# Reading > General Literature >  Short Stories

## Illini88228

It seems like there are some great writers of short stories who just never get the respect that novelists do.

I've always had a soft spot for Poe and Faulkner. With that said, if you were going to pick up a book of short stories from the library to read for an evening who would you pick?

----------


## Quark

If I were picking just one writer it would probably be Anton Chekhov. His short stories were some of works that first got me interested in literature, and, even though I've read them dozens of times, they still get a reaction out of me. "Sleepy" is still shocking, "Rothschild's Fiddle" is always poignant, and "The Lady with the Dog" will never be less mysterious--no matter how many times you read them. That's what I come back to these stories for: a sure thrill in less than thirty pages. Novels sometimes take too long to develop, and if you only have fifteen or twenty minutes to read something you don't want to start something that isn't going to go anywhere fast. For example, Edith Wharton--whose fine novels about the tensions between power, social codes, and personal desire eventually do get interesting--are a little too slow on the windup for me sometimes. A Chekhov story, though, hits a reader almost immediately. 

Of course, you might not be into Russian lit. Something a little closer to home might be Melville's _Piazza Tales_. Melville's known for his novels, but he wrote a number of great short stories. Some are adventures. Some are mysteries, and others are philosophical meditations. It's a pretty good collection of short stories.

----------


## eric.bell

(note: I generally refer to short stories, simply, as shorts.)

I am an obsessive short story collector. With that said--Faulkner's Complete Stories is an excellent book to own; he was a master. A good noob that you might like to try out is T.C. Boyle. His shorts are generally a good read, and if you pick up his "After The Plague" And Other Stories you will (most likely) not be disappointed. But, when it comes to shorts, I prefer to buy compilation books, that way one gets a wide variety. If you can get your hands on it, Modern Short Stories (circa 1960) is a great companion.

Also, try to read the shorts of foreign writers. I find that reading their shorts help you to get a feel for their over all Literature, without having to commit too much time (in case their duds).

-Faulkner's Complete Stories
-Hemingway's Complete Short Stories
-T.C. Boyle's After the Plague and Other Stories
-Evelyn Waugh's Complete Works
-Frank O'Connor's The Best of Frank O'Connor

A great place to find short stories on the web is <http://www.short-stories.co.uk/>

----------


## Modest Proposal

There are a couple threads in the archives dealing with short story collections that you may find helpful. Some of the usual replies are:
-Hemingway
-Poe
-O. Henry
-Gogol
-Chekhov
-Maugham 
-O'Connor (Flannery or Frank)
-Carver
-Faulkner
-D.H. Lawrence
-Joyce
-Hawthorne 
-Irving
-London
My favorites are probably Borges, Melville and Kafka
For good SF stories, you could try Gene Wolfe, Le Guin, PK Dick or Bradbury.

----------


## johnw1

For me it would be Hemingway or Conrad, both of whose short stories are fantastic. I suppose Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories could be included in this category too if you want a lighter read.

----------


## mal4mac

I actually did pick up a volume of short stories by Chekhov at the library. Then I plundered their shelves for all the Chekhov I could find!

----------


## dfloyd

Chekov, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Gogol, Pushkin, Salinger, and many other diverse authors. But one name stands out as being the master short story writer .... W. Somerset Maugham. His collected short stories I bought years ago in 4 volumes. I thought I would read a few from time to time, but I couldn't stop until I read them all. He was an admirer of Chekov, but IMO a better writer.

----------


## applepie

I would have to say Poe, Hemingway, or Charles De Lint for when I'm looking for more of an escape.

----------


## Janine

I have read all three volumes of Lawrence's short stories. I own several volumes now of Chekhov so that will be my goal next. I recently did read some of his plays. I like stories by Katherine Mansfield and other noteworthy woman authors. I have small book of just woman short story authors and I have now read most of that. Just bought some new short story collections from Dover.

----------


## kelby_lake

I read a good one by Katherine Mansfield called 'Carnation'.

----------


## Janine

> I read a good one by Katherine Mansfield called 'Carnation'.


I don't think I read that one yet. I read "The Garden Party" and another in one of my new books...forget the name now. I will check my books and see if that one is listed. I like the title; sounds good. Katherine Mansfield was close friends with D.H.Lawrence.

----------


## Modest Proposal

Has anyone read the contemporary writer, Lorrie Moore's short stories? A friend of mine raves about her.

----------


## PeterL

Chekov's short stories were his best writing. Twain's short stories are better than some of his longer works. Poe wrote some excellent short stories, but they are getting old; many people find them difficult to read, but his organization was excellent. Some people like Hemingway's short stories, but I don't think much of them. For 20th century Short stories the best were those of L. Sprague de Camp, including his collaborations with Fletcher Pratt.

