ellen_datlow | What Stephen King thinks about the state of short story

What Stephen King thinks about the state of short story

What Ails the Short Story

I read this several days ago and immediately shot off this response to the NY Times. As they haven't contacted me, I assume they won't be running it. If they in fact do, I'll remove it from here:

To the Editor:
I’ve been editing short fiction for over twenty-five years and unlike Stephen King I’ve read (and published) many well-written, insightful, and exciting stories during that time. So I’m perplexed by Mr. King’s complaint in his essay “What Ails the Short Story” (September 30) about the contemporary short story being “showoffy rather than entertaining, self-important rather than interesting, guarded and self-conscious rather than gloriously open, and worst of all, written for editors and teachers rather than for readers.

His comments especially trouble me because nowhere does Mr. King mention the continually entertaining and fertile grounds from which he sprung—science fiction, fantasy, and horror. Yes, the short story (mainstream and genre) is suffering from a lack of visibility, but entertaining and literate short fiction is indeed being published —just check out some of the original anthologies and magazines regularly publishing literature of the fantastic, such as The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Fantasy Magazine, Subterranean Magazine, Cemetery Dance. During the twenty years I’ve co-edited The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror I’ve read hundreds of dark fantasy and horror stories and neither I nor my fantasy co-editors have had any trouble filling our 250,000 volume with stories that excite us and our readers.

Ellen Datlow
Co-editor of The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror and the forthcoming Inferno.

And for those interested, here are the comments about the essay that the NY Times allowed until they reached 164. ( I added an adaptation of my letter, plus later on, under my initials--some short story writers to read). You'll see that they range (as expected from "yes, he's absolutely correct" to "no, he's wrong" to everything in between, plus nasty comments about his own writing:

comments on King essay

Threaded | Flat

We set up Andromeda Spaceways specifically to address a lack of entertaining fiction in the Australian short story market. At the time (2000/2001) there were only two other mags out there, one of them semi-dormant, and they only published arty and literary speculative fiction.

Nothing wrong with that, except that people writing the entertaining, lighter stuff had nowhere to submit. You do need a balance.

Perhaps Mr. King has, as you suggest, forgotten his roots. I do know that my well meaning family thought they were doing me a favor when they bought me a mainstream short story collection as a gift. "She edits a short story magazine (Abyss & Apex), so let's give her short stories!"

The immense volume had only one entertaining story in it. I found myself wondering how it had wandered into what was obviously fiction that had been written to impress academia: dry, self-important, oh-so-correct, and navel-gazing. I'd love to check the name of the tome (so you could avoid it), but I felt the kindest thing to do was to recycle it.

You tell 'em, girl!

What he also doesn't seem to know about is the vibrant online community of short story fans who are reading stories on their computers or listening to them on their iPods. They're not buying the short story magazines because (unfortunately for those of us who still like reading hardcopy) they're not reading any magazines -- they're pulling 'em off the Web.

Is it just me, or does it seem like King, who used to be a school teacher, has been on a rabid anti-intellectualism kick for the past two or three years?

I thought it was strange too, especially since he apparently lists several genre stories from genre publications (or at least F&SF) in the also-rans notable list (including one by Christopher). I haven't seen the full TOC yet, but wonder if this column wasn't really about pointing out to people HE edited this year's BASS so buy it and that he only mentioned people who actually had stories in the volume. The St. Lucy's story he mentioned was in a collection on the Tiptree shortlist last year, so I'm assuming it's at least somewhat fantastical in slant.

The main point that fiction magazines get terrible bookstore placement is a solid one though -- I really, really wish that there was a way to get the SFF magazines in the SFF section. I'm always amazed at how many genre readers don't know they exist.

To be honest, it feels like the article is a lot of bluster to lead up to his pitch to buy his editon of BASS, which he claims will prove everything he's said wrong. Maybe I'm a cynic, though. ;-)

Curiously, I've often found BASS to be showoffy and self-important. This seems to be King's none too subtle jab at previous editions of the anthology.

I think, although I could be wrong, that the short fiction market "in genre" is far more active, particularly in terms of paying markets, than in the mainstream literature markets yet he noted only the elite literary markets. I am troubled that visibility seems to end at the top.

I agree with a lot of what you say here.

And yet, and yet, and yet...

King's point that nobody reads short stories except aspiring writers rings as much true for speculative fiction as it does for mainstream stories. Maybe the malaise hasn't reached the same peak as it has in contemporary literature, but the subscription numbers do bear out the point. And reading the slush pile, where there are so many dry, uninspired, written-to-please-the-editor stories, also seems to be a damning mark in the same direction.

To be sure, I constantly read a lot of really good SF being published in all sorts of venues, but that doesn't beg the question: who is actually reading it?

I know a lot of my non-writer friends will go to various "Best" anthologies to read good short fiction, if they want to at all, but most never go past that and see all the really good stuff being published in magazines, despite me practically throwing it at them. And that's such a shame.

Oh my this was a plugfest! Dave is chomping at the bit.

But his point on the market shrinkage is dead on. He seems to put the onus on the writers. There's some point to that. I'd suggest that the larger point is that readers aren't being cultivated. Readers who would read short fiction (and novels) of course.

The "good stuff" is frequently obscure and takes years, sometimes many years before it gains hold.

It doesn't necessarily bother me that he read a number of stories and didn't like them. Isn't this generally what happens?

I suppose what really happens is that he didn't like stories that others would assert are good. We usually don't have the time or space to explicate why one story is better than another. Especially hundreds. Let's face it. Reviewers rarely will even bother to even mention much less review all the stories in an anthology. But I digress.

Can't even get Ellen to watch Lemmings :)

I digress again.

