10.36']Relevance isn't about popularity. It's about what's important to the genre. The product you're reading today was, likelier than not, written by someone who writes short fiction, who reads short fiction, who learns lessons from short fiction.
[b]
So, it's relevant. SF/F as a genre will stullify and turn back to being pulp whiz-wham action when the last short story writer gives up.[/b][/quote]

:huh:

[quote]Fortunately, we're nowhere near such an eventuality. The fall of print magazine sales is also seeing a rise of a lot of pro or semi-pro online magazines producing cutting edge work, many of them already being mentioned, many of them winning awards and promoting the next generation of top writers. There's very clearly a continuing need for short fiction among the up-and-coming and influential writers starting out today.

So ... yeah. [b]If relevance to the genre is defined as relevance to the literary phenomena as opposed to the more plebeian relevance of commercial popularity[/b], short fiction is obviously very important. And it will continue to be important so long as there are people (writers and readers alike) want to explore the very limits of what SF/F has to offer without the mass time investment of producing/consuming fat books. The magazines will die, maybe, but the Internet's the wave of the future anyways, so who cares?[/quote]

Plebeian? How nice of you.

[RaceBannon42]

[quote name='Ran' post='1481209' date='Aug 15 2008, 03.46']Given that those people "in the scene" are, many of them, the ones who actually produce the material the average reader is reading, it seems to me that this is an argument for its relevance. If short stories are the stuff that launch many of their careers, which forms many of their opinions and approaches, which hones their talents, and your "average" long fiction reader benefits from it, it's definitely relevant.

If it weren't for short stories, there might not be [i]A Song of Ice and Fire[/i], [i]Foundation[/i], [i]The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[/i], and so on.[/quote]

Word.
Thats pretty well sums up my thoughts on short fiction.
I dont read a lot of it, and I tend to struggle getting though it. I'll read a collection of Link, or Waldrop, or Bradbury, and I'll love one or two stories, but the rest are pretty meh...
With a short its harder for the reader to invest in the story. Maybe Thats why I prefer epic fantasy... I like to get to know the characters. I've got a lot of collections I need to get to by Chiang, anf Jeff, Ford, and John Ford, and Gaiman, and Link, and Martin, and Vance, and Zelazny... I just find it a hard choice to make over a novel.