----------


## myrna22

> It seems like there are some great writers of short stories who just never get the respect that novelists do.
> 
> I've always had a soft spot for Poe and Faulkner. With that said, if you were going to pick up a book of short stories from the library to read for an evening who would you pick?


Raymond Carver. One of the best short stories writers of the second half of the 20th century. He wrote some poetry, but no novels and is highly admired.

----------


## Three Sparrows

Hawthorne all the way for me. :Smile:  Poe, Kafka, and Conrad are also excellent, but never forget the Russians, they have some really good short stories out there.

----------


## prendrelemick

> I read a good one by Katherine Mansfield called 'Carnation'.



Katherine Mansfield is one of those short story writers this thread is concerned with. A wonderful writer, but only wrote short stories. I don't know why she didn't write any novels. She died young after a scandalous life.

----------


## anzki4

Nobody mentioned H.P Lovecraft yet. What a great writer.

----------


## myrna22

> Hawthorne all the way for me. Poe, Kafka, and Conrad are also excellent, but never forget the Russians, they have some really good short stories out there.


It does baffle me here that so many posters either have no interest in or no knowledge of anything written since the early 1900's. Why is that?

Flannery O'Conner, Truman Capote, & JD Salinger also wrote great short stories. But the premier American short story writer of the late 20th century is Raymond Carver.

----------


## myrna22

> It seems like there are some great writers of short stories who just never get the respect that novelists do.
> 
> I've always had a soft spot for Poe and Faulkner. With that said, *if you were going to pick up a book of short stories from the library to read for an evening who would you pick*?


I wouldn't pick just one author, necessarily. There isn't one best author. This is a list of the table of contens of an anthology called Best American Short Stories of the 20th Century. Many writers, many very good stories.
It also depends on what you like. I like Doris Lessing's writing, and I like both her novels and stories. I like Chekov's stories. But it is impossible to have a favorite and no reason I know of to have a favorite, to focus all your admiration, intellect, and appreciation on just one writer. 

Zelig By Benjamin Rosenblatt

Little Selves By Mary Lerner

A Jury of Her Peers By Susan Glaspell

The Other Woman By Sherwood Anderson

The Golden Honeymoon By Ring Lardner

Blood-Burning Moon By Jean Toomer

The Killers By Ernest Hemingway

Double Birthday By Willa Cather

Wild Plums By Grace Stone Coates

Theft By Katherine Anne Porter

That Evening Sun Go Down By William Faulkner

Here We Are By Dorothy Parker

Crazy Sunday By F. Scott Fitzgerald

My Dead Brother Comes to America By Alexander Godin

Resurrection of a Life By William Saroyan

Christmas Gift By Robert Penn Warren

Bright and Morning Star By Richard Wright

The Hitch-Hikers By Eudora Welty

The Peach Stone By Paul Horgan

"That in Aleppo Once ..." By Vladimir Nabokov

The Interior Castle By Jean Stafford

Miami - New York By Martha Gellhorn

The Second Tree from the Corner By E. B. White

The Farmer's Children By Elizabeth Bishop

Death of a Favorite By J. F. Powers

The Resemblance Between a Violin Case and a Coffin By Tennessee Williams

The Country Husband By John Cheever

Greenleaf By Flannery O'Connor

The Ledge By Lawrence Sargent Hall

Defender of the Faith By Philip Roth

Criers and Kibitzers, Kibitzers and Criers By Stanley Elkin

The German Refugee By Bernard Malamud

Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? By Joyce Carol Oates

The Rotifer By Mary Ladd Gavell

Gold Coast By James Alan McPherson

The Key By Isaac Bashevis Singer

A City of Churches By Donald Barthelme

How to Win By Rosellen Brown

Roses, Rhododendron By Alice Adams

Verona: A Young Woman Speaks By Harold Brodkey

A Silver Dish By Saul Bellow

Gesturing By John Updike

The Shawl By Cynthia Ozick

Where I'm Calling From By Raymond Carver

Janus By Ann Beattie

The Way We Live Now By Susan Sontag

The Things They Carried By Tim O'Brien

Meneseteung By Alice Munro

You're Ugly, Too By Lorrie Moore

I Want to Live! By Thom Jones

In the Gloaming By Alice Elliott Dark

Proper Library By Carolyn Ferrell

Birthmates By Gish Jen

Soon By Pam Durban

The Half-Skinned Steer By Annie Proulx

----------


## Modest Proposal

> It does baffle me here that so many posters either have no interest in or no knowledge of anything written since the early 1900's. Why is that?
> 
> Flannery O'Conner, Truman Capote, & JD Salinger also wrote great short stories. But the premier American short story writer of the late 20th century is Raymond Carver.