Or do I? All I'm suggesting is that we really don't have enough information to determine what made the decisions that were made.

No one cheered for the Lepodopterist either...

I would suggest to Mr. King that he do his part to remedy the situation as he sees it and write short fiction.

And yet, you didn't mention the science fictional (well, time travel) element of your own letter. You say you sent off your commentary several days ago, yet you're referencing an essay in tomorrow's paper...

Interesting. When you write the WashPost, you get an autoreply with a lot of info & rules, including that they won't publish your letter if you've published it anywhere else, including online. I always wait to see if they take mine before I put them on my LJ. Actually, I think I have one pretty recently...

To: marilee@mjlayman.com
Subject: AUTO REPLY: Thank you for your letter to The Washington Post.
From: letters <letters@washpost.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:22:29 -0400

[Please do NOT reply to this e-mail, it will not be read.]

Thank you for sending us your letter to the editor. We read every letter
that we receive (yes, we really do), and we appreciate and value the views
of those who take the time to send us their comments. Because of the volume
of letters we receive, we cannot respond to the authors of letters we are
unable to use. If we wish to publish your letter, we will contact you in
advance of publication. While you are reading this, here’s some other tips
on how to increase the chances of having your letter published in The Post:

1. Letters should be fewer than 200 words and exclusive to The
Washington Post.
2. The letter may not have been submitted to or published by any other
media or Internet outlet. This includes comments or feedback posted to Web
sites. If you have posted similar comments to a Web site, your letter will
not be considered.
3. The letter must include the writer's full name, home address, e-mail
address, and home, business and cellular telephone numbers. Anonymous
letters will not be considered, nor does The Post permit the use of
pseudonyms.
4. Letters must disclose the writer’s involvement, affiliations or
relationship with the subject matter of the letter.
5. All letters are subject to abridgment.
6. Do not send attachments; they will not be read.
7. We prefer letters that cite an article or item that has appeared in
the print edition of The Post within the past three weeks; we do not
publish letters that respond to Web site-only articles or items.
8. To make your e-mailed letter as easy for us to read as possible, do
not send any graphics or digital letterhead, put the text of your letter in
the body of the e-mail, and remember to cite the article or item you are
writing about in the body or subject line.

Again, thank you for sending us your letter.

Sincerely,
The Letters Editor

King has been pursuing the "literary" world's attention a lot in recent years, in doing so he's joined in on their world view that only what is labeled capitol L Literature is even visible, the only stuff that is part of the literary discussion. The obvious ironies of this are being well pointed out in this post and the comments. It's sad that he doesn't want to use his public podium to point to the writers and readers that have an affinity for the kind of fiction he actually writes. The only group I've heard him defend publicly lately has been fellow best seller writers.
DJK

I don't think King's essay has anything to do with genre, and I certainly don't think it's a condemnation of the short story as a form. Rather, he's pointing out something that troubles me. most literary journals, especially those working out of a university, with a commitee of grad-student editors, publish formulaic short fiction--realistic or otherwise. Stories written by authors who lack vision and write as if painting by number (well gosh it looks like a painting), or perhaps who have had had all the character workshopped out of their story (and lack the courage/confidence to resist).

King has also made the observation--one quite familiar, especially to those shopping outside of NYC--that journals devoted to the short story, genre and otherwise, are relegated to the least visible areas of the magazine section. Not too long ago, I went to a bookstore and asked where the literary journals were, and I found myself explaining to the clerk what a literary journal is.

We (readers of this site, and Stephen King, I suspect) know that great short stories are being written all the time, and we support the form enthusiastically. The short story is, sadly, in a bad way--partly because there are hundreds of journals publishing mediocre short fiction that makes me want to die, and makes it very hard to demonstrate to all those readers who usually go for the novel--that would be most readers--that the short story is capable of greatness.

As for King editing the Best American--I don't know what he selected, but I can only hope his volume will feel different from the others, the same way Robert Creeley's Best American Poetry was a radical departure for the series (he was attacked for this, by the way, in subsequent volumes of Best American Poetry). I only wish BASS would make more unusual choices for editor--Ellen Datlow, perhaps? Mary Caponegro, anyone?

Hi.
I've read Stephen King's article, noting the anthology he is editing this year, and your letter.

I believe the target of his lamentation is the literary fiction marketplace and not speculative fiction nor themed anthologies.

Chuck Emerson
near Houston, TX

Ellen, your response--to me and to Chuck--yes, you're right, counter-examples in AND out of the genre would help. I think King means to suggest that the stories in the Best of ARE his counter-examples, but we shall see.

I'd say that short genre fiction suffers in a similar way to non-genre, though--I read so many horror stories that are mediocre--the prose is competent (though just competent--not enough in my book), but the story is flat. And I'm not just talking about my slush pile, but about published stories.

But again, counter-examples would have been helpful: what magazines delighted him--and not just with one story, but consistently? What authors regularly delivered?

What about the state of the short story re. publishing? It's my understanding that publishers--big and small press--limit the number of short story collections they publish because the short story doesn't sell (I'm picking your brain, here, Ellen--I'm very interested in this topic). Why don't publishers put more advertising muscle behind short fiction? The kind of promotion that leads readers to try new stuff? Any ideas?

you're right! the context of King's essay is wrong. If it's the intro--or a rough draft of his intro--to the Best of, he needs to provide some of the context the Best of will provide. And if it isn't his intro, he needs to help readers--since, as you point out, publishers won't (and, as we've seen with his EW essays, all he needs to do is mention, say, a book on tape, and it becomes a success).

Great to have you journaling, by the way. I don't read many blogs, but when I saw (in Gila Queen) that you were, I knew I'd add you to the shortlist.

I hope they DO print it.

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Stephen King and the short story

no subject

no subject

excellent response