The Difference Between a Short Story and a Scene

[BWFoster78]

I've read a decent amount of short fiction lately, and a lot of them follow a similar pattern:

Characters are introduced. Random situation coms up. Situation is resolved. Story ends.

I read one of those, and, even if the writing is good enough to keep my interest, I feel unsatisfied at the end. To me, it feels like a scene rather than an actual story.

Since short stories aren't really something I've researched a lot, I figured I'd put the question before the forum: what makes a short story an actual story rather than simply a scene?

Rarely one to have no thoughts on a subject, here are three ways I've found to make a short story more than a scene (Again, I haven't done a ton of research on this subject, and there is no implication intended that these three ways are in any way all-inclusive):

1. Hero's Journey - The story is part of the Hero's Journey and either summarizes the other portions or leads into the next portion. For example, the short story is the call for adventure and ends with the hero leaving on the quest. OR The short story is the Quest and the Call to Adventure is summarized and ends with the hero about to Return Home.

2. Character Change - The protagonist encounters a situation that leads to a profound character change.

3. Establishment and Resolution of a Significant Situation - The author clearly communicates in the first scene the protagonist's goal. The story ends when the goal is either achieved or the character irrevocably fails to achieve the goal.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Brian

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I believe the defining aspects of the short story are the limitations imposed by the author. For example, I tend to use multiple POVs in my longer fiction (usually 3-6). However, in shorter works, I want one POV, maybe two max. In a case where I'd have two, the secondary will have a limited scope.

Even outside of POVs, the story will focus on a small cast of characters, zeroing in on their interactions between the one or two POVs characters and ignoring the rest. The pivotal relationship is between the POV & one or two others, the dealings that are intermingled with the story line. In a longer work, the relationships branch out much farther to encompass a much larger cast. I often find I have to force myself to ignore those ancillary relationships and stick to an outline more strictly, or the story will go off in too many directions.

In short (pun there), I think these types of stories have a few key traits:
1) Focus on limited number of characters
2) Focus on one plot line
3) All scenes move the relationship & development of one or two characters...OR... All scenes move toward conflict & resolution of the single plot line (no developed subplots).

Outside of those, I think your story can encompass an endless variety of themes. It can be a prelude to a larger story (like the ones where you may feel dissatisfied because they feel unresolved) or they may feel complete within their short frame. They can encompass anything from that hero's journey to a slice of life...one day or even a few minutes. I don't even think characters HAVE to change, giving the potential for minute time differences within the story, though my preference would be for some type of character arc, even if that arc has a very small difference from the story's beginning to its conclusion.

A short story could even be a well-developed scene & nothing more. That would not be my preference as a writer but as a reader it wouldn't bother me.

Just as a point of note, the short story I'm currently writing for the "Trials of Jobe" anthology does leave some key happenings unresolved. That's intentional, as the story is the backstory of a POV in my larger novel in progress. It's meant to link an interested reader to the larger world and hint at the goings on that develop from the short to the major plot lines. Jobe's involvement will come to a character change, but the main POV is just beginning his journey with a much more complex arc ahead.

 

[Steerpike]

There is an argument to be made that without some significant change or transformation, you have something other than a 'story.' At least, according to some theories, it is a necessary element, and that change or transformation is focused around a character.

It is interesting to note that all three examples Brian points out, above, boil down ultimately to a change or transformation. It is an essential element of the Hero's Journey, and in the third example either success or irrevocable failure represent a change from which there is (generally) no going back.

 

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

That's a good way to put it.

TAS,

A short story could even be a well-developed scene & nothing more. That would not be my preference as a writer but as a reader it wouldn't bother me.

I guess that's my question: is a scene a story?

I tend to leave such stories as quite unhappy, thinking what the crap was the point of that? I don't mind if the story exists to set up a longer work as long as the story has resolution on its own merits.

 

[Steerpike]

I guess that's my question: is a scene a story?

I tend to leave such stories as quite unhappy, thinking what the crap was the point of that? I don't mind if the story exists to set up a longer work as long as the story has resolution on its own merits.

I guess it depends on who you're talking to. If you read writings on short story theory, from academics who think about such things, I suspect the consensus would be it's not really a short story at that point. More like a vignette. Although a short story that spans only one scene could be a complete story, in alignment with those theories, if the necessary transformational element was present.

 

[Devor]

Not to contradict the academics, but I think you have to judge a short story based on whether or not it leaves a reader feeling satisfied. Not every protagonist needs to be dynamic, and if you look for a change outside of character arcs, then any event at all represents a change that cannot be undone.

That is, if a static character scene represents a "vignette" instead of a "story," then it only pushes the question back a layer. "When does a vignette work as a short story? When does a story just not work?"

To me, a story should end with a payoff that is both surprising and inevitable. And it should create some sense that this combination of story elements has been fulfilled, that the combustion they create together has been exhausted.

And of course, storytelling techniques being what they are, much of that can be implied instead of stated outright, which might give one person a sense of fulfillment which another will feel was absent in the same story.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think the protagonist has to change. Maybe a better way to word those theories is they go from state X to state Y, the transition is significant, and they can't go back. It's not something as simple as being unable to go back in time to, say, eat eggs instead of toast for breakfast, but an inability to revert back to a prior state of being.

For example, you might write a story about a shy girl who longs for romance and adventure, but is always afraid to take the risk, and always afraid to move out of her structured life and comfort zone. In your story, maybe something happens to her that gives her one final opportunity to leave her old life behind and pursue the life she wants. But maybe in the end, she doesn't choose that path. Once more, she holds herself back and stays with the status quo. In that story, the protagonist hasn't really changed, but her 'status' or state of being has changed. The reader understands that this was her final opportunity - if she was going to break free, she was going to have to do it then. When she didn't do it, we understand that her path is now set, and the opportunity to break out of her mundane life won't come again.