The vast majority of readers probably read modern best sellers--hence, the books are best-sellers. People that seek out a "literature network" probably are into something other than what is most popular in the modern publishing houses. As far as why their taste ranges back a century rather than just to the previous decades of the 1900s, it is probably because they find something in the older works lacking in modern and postmodern times.

While no one reasonable would claim that there are strict definitions between a work of 19th century versus 20th century literature, almost anyone can concede that there are general differences in the overall body produced from one century to the next. Like many others I find most of what I desire to explore in literature in the 19th century western canonical tradition. This is not to say it is better than others, or that I do not often venture into other countries and times for my reading, but merely that one tradition--that is a group of artists writing with some common vein--meets my criteria for reading.

Now, I believe I did list Carver and O'Conner in my post, but I do NOT enjoy their work as much as the work of Melville and Hawthorne. Honestly, it seems more reasonable for people to advocate the works of past centuries that have endured as "classics" than to suggest there is something wrong with people not proposing the moderns who have not shown longevity past 50 years yet.

----------


## myrna22

> The vast majority of readers probably read modern best sellers--hence, the books are best-sellers. People that seek out a "literature network" probably are into something other than what is most popular in the modern publishing houses. As far as why their taste ranges back a century rather than just to the previous decades of the 1900s, it is probably because they find something in the older works lacking in modern and postmodern times.
> 
> While no one reasonable would claim that there are strict definitions between a work of 19th century versus 20th century literature, almost anyone can concede that there are general differences in the overall body produced from one century to the next. Like many others I find most of what I desire to explore in literature in the 19th century western canonical tradition. This is not to say it is better than others, or that I do not often venture into other countries and times for my reading, but merely that one tradition--that is a group of artists writing with some common vein--meets my criteria for reading.
> 
> Now, I believe I did list Carver and O'Conner in my post, but I do NOT enjoy their work as much as the work of Melville and Hawthorne. Honestly, it seems more reasonable for people to advocate the works of past centuries that have endured as "classics" than to suggest there is something wrong with people not proposing the moderns who have not shown longevity past 50 years yet.


I disagree with you completely. I believe it is because people don't have a clue what is good and can only appreciate the 'classics' because they've been told they are classics and are good. People don't venture to read anything modern because no one has told them what is good. My impression of most posters here is that they are only reading and appreciating what they've been told is good in either high school or very pedestrian college courses. Of course modern writers are as accomplished and talented as artists from other eras, many of them far more so. That you are unable to see the value of a modern writer such as Carver is your limitation, not the limitation of the work.




> because they find something in the older works lacking in modern and postmodern times.


 The only thing they find lacking is that they haven't been told it is good enough to be a 'classic.'




> seems more reasonable for people to advocate the works of past centuries that have endured as "classics


 This is exactly what I am getting at. The only way you people can determine if something is good is because it has 'endured as a classic.' You have no real idea at all what makes literature really good literaure, you're just regurgitating what you've been told to think.

----------


## Modest Proposal

> I disagree with you completely. I believe it is because people don't have a clue what is good and can only appreciate the 'classics' because they've been told they are classics and are good. People don't venture to read anything modern because no one has told them what is good. My impression of most posters here is that they are only reading and appreciating what they've been told is good in either high school or very pedestrian college courses. Of course modern writers are as accomplished and talented as artists from other eras, many of them far more so. That you are unable to see the value of a modern writer such as Carver is your limitation, not the limitation of the work.
> 
> The only thing they find lacking is that they haven't been told it is good enough to be a 'classic.'
> 
> This is exactly what I am getting at. The only way you people can determine if something is good is because it has 'endured as a classic.' You have no real idea at all what makes literature really good literaure, you're just regurgitating what you've been told to think.


I understand what you are saying but think you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I have been saying. First of all, I specifically mentioned Carver in BOTH of my posts as one of the great short story writers. Second of all to broadly proclaim that anyone who gravitates toward older classics is doing so because they cannot form their own opinion is as idiotic and ridiculous as suggesting that anyone reading modern works is unaware or incapable of seeing the power of older works. See that? See how both of these assumptions are incorrect? The one you set up as a straw man in attacking peoples tastes and the one you ironically aligned yourself with.

Now, if you would be so good as to enact the close reading skills you profess and go back and READ my post you will see that I made no value judgement. In fact I even SAID I would make no value judgement. What I said was that works of certain times often have certain similarities and thus it makes sense that someone who likes those forms/themes/genres/whathaveyou would gravitate to other, similar works. I am not saying the 19th century was better, I am saying that what I LIKE--get it, my opinion, like many others--is most well represented by that period.

