 |
| Debra Adelaide |
Many fiction writers almost instinctively commence their careers with the short story, so it is worth reflecting closely on the form. As always, the best rules for writing come from the best writing itself. Authors like Raymond Carver and Alice Munro are much-read and -studied because they have raised the short story to such perfection.
In Australia there is probably no one author known exclusively for this form, though historically, Henry Lawson, Peter Carey and Helen Garner have each made significant contributions. More recently Fiona McFarlane, Georgia Blain, Paddy O’Reilly and several others have kept the short story alive. The popularity of the form was greatly assisted by publications such as the Bulletin, which back in the late 19th century first published Lawson’s short fiction. His story, ‘The Drover’s Wife’, is now such a classic that it has inspired an entire mini-industry of rewritings or reimaginings, the latest of which is Leah Purcell’s film The Drover’s Wife: the Legend of Molly Johnson.
The short story’s enduring appeal is partly due to its flexibility. But is it so flexible that finding a definition of the short story is impossible? Or establishing a few clear rules futile? Taking some examples, almost at random from my bookshelf, shows the immense diversity of the short story, and the first thing that is apparent is that if there are any rules, these have nothing to do with length.
Anthropology (2001), by British author Dan Rhodes, features 101 love stories all written in exactly 100 words. These are wry, sad, macabre, eccentric, emotional, and funny, all narrated by a male narrator expressing the failings, desires, memories, and small triumphs in the process of love. Each tiny story is finely crafted, and cumulatively the effect of the collection is like a quilt, displaying different repetitions of a pattern. In isolation, each story is probably too brief to be satisfying, yet the overall effect is of a chorus on the theme of love.
In Anthropology Rhodes clearly established disciplined thematic and formal rules, and it’s possible to assume this was beneficial when compiling a first book. Such an approach also risks being formulaic or gimmicky, of using effect for the sake of effect, but Rhodes compensates by having a clear narrative arc within each micro-story.
