HTMLGIANT

March 2nd, 2010 / 8:31 pm anon—

THREE-FOR-A-DOLLAR FEEDER FISH: Steve Almond

Has been reviewed by the New York Times and published books on corporate presses but one of them was a nonfiction book about candy and he fights back publicly when shit-talked by Gawker by first making sure that everyone knows he does not read Gawker and only found out he got shit-talked because someone else told him. Quit his adjunct teaching job because Condoleezza Rice was invited to speak at his college. Has sex once a month with fans he meets through MySpace. Receives up to three e-mails a day from a mix of MFA students at community colleges, Centipedes in the Darkness wanting blurbs, and 14-year-old girls who have lived their entire lives in gated communities. Will not be forgotten easily even after he is dead and his books are out of print because of how easy it is to talk shit about him. Will then be forgotten very easily, completely, and forever a few days after I type this when there’s someone easier to talk shit about.
(via http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=449302 )

March 2nd, 2010 / 8:43 pm david e—

Damn, you are fired up about Steve Almond.

March 2nd, 2010 / 8:45 pm david e—

you being Tao Lin. It’s an interesting article, thanks for the link.

Everyone should read “Mad To Live.”

March 2nd, 2010 / 8:57 pm Matthew Simmons—

Second anonymous link to this in as many days.

March 2nd, 2010 / 8:58 pm Kyle Minor—

I think Steve’s advice — about not withholding information the character knows which the reader also needs to know in order to make sense of what’s going on in the dramatic present in the same way the character is — is spot on, IF you’re writing in a first person, a close third person, or an alternating close third person. But a lot of the flash fiction I’m seeing (or writing) is from points of view we see less often in longer short stories, such as the objective point of view (no access to anyone’s interiority), an omniscience that explicitly or implicitly acknowledges the presence of a narrator who is writer qua writer, or an omniscience that parcels out the various points of view slowly (proportionally, I mean — I know that there’s nothing particularly slow about a 300-1000 word story.) In those cases, we have structures, often, that more closely approximate the stage play or the novel or the dramatic monologue or the poem or just about anything, really, except the single-movement, single focal character short story. So the writer has a different set of issues to manage with regard to the management of information, since the controlling consciousness is different and is operating under different rules and appetites. (I’ll cross-post this where Steve posted, too.)

March 2nd, 2010 / 4:58 pm Kyle Minor—

I think Steve’s advice — about not withholding information the character knows which the reader also needs to know in order to make sense of what’s going on in the dramatic present in the same way the character is — is spot on, IF you’re writing in a first person, a close third person, or an alternating close third person. But a lot of the flash fiction I’m seeing (or writing) is from points of view we see less often in longer short stories, such as the objective point of view (no access to anyone’s interiority), an omniscience that explicitly or implicitly acknowledges the presence of a narrator who is writer qua writer, or an omniscience that parcels out the various points of view slowly (proportionally, I mean — I know that there’s nothing particularly slow about a 300-1000 word story.) In those cases, we have structures, often, that more closely approximate the stage play or the novel or the dramatic monologue or the poem or just about anything, really, except the single-movement, single focal character short story. So the writer has a different set of issues to manage with regard to the management of information, since the controlling consciousness is different and is operating under different rules and appetites. (I’ll cross-post this where Steve posted, too.)

March 2nd, 2010 / 9:19 pm Lincoln—

Having not read the piece in question, Almond’s advice might be spot on for this particular piece. I do not agree with the advice or its summation as any kind of rule for flash fiction. Indeed, much of my favorite short work treads in mystery and confusion.

March 2nd, 2010 / 9:51 pm Mitch—

I’m guessing “anon” posted this because it’s brilliant satire. If you did more thinking and less sociopolitical posturing and policing, you’d just acknowledge that, or debate it.

March 2nd, 2010 / 10:01 pm Ryan Call—

tao lin got it right: the F-16 is truly superior to the F-14

March 2nd, 2010 / 10:35 pm Sean—

We don’t get to see the draft so it’s tough to know if he is is “spot-on,” but his sensibility of what he–and he clearly says it is his take–is about with flash would not be take. I don’t really need my heart to be punched, and I actually like intellectual work, especially structurally odd, mathematical (cold even), and so on. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, obviously, but I read so many flash fictions, esp online and find myself attracted to ones that actually are very idea-oriented.

March 2nd, 2010 / 10:35 pm Sean—

or my take. Sorry. Been reading all day long and not fun reading…job reading!

beer me

March 2nd, 2010 / 6:35 pm Matthew Simmons—

Thanks, Mitch. Way to…umm..actually, I don’t know what the fuck you’re doing. Way to do it, though.

Actually, I like that piece of writing. I was just acknowledging that it had been linked to twice in one day. I even had a ‘neutral facial expression’ when I did it.

March 2nd, 2010 / 10:48 pm Matthew Simmons—

But there are different kinds of mystery. There’s the human mystery that acts as the center of gravity of all good stories—and that mystery can exist in narrative pieces, or language pieces, or experimental pieces—and there is the coyness that Almond seems to be talking about.

The first mystery must be chiseled free from a story. The second one is the first-thought stuff that a writer learns to throw away. Twist endings. Surprise narrators.

March 2nd, 2010 / 11:03 pm Lincoln—

Are you telling me you don’t like this last line from my most recent story: “But, hey, what do I know? I’m just the pet goldfish!”

March 2nd, 2010 / 11:11 pm Matthew Simmons—

I stand corrected. That story ruled.

March 3rd, 2010 / 4:31 pm jesusangelgarcia—

I wrote this on Randall’s FB page yesterday. I’m still thinking on it…

This is really great: Steve Almond’s advice, your game plan going forward, and the dialogue, esp. with Kyle Minor on the blog. I’ve struggled as well with head v. heart issues, concept v. feeling, showing v. telling, implication v. spelling it out, ambiguity v. straight-ahead… I don’t think there are easy answers, unless you’re writing formulaic fiction, in which case I wouldn’t want to read it.

As Nicole says above, it’s a tough balance to strike. You don’t want hackneyed b.s., tugging at heartstrings just to tug. I mean, isn’t that manipulating the reader as much as withholding info? There’s also a good chance you’ll lose yourself in cliched crap that way.

I lean more toward the David Lynch school — who’s the lit version? Calvino sometimes? Beckett? I dunno… — and I like surprises if they make sense to the story and the characters. As Kyle, I believe, pointed out: P.O.V seems key. Of course, conspicuous withholding doesn’t work. Vonnegut said something about this: “Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.” I mostly agree with this. Mostly.

—

I think Sean nails this “advice” above: ‘These ideas are not mutually exclusive.’ And yet… I’m pretty sure in a lot of fiction — I’m not even talking about just flash — there’s a schism that often exists whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

32 Comments

Archives

Meta