Now if you are attacking the first line of my post where I brought up the best-sellers, reread it carefully. I am not saying that anyone not in the 19th century is just a Harry Potter zealot, I was deliniating the difference between the reading public which you attacked and a very specific type of reader: that is, the literature network type. I was trying to show you that on this site you will fine more aware readers who know what they like in the grand scheme and don't just follow the bestsellers.

As to my final paragraph with which you kept your theme of obtuseness and misread, I will try to rephrase it. I didn't say older works or more established works are better. I said it is more REASONABLE to spend ones reading time in works most firmly intrenched in hierarchies of "greatness".; of course, people may venture out. I do myself. I am just saying that it is very reasonable to spend the limited time that people have on this earth reading only what they feel is most likely to be great. Why don't you look at the half of the sentence you cut out. It clearly opposes one imperfect view with another, and doesn't suggest a perfect "answer".

Now as to your constant illusions to the "you people" you're attacking, the high schoolers or ones in pedestrian college courses, I take exception. I was accepted to 3 of the top English PhD programs in the US, 2 with full funding. The school I'm planning to attend is currently ranked 17th of several thousand in the US, admitting 12 of over 350 applicants. I'm not trying to brag, but your insults need to be shown as unfounded and obviously incorrect.

Instead of telling me that I only regurgitate what I think, why don't you encourage people to read what you think is worthwhile. I am currently working on my MA thesis--though I may boot it for my PhD--on revising the way acadamia looks at certain works. It is not revolutionary, but it is certainly shows that I am not "regurgitating."

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Now if you are attacking the first line of my post where I brought up the best-sellers, reread it carefully.


Heh. I just think it's funny people are talking about "best-sellers" in relation to short stories when short story collections typically don't sell very well.

----------


## eric.bell

> I believe it is because people don't have a clue what is good and can only appreciate the 'classics' because they've been told they are classics and are good. People don't venture to read anything modern because no one has told them what is good. My impression of most posters here is that they are only reading and appreciating what they've been told is good in either high school or very pedestrian college courses. Of course modern writers are as accomplished and talented as artists from other eras, many of them far more so. That you are unable to see the value of a modern writer such as Carver is your limitation, not the limitation of the work.


I agree wholeheartedly. There are oh so many great writers who write in our day, yet are ignored because they aren't 'classic'.

----------


## naser56

thank you

----------


## myrna22

> I agree wholeheartedly. There are oh so many great writers who write in our day, yet are ignored because they aren't 'classic'.


I have been wondering ever since I got here (posting here) which isn't very long, why the same names keep coming up over and over and over again: Bronte, Conrad, Dickens, Hardy, etc., all the stanards of British novelists of the 1800's early 1900's. And the same for American lit: Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc. Over and over and over again like there are no other writers in the world before or after. Shakespeare, of course, also coming up over and over again, as if he is the only playwright. Almost no references to anything modern or contemporary, almost no references to writers whose work is not originally written in English. Finally, I think I am beginning to understand that it is about either posters being students, probably most university/college students, or people who have studied literature in high school or college and whose knowledge of literature is based in what they've been taught in classrooms: the standard classics, the famous ones. 

Well, I don't know...but for me, though I love and amire and appreciate the classics, I also love and appreciate and admire many, many modern and comtemporary writers. As well, I don't want to just talk about what is best or whatever, it is interesting to just discuss what is interesting and why. That doesn't happen here. 

I realize I won't be staying much longer....

----------


## Modest Proposal

Let me get this strait Myrna.
-Someone listed their favorite short story writers.
-You asked why they were all older texts.
-I suggested that texts of different times exemplified different things and that those things are what some of us like.
-You said I was wrong and that it was because we just regurgitated what we heard in high school or pedestrian college classes. All the while ignoring the fact that many modern authors had been listed by myself and others (14 of the 21 I listed were 20th century).

When I addressed the gross discrepancies in your post you ignored it and went on to talk about how you just want to discuss what you like.

Weren't YOU the first person on this thread to call in to question people's tastes?

You keep trying to make this about defending the modern against the established, but no one attacked the modern. People just put down what they like. 2/3rds of what I listed would be considered modern. You are contradicting yourself all over the place: attacking other's opinions and then pining for no place to merely air yours, decrying established hierarchies and then suggesting that those with different opinions are uneducated. 

Like I said, if there are great artists people don't consider, bring them up. I am always happy to try new things. You mentioned Lorrie Moore? My friend just loaned me her book. I will also meet her this weekend as she teaches at UW Madison and I am going in for orientation.

----------


## eric.bell

I am rather new to this site and, therefore, have not yet been able to assess whether or not you are right (on how closed-minded the sites users may be); but I do, unfortunately, have the feeling that you are most likely correct--sadly. But I must say: I came upon the site while looking up discussions, explications of ancient Chinese literature. Once I had stumbled upon a treasure trove of discussion (they were from the archives--that is the discussions I found were), I decided to become a member.

