Short-short

When I was at Clarion West, far back in the ancient mythical past, at one point we had one of those typical "what is a story, anyway?" debates. (In weeks 2-3 there were a fair number of critiques that started out "This isn't a story." Some of them came from the teachers. Some were aimed at me, so I may've taken it a bit personally.) One of the things I noted during this debate is that the short-short is a valid story form, and that it's hard but not impossible to make an emotional impact in 500 words.

I don't think anyone else agreed with me, though. And to be fair, I have to admit that my primary example at the time was 100 Great Science Fiction Short-Short Stories, which in retrospect may not have been the best choice; there are quite a few joke stories in that anthology, with cute little punch lines at the end. More generally, a lot of the "great" short-shorts in SF are basically ideas with punch lines; clever, but not rich or deep or moving.

Nonetheless, I maintain that it is possible to be rich or deep or moving in under 1000 words (the usual definition of a short-short), and even in under 500 words (one of the definitions of "flash fiction"). There are plenty of examples: there's a bunch of good stuff in the Sudden Fiction anthologies, for instance.

At any rate, it seems to me that the short-short has been in full flower lately in online magazines. Among other things:

So I'm glad to see that the short-short is alive and well. One thing I've noticed about them lately is that though word economy is essential, many good short-shorts don't skimp on descriptive detail. There isn't room for a lot of plot, but there is room for mood, atmosphere, and character as revealed by specific details. Which is good for longer stories as well, of course.

Join the Conversation