So while she doesn't actually change as an individual, everything about her life and her options do change and she becomes irrevocably locked on one path.

Does that explanation make sense?

 

[Svrtnsse]

I've written a few shorts with the intent of showing or exploring an aspect of my setting or of one of my characters. I guess they'd fit in best with the slice-of-life kind of stories, but it can probably be argued that they're not even stories if you want to go into that.

These shorts are meant as building blocks for the world. They inspire me as a writer to think of things I may not otherwise have though of. I also hope that a reader will find the ideas described in them to be interesting.

I originally intended them to be part of a collection of short stories that deal with a series of events taking place in the kingdom of Viller. The stories would touch upon people or events vaguely related to the main events without actually describing the main events in any greater detail.
I still hope to do this at some point in the future, but for now that idea is on ice while I mess around with other things.

I guess that's my question: is a scene a story?

I think you can make a scene a short story, or make a short story of a scene, but a scene doesn't have to be a short story.
A scene, the way I see it, is part of a story and can rely on the story to carry parts of it. A scene doesn't have to be a self contained entity within the story, but a short story needs to carry itself on its own.

 

[Devor]

Does that explanation make sense?

Maybe. But however you define it, you're still only pushing the question back instead of answering it. Stories which don't do that may still work as a "short story" that readers enjoy and find satisfying. The categories only get you so far unless you're categorizing around the end result, which in this case is reader reaction. What kinds of reactions are you looking for? What paths will get you there?

By any other categorization, you have stories that fit the category that don't work, and stories which work that don't fit the category.

Who cares if it's a "story" by such-and-such a definition? That doesn't mean anyone will want to read it.

On the other hand, please don't take my statement too far, as I do recognize these categories can be very important when trying to understand the techniques involved and developing a common creative language to use among writers. My protest is not so much the classification as the idea that this classification defines a "story." I think that it limits the top-level classification in a way that ultimately limits and hurts the genre. "This is what a story is, nothing else counts."

While I do agree that most short stories should have an arc of some kind (i.e., a change), and that this will help it feel "complete" instead of the feeling that it's more of an excerpt, I think it goes too far to suggest that a story is defined as having an arc.

 

[Penpilot]

The way I think of a short story is that takes one thing/idea/theme/character etc. and explores that thing up to at least a certain point. That point being where a choice is about to be made or an opinion is about to be formed. When this point is reached, the story may go on and make a choice or form an opinion to tie things up, but it's not necessary. The ending can be left open ended where the reader can decide/imagine what would happen if X happened. All other threads introduced may be left hanging, so long as the main one has been explored thoroughly enough.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[BWFoster78]

What kinds of reactions are you looking for? What paths will get you there?

Assuming we're seeking reader satisfaction, what paths will get us there?

 

[Svrtnsse]

Assuming we're seeking reader satisfaction, what paths will get us there?

Oooh, essay questions.

For me, the way I'd go would be to try and provide a pleasant reading experience. Now, that doesn't really say very much, and what's pleasant (probably) varies a lot from writer to writer and reader to reader.

I think the most important thing is to set the tone of the story. So the reader can decide from the start whether it's something they'll want to read or if they'd rather spend their time doing something else. Failing at this would probably end up in the reader feeling cheated when they reached the end, which would be contrary to providing reader satisfaction.

Once I'd set the tone I'd try and tickle the imagination of the reader in some way. My shorts are about presenting some concept in my setting in a format different to a "factual" article. I don't really go for the hero's journey, and I don't want the reader on the edge of their seat wondering how it's going to end (sure, that'd be cool, but it's not that kind of story). Instead, I want to share an idea and get them excited about that.
In more general terms; I'd want to create a connection between the reader and the subject matter.

The above is what I'd want to do. I can't really say whether I've pulled it off successfully in any of the shorts I've written.

 

[Devor]

Assuming we're seeking reader satisfaction, what paths will get us there?

Why, the path put forward by me, of course!

I know that having a conclusion which is "surprising and inevitable" will usually be satisfying. That's a phrase that can be packaged and understood and worked towards. Certainly having an arc can work to give you a sense that something was accomplished during the tale - I was only objecting to using it as a definition.

I'm not sure I can immediately articulate other frameworks off hand.

((edit))

Well, there's one. Some stories don't work to change anything, but are all about the big hidden reveal. Wizard sneaks up on Troll - turns out to be a girl sneaking up on her brother. The superhero is really a patient in the psych ward. The demon you thought was a metaphor is real. The details of the story only serve to build the tension between the reader's expectations and the reality, not necessarily to exert a change within the story.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think this is the reason so many more threads are started about technique as opposed to story telling. It's a lot easier to develop guidelines for technique. Story telling seems to be much more, "You just gotta develop a feel for what works."

 

[Devor]

I think this is the reason so many more threads are started about technique as opposed to story telling. It's a lot easier to develop guidelines for technique. Story telling seems to be much more, "You just gotta develop a feel for what works."

I don't think that's true at all. I don't think discussions of storytelling sound at all like "develop a feel for what works." I think people talk about things like arcs, acts, a call to action, rising action and falling action, scenes and sequel, payoffs, rhythm, climax, resolution, and so on.

I didn't make up "surprising yet inevitable." I was taught that phrase in a High School Literature class. Penpilot posts the seven point plot structure by David Wells, and his final points sound very similar ("the plan falls apart, but the power is in you!").

These things are abstract, yes, but ambiguous? No.

 

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm...why does this topic seem so familiar?