I, myself, am a writer. And for both my pleasure and the general betterment of my writings, I am an fervent reader of all literatures (English or foreign, poem or prose, fiction or non-fiction, novel or novella or short story or play, philosophy or history). I am a collector of rare books, books by rarely read writers, books of compiled short stories, and books of philosophy, as well as books deemed 'classics'.

I would love discussions of new writers and even new mediums for writing, as well as advice on what is out there to be had.




> only appreciate the 'classics' because they've been told they are classics and are good


I will say this about the classics: they are, for the most part, great pieces of literature that are easily found. Many might not have the time or the patience to sort through today's onslaught of books to find what good is contained there in. I do not include myself in this 'many' but do sympathize, if not empathize, with them.

----------


## johnw1

> I disagree with you completely. I believe it is because people don't have a clue what is good and can only appreciate the 'classics' because they've been told they are classics and are good. People don't venture to read anything modern because no one has told them what is good. My impression of most posters here is that they are only reading and appreciating what they've been told is good in either high school or very pedestrian college courses. Of course modern writers are as accomplished and talented as artists from other eras, many of them far more so. That you are unable to see the value of a modern writer such as Carver is your limitation, not the limitation of the work.
> 
> The only thing they find lacking is that they haven't been told it is good enough to be a 'classic.'
> 
> This is exactly what I am getting at. The only way you people can determine if something is good is because it has 'endured as a classic.' You have no real idea at all what makes literature really good literaure, you're just regurgitating what you've been told to think.


I think you do have a point although you are being too harsh on people. 

Most people have quite busy lives with full time jobs, a family, other hobbies, interests etc etc. So people have to make a judgment on what to read in their spare time. We all therefore have to rely on other people's views be it editors, publishers, reviews, the Booker panel, Richard and Judy's Book Club, Harold Bloom, Lit Net's top 100 Books..... What's the issue with that? Classics are a safe bet because a load of people whose judgments deserve some respect (fellow authors, critics, academics, the general public) over generations have found these books worth reading. Once these recommendations lead you to the book then, of course, you need to exercise personal judgment of what you've read - and I agree there is a danger we can be inclined to judge in favour of more prestigious books/authors. What I'm trying to say is that the so-called 'classics' are reasonably given greater attention (and is especially so with younger readers who want to get a grounding to develop their individualized tastes) but i agree this should stop short of fawning reverence for anything listed in the canon.

----------


## Illini88228

Hi,

Thanks for all the replies, I wasn't actually fishing for suggesting so much as posing a question for general discussion, but I'll definitely check out a few of the names thrown around here that I am less familiar with.

I know the short story is a lot less popular than the novel, but personally, I think I probably prefer it. Some of the best shorts (A Rose for Emily, any of the top Poes, even some of the stuff that's less celebrated now like O Henry and Guy de Mauppassaint (sp?)) stand up really well as great works of fiction. I wish they had a broader audience now, so maybe more top modern writers would put out quality short stories.

By the way, on a side note, I've always figured the decline of the short story probably hurt the quality of fiction across the board because authors used to be able to make a living selling to Collier's, Atlantic Monthly, etc. and thus were able to focus on all of their work more without such strong pressure to release their novels early to earn money. There may be nothing to it, just a theory.

----------


## keilj

> I realize I won't be staying much longer....


did you throw tantrums and stomp out of the room when you were a kid too??

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I have been wondering ever since I got here (posting here) which isn't very long, why the same names keep coming up over and over and over again: Bronte, Conrad, Dickens, Hardy, etc., all the stanards of British novelists of the 1800's early 1900's. And the same for American lit: Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc. Over and over and over again like there are no other writers in the world before or after. Shakespeare, of course, also coming up over and over again, as if he is the only playwright. Almost no references to anything modern or contemporary, almost no references to writers whose work is not originally written in English. Finally, I think I am beginning to understand that it is about either posters being students, probably most university/college students, or people who have studied literature in high school or college and whose knowledge of literature is based in what they've been taught in classrooms: the standard classics, the famous ones. 
> 
> Well, I don't know...but for me, though I love and amire and appreciate the classics, I also love and appreciate and admire many, many modern and comtemporary writers. As well, I don't want to just talk about what is best or whatever, it is interesting to just discuss what is interesting and why. That doesn't happen here. 
> 
> I realize I won't be staying much longer....


You know, I actually read a few of those short stories (the Proulx, the Roth, Tim O'Brien) you listed originally in those pedestrian classrooms. So I think you're making a lot of questionable assumptions there.

Classics will always be talked about more because a wider audience is more familiar with them, for whatever reasons. Modern/contemporary writers might be talented, but they haven't earned their place in history. So they might be worthwhile talking about precisely for that reason, but they also aren't going to be as well known to the larger population here because of they're contemporary.

