What takes a story from good to great?

Here's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle on what makes a great short story (from Through the Magic Door): Writing that great short stories are harder to write than great novels, he said that great stories needed "strength, novelty, compactness, intensity of interest, a single vivid impression upon the mind."

Doesn't sound much like a lot of the "everything and the kitchen sink in as many-pages as you can make them" offerings at Literotica.

sr71plt said:

Here's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle on what makes a great short story (from Through the Magic Door): Writing that great short stories are harder to write than great novels, he said that great stories needed "strength, novelty, compactness, intensity of interest, a single vivid impression upon the mind."

Doesn't sound much like a lot of the "everything and the kitchen sink in as many-pages as you can make them" offerings at Literotica.

Click to expand...

Considering that most of us amateurs learned what a short story was in 7th grade and probably never thought about the structure of a short story again, that seems like a fair assessment. I wonder how many of us think we're writing a "textbook" short story when we set out to write some amateur smut. I would guess not too many. The "lit" in the name of the website doesn't make it a literary magazine. It's still just amateur porn with its bad lighting, shaky cameras, and too-long short stories.

patientlee said:

Considering that most of us amateurs learned what a short story was in 7th grade and probably never thought about the structure of a short story again, that seems like a fair assessment. I wonder how many of us think we're writing a "textbook" short story when we set out to write some amateur smut. I would guess not too many. The "lit" in the name of the website doesn't make it a literary magazine. It's still just amateur porn with its bad lighting, shaky cameras, and too-long short stories.

Click to expand...

Aw, that's kinda harsh! I read some really moving stories on here, which were not only sexy but actually made me cry. Some of yours included.


I think there are people on here who are interested in writing something sexual and developing their writing skills as well as people who are happy to write quality stroke fiction.

NaokoSmith said:

Aw, that's kinda harsh! I read some really moving stories on here, which were not only sexy but actually made me cry. Some of yours included.


I think there are people on here who are interested in writing something sexual and developing their writing skills as well as people who are happy to write quality stroke fiction.

Click to expand...

I'm knocking the quality. I just don't think we all set out to write what the textbook defines as a "short story."

I'm more interested in when a story goes from bad to verse.

LWulf said:

I'm more interested in when a story goes from bad to verse.

Click to expand...

You mean when the poet escapes just before the cuckold discovers him, and he composes about the experience -- going from BED to VERSE.

Or maybe it's a singing baker -- from BREAD to VERSE

Or the sausage-makers cheating wife -- from BED to WURST



From Fred to Furst? Burst? Dead? Lead?

Somebody better stop me now.

I think that Conan Doyle's criteria for a great short story are spot on. And they bring forth a problem I see with the assessing of works on Literotica. Short stories, novellas, and novels are different animals, requiring different structures and breadth and depth of content. There's nothing that prohibits short stories, novellas, and novels to coexist on Literotica, but I think short stories are getting the short end of the stick in terms of assessment by readers (and a good many authors here also.)--and that novice writers are being pressed to ruin their short stories by being criticized for not including distinctly novella and novel elements in them.

What I frequently see as comments here at Literotica on true short stories--great ones, in terms of Conan Doyle's elements--are folks assessing them as novellas or novels. They aren't the same animal. They have different structures and content. Thus a whole lot of really good stories here are, I think, being unjustly assessed, and the authors of them--because they are paying attention to the comments and don't have the experience to have self-confidence in their writing of true short stories--are pressed to write longer and longer pieces. I see that in the contests for instance--baring the maximum wordage limits we see with most legitimate short story contests, we're getting longer and longer pieces that aren't really short stories at all and yet often just add words and extraneous activity rather than the elements a novella or novel have that a short story doesn't (like deeper character development and multiple intertwining plot threads and themes and longer dilemma/resolution arcs).

I think you can see a lot of great short stories here if you take on board what the elements of "greatness" a short story need have--as Conan Doyle notes them to be. The "great" short story writers of the form's heyday, like Poe and Saki, didn't need a lot of verbiage to deliver a great short story.

sr71plt said:

I think that Conan Doyle's criteria for a great short story is spot on. And brings forth a problem I see with the assessing of works on Literotica. Short stories, novellas, and novels are different animals, requiring different structures and breadth and depth of content. There's nothing that prohibits short stories, novellas, and novels to coexist on Literotica, but I think short stories are getting the short end of the stick in terms of assessment by readers (and a good many authors here also.)--and that novice writers are being pressed to ruin their short stories by being criticized for not including distinctly novella and novel elements in them.