I guess I'm wondering what exactly you expected and want to see more of on Lit Net? Why don't you start some of those conversations?

----------


## Modest Proposal

> You know, I actually read a few of those short stories (the Proulx, the Roth, Tim O'Brien) you listed originally in those pedestrian classrooms. So I think you're making a lot of questionable assumptions there.
> 
> Classics will always be talked about more because a wider audience is more familiar with them, for whatever reasons. Modern/contemporary writers might be talented, but they haven't earned their place in history. So they might be worthwhile talking about precisely for that reason, but they also aren't going to be as well known to the larger population here because of they're contemporary.
> 
> I guess I'm wondering what exactly you expected and want to see more of on Lit Net? Why don't you start some of those conversations?


Your points and final suggestion are pretty much what I have said, but Myrna doesn't really seem interested. 

I guess it's easier just to say we are all either uneducated or unthinking then it is to actually advocate what he/she thinks.

----------


## blp

I used to have a great book of Alberto Moravia's short stories, but sadly lost it. Have never found a replacement. Let's see now... No. Still nothing. Oh Amazon.

----------


## blp

> Zelig By Benjamin Rosenblatt


Was this the source for Woody Allen's film? Just checked wikipedia, but there's no mention of the story, only an entry on the film.

----------


## myrna22

> did you throw tantrums and stomp out of the room when you were a kid too??


I am not throwing a tantrum or stomping out of anywhere. That you would respond like that only indicates your limited intellectual ability. I won't stay around because there is nothng worth talking about here. I do not wish to discuss the same authors over and over again ad infinitum, that is what I mean by I won't stay around much longer. There isn't any point. If you feel threatened or insulted by the fact I don't find this place interesting, that is your problem; there is no need to try to insult me with childish remarks.

----------


## myrna22

> Modern/contemporary writers might be talented, but they haven't earned their place in history.


 Good writing has absolutely nothing to do with earning a place in history. Let me try an analogy: many people who want to travel want to see Europe, see the great European capitals, the history, art, architecture. That's great. I do that myself. But there is a huge world beyond Europe, also extremely interesting, full of culture, history, etc. I do both, travel to both. I don't dismiss the value of what Europe has to offer, but I also don't dismiss the value of what other places have to offer either, even though they are not 'on the beaten track,' so to speak. Those who are only interested in visiting the well known, well traveled places are missing a lot. It's the same with literature.

----------


## Illini88228

Who would have thought that my little short story thread was going to turn into such a knock-down drag-out.

I think the important thing to remember is that these are just entertainments. Yes, some of them strive for more than that and some even achieve more than that, but it is never worth alienating friends, or even potential friends, over matters that are essentially subjective evaluations.

Read what you love, what inspires you, or just makes you glad you spent a little of your life with that particular book.

Here's to reading--a passion we can all indulge.  :Cheers2:

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Good writing has absolutely nothing to do with earning a place in history. Let me try an analogy: many people who want to travel want to see Europe, see the great European capitals, the history, art, architecture. That's great. I do that myself. But there is a huge world beyond Europe, also extremely interesting, full of culture, history, etc. I do both, travel to both. I don't dismiss the value of what Europe has to offer, but I also don't dismiss the value of what other places have to offer either, even though they are not 'on the beaten track,' so to speak. Those who are only interested in visiting the well known, well traveled places are missing a lot. It's the same with literature.


It may be that I'm dense, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean that good writing has nothing to do with being a part of literary history. Are you recommending authors you consider bad writers?

I also seem to be struggling to follow your analogy. Probably my own stupidity; I really can be a dense fellow sometimes. Your analogy implies we should visit Asia, Africa, South America, and all those other wonderful countries, in addition to Europe, but your recommendations pretty much consist of all white guys and women (with the exception of like one Asian writer and a group of Jews). Not to mention your list consists of fairly accepted contemporary writers and Canonical figures (Anderson, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Cather, Faulkner, Parker, Warren, Wright, Welty, Nabokov, Williams, Cheever, O'Connor, Oates, Singer, Proulx, Beatty, etc.). 




> Zelig By Benjamin Rosenblatt
> 
> Little Selves By Mary Lerner
> 
> A Jury of Her Peers By Susan Glaspell
> 
> The Other Woman By Sherwood Anderson
> 
> The Golden Honeymoon By Ring Lardner
> ...


So since most of your list consists of well-known modern and contemporary authors, I guess I'm still wondering who all these clandestine unknown writers are that we're missing . . .

----------


## myrna22

> It may be that I'm dense, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean that good writing has nothing to do with being a part of literary history. Are you recommending authors you consider bad writers?
> 
> I also seem to be struggling to follow your analogy. Probably my own stupidity; I really can be a dense fellow sometimes. Your analogy implies we should visit Asia, Africa, South America, and all those other wonderful countries, in addition to Europe, but your recommendations pretty much consist of all white guys and women (with the exception of like one Asian writer and a group of Jews). Not to mention your list consists of fairly accepted contemporary writers and Canonical figures (Anderson, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Cather, Faulkner, Parker, Warren, Wright, Welty, Nabokov, Williams, Cheever, O'Connor, Oates, Singer, Proulx, Beatty, etc.). 
> 
> 
> 
> So since most of your list consists of well-known modern and contemporary authors, I guess I'm still wondering who all these clandestine unknown writers are that we're missing . . .


The list of short stories, as clearly explained in my original post, is from an anthology called Best American Short Stories of the 20th Century.

It is not 'my' list. I posted it to make a point. The point was that when anyone posts the question on this sight for recommendations of what is good literature to read, the question is responded to repeatedly with the same authors and works, all classics. This happens over and over again, and it happened in this thread regarding short stories. I was simply suggesting that there are also very good, as good, short stories that are not considered classics because they are modern or contemporary. My analogy was an analogy and not intended to be a literal comparison. I guess I really don't know how you could confuse the concepts. I was not suggesting people read authors from other continents or cultures (non-white), though it is a good idea and something I do. I was making a comparison between limiting oneself to what is a known quantity and what is an unknown quantity. To stepping outside the box, so to speak. Why most everyone here only reads the classics is the question in my mind. And my thought is they do so because they are afraid to set foot outside of known territory into territory that has not already been mapped out for them--another analogy, hope you get it.

My reading is fairly evenly divided amongst the classics, modern, and contemporary literature. It's all well and good to discuss writers and works that are considered classics, but it is extremely limiting to only discuss writers and works that are considered classics.

----------


## mymorningstory

Big Hemingway fan over here! He basically got me into writing short stories.

----------


## AuntShecky

You know what would be very nice? It would be very nice if --instead of spending time discussing and/or arguing about the relative tastes of various readers-- we just discussed the stories themselves, telling why an author or a particular story caught our fancy.

Oh, and just " 'cause" my inner grammar geek is irrepressible, the plural of medium is media, not "mediums," the latter word referring to more than one fortune-teller.

----------


## NickAdams

I find my self returning to the short stories of Ernest Hemingway (In Our Time), Samuel Beckett (More Pricks Than Kicks), Jorge Luis Borges (Collected Fictions) and James Joyce (Dubliners).

----------


## NickAdams

> Big Hemingway fan over here! He basically got me into writing short stories.


Do you have a favorite collection?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You know what would be very nice? It would be very nice if --instead of spending time discussing and/or arguing about the relative tastes of various readers-- we just discussed the stories themselves, telling why an author or a particular story caught our fancy.


Which is what everyone has been saying to Myrna the entire time. 

So anyone talk about some Tim Pratt?

----------


## myrna22

> Which is what everyone has been saying to Myrna the entire time. 
> 
> So anyone talk about some Tim Pratt?


Then everyone has completely missed my point. The idea here,apparently, is go along with everyone else, don't have any independent opinions? Do not think for yourself seems to be the big idea here. And logical fallacies win the day?

----------


## NickAdams

> It does baffle me here that so many posters either have no interest in or no knowledge of anything written since the early 1900's. Why is that?
> 
> Flannery O'Conner, Truman Capote, & JD Salinger also wrote great short stories. But the premier American short story writer of the late 20th century is Raymond Carver.


I've read only "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I've returned to a couple of the stories once or twice, but I would pick a Donald Barthelme collection if I had to go with a late 20th century American author. 




> Which is what everyone has been saying to Myrna the entire time. 
> 
> So anyone talk about some Tim Pratt?


I clicked on the link and read a few paragraphs. Not my cup of tea ... and not because it's genre fiction, but because of the prose. Thanks for introducing me to the site though. I may take a look at some of the other fiction. :Smile:

----------


## keilj

> Then everyone has completely missed my point. The idea here,apparently, is go along with everyone else, don't have any independent opinions? Do not think for yourself seems to be the big idea here. And logical fallacies win the day?


naw, you're missing some good posts where people share differing opinions, things they've read that others haven't, so on. 

Plus, in all honesty, you've stated time and again about new/recent writers who are not in the "old classics who everybody pipes on about" category, yet you have not shard these writers names, or books they've written, with us at all

----------


## myrna22

> naw, you're missing some good posts where people share differing opinions, things they've read that others haven't, so on. 
>  
> Plus, in all honesty, you've stated time and again about new/recent writers who are not in the "old classics who everybody pipes on about" category, yet you have not shard these writers names, or books they've written, with us at all


This thread is about short stories and I posted a long list of stories and authors. 

No the whole point here is don't disagree, don't have an independent opinion. Just like all of you who can only talk about 'classics' because you are afraid of anything you haven't been told what to think about.

----------


## OrphanPip

> This thread is about short stories and I posted a long list of stories and authors. 
> 
> No the whole point here is don't disagree, don't have an independent opinion. Just like all of you who can only talk about 'classics' because you are afraid of anything you haven't been told what to think about.


My.. my... let's rein in the antagonism a little bit.

Plenty of people are quite fond of Proulx (although I think she's grossly over-rated), O'Connor (a fantastic writer, "A Good Man is Hard" to Find is one of my favourite short stories), and other contemporary writers. (O'Connor isn't quite contemporary though)

I don't perceive all too much of a bias against the contemporary in most threads. If you go to the older great short stories thread, many post-WW2 stories are proposed.

Although, you'll find most of the people with an interest in world literature tend to circulate in the poetry section.

----------


## keilj

> This thread is about short stories and I posted a long list of stories and authors. 
> 
> No the whole point here is don't disagree, don't have an independent opinion. Just like all of you who can only talk about 'classics' because you are afraid of anything you haven't been told what to think about.


well speaking from personal experience - in high school and college, I actually got totally driven away from nearly all books becasue of hot air instructors and hot air student who liked to pontificate on about "great old books", many of which I thought were not very good books. Because of these pretentious blowhards, I had to essentially go back and learn from scratch what I liked in a book, what kind of writers I liked, so on. 

But there is also the problem of finding the lesser known authors. I could go broke buying and sampling newer fiction, much of which is rubbish, to find the hidden gems. This probably has as much to do with the modern paradigm of publishing for profit as it does with my lack or skill at finding the unknowns or lesser knows

Then there is also the topic of Americans (and perhaps other nationalities as well) and how they do fall into the "drone" mindset of being fed their opinions. But I think if anything, the folks on this site are at least well-read, and are perhaps better suited to combat this kind of "mindless regurgitation" than most other forums I have been on

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I clicked on the link and read a few paragraphs. Not my cup of tea ... and not because it's genre fiction, but because of the prose. Thanks for introducing me to the site though. I may take a look at some of the other fiction.


Heh. Tim Pratt is one of my favorite short fiction writers. Still haven't tried any of his novels, though.

----------


## NickAdams

> My.. my... let's rein in the antagonism a little bit.
> 
> Plenty of people are quite fond of Proulx (although I think she's grossly over-rated), O'Connor (a fantastic writer, "A Good Man is Hard" to Find is one of my favourite short stories), and other contemporary writers. (O'Connor isn't quite contemporary though)
> 
> I don't perceive all too much of a bias against the contemporary in most threads. If you go to the older great short stories thread, many post-WW2 stories are proposed.
> 
> Although, you'll find most of the people with an interest in world literature tend to circulate in the poetry section.





> well speaking from personal experience - in high school and college, I actually got totally driven away from nearly all books becasue of hot air instructors and hot air student who liked to pontificate on about "great old books", many of which I thought were not very good books. Because of these pretentious blowhards, I had to essentially go back and learn from scratch what I liked in a book, what kind of writers I liked, so on. 
> 
> But there is also the problem of finding the lesser known authors. I could go broke buying and sampling newer fiction, much of which is rubbish, to find the hidden gems. This probably has as much to do with the modern paradigm of publishing for profit as it does with my lack or skill at finding the unknowns or lesser knows
> 
> Then there is also the topic of Americans (and perhaps other nationalities as well) and how they do fall into the "drone" mindset of being fed their opinions. But I think if anything, the folks on this site are at least well-read, and are perhaps better suited to combat this kind of "mindless regurgitation" than most other forums I have been on


I personally didn't read anything in High School, but I didn't attend either.  :Wink: 
But debate has gotten to the Freudian limit:

Freudian - "You have unresolved issues with your parents."
Subject - "No I don't."
Freudian - "You do, but you are in denial and that means that issues are worst than I thought."
Subject - "You're right."
Freudian - "That's what I wanted to hear."

We are at the point where someone can't genuinely like "classics" without being thrown in to the catergory. But thinking for others is not far from not thinking for yourself and that's what happens when one generalizes others (not directed at the posters quoted). 

Even Carver is a safe choice and when I say James Joyce is a fine short story writer, I mean James Joyce; however, if I say the same about Carver, I mean the Carver-Lish team.




> Heh. Tim Pratt is one of my favorite short fiction writers. Still haven't tried any of his novels, though.


 :Blush5: 
You can still enjoy him. :Biggrin:

----------