What I frequently see as comments here at Literotica on true short stories--great ones, in terms of Conan Doyle's elements--are folks assessing them as novellas or novels. They aren't the same animal. They have different structures and content. Thus a whole lot of really good stories here are, I think, being unjustly assessed, and the authors of them--because they are paying attention to the comments and don't have the experience to have self-confidence in their writing of true short stories--are pressed to write longer and longer pieces. I see that in the contests for instance--baring the maximum wordage limits we see with most legitimate short story contests, we're getting longer and longer pieces that aren't really short stories at all and yet often just add words and extraneous activity rather than the elements a novella or novel have that a short story doesn't (like deeper character development and multiple intertwining plot threads and themes and longer dilemma/resolution arcs).

I think you can see a lot of great short stories here if you take on board what the elements of "greatness" a short story need have--as Conan Doyle notes them to be. The "great" short story writers of the form's hay day, like Poe and Saki, didn't need a lot of verbiage to deliver a great short story.

Click to expand...

That's a helpful explanation. Thank you.

Can you suggest a good resource with more information about the differences? My searches often lead to other message boards with others' opinions. (I don't think novels and novellas are covered in the 7th grade lit textbook I have on hand, although I'll check. Yes, I have one. Yes, I consult it.)

Unfortunately, I can't. I don't collect and index written resources on writing. I pretty much listen to what writers and publishers say as they stand in office doors with a coffee cup in one hand and a selection file in the other. Other than that, I just learn what works where or not by doing and submitting.

I don't know how many times, though, that I've tried to run my fingernails across the screen when I see a comment about not enough character development (in a short story that legitimately is stressing some other element) or that they want short stories to go on. Short stories usually develop one point, one dilemma--they don't take the characters and their cousins through the ups and downs of a lifetime to death. You need the novel form for that.

When was Conan Doyle ever ordained guru and PILOT certified? Chandler says Doyle was so addled his stories aren't coherent if you examine them closely. Chandler had a low opinion of Doyle.

sr71plt said:

Unfortunately, I can't. I don't collect and index written resources on writing. I pretty much listen to what writers and publishers say as they stand in office doors with a coffee cup in one hand and a selection file in the other. Other than that, I just learn what works where or not by doing and submitting.

I don't know how many times, though, that I've tried to run my fingernails across the screen when I see a comment about not enough character development (in a short story that legitimately is stressing some other element) or that they want short stories to go on. Short stories usually develop one point, one dilemma--they don't take the characters and their cousins through the ups and downs of a lifetime to death. You need the novel form for that.

Click to expand...

Thanks anyway.

JAMESBJOHNSON said:

When was Conan Doyle ever ordained guru and PILOT certified? Chandler says Doyle was so addled his stories aren't coherent if you examine them closely. Chandler had a low opinion of Doyle.

Click to expand...

Since you like to live vicariously through other folks who actually write and critique, I'll recommend Michael Dirda's On Conan Doyle to you. Dirda is the Pulitzer-prize winning literary critic for the Washington Post, and, quite frankly, I'll take his discussion over your "I just reinvented wheel" novice writing opinions any minute of the day.

You've only attacked Conan Doyle here, of course, as part of your smear campaign of me. You have no scruples in the applying of your agendas.

(And in your own writing you have no trouble with brevity, because you rarely can achieve even the elements of a short story and you know nothing at all about erotica.)

The problem with novice writers giving any credence to what you post is that so often you are just ragging on another poster for your agenda effect rather than trying to contribute constructively to the discussion. You really know precious little about writing or publishing.

sr71plt said:

I think you can see a lot of great short stories here if you take on board what the elements of "greatness" a short story need have--as Conan Doyle notes them to be. The "great" short story writers of the form's hay day, like Poe and Saki, didn't need a lot of verbiage to deliver a great short story.

Click to expand...

Much of what you've said is true about the short story. Seems like we're getting longer winded to convey the story, rather than being able to deliver the idea in a couple pages. And there are many ways we try to assess short stories as though they were longer works. And truthfully, many elements will not be quite the same, like characterization and plot complexity.

Really in the end, I don't find that it really matters. The reader matters. Readers are going to read what they like, regardless of any technicalities pertaining to what kind of story it is. Readers don't usually sit down and say "hmm, but technically this isn't really a short story," or "there's a lot of story arc for this to be a short story." Mostly, readers just enjoy the stories they like, writers write the stories they enjoy, and if the two meet in the middle, not too much else matters.

I don't think the "true" short stories are being treated unfairly, it's just that readers don't put much thought into technicalities like that. It's good, or it's not. One defining trait of a short story is/was "a story that can be read in one sitting." Uh, short, as it were. And yet as a reader, I still find myself not really caring. Here at Lit, I've read two pagers that just were bland, and others that were brilliant. I've read eight pagers that were dull and I couldn't complete, while I've read ten to fourteen pagers in ONE sitting because they were that damn good that I couldn't put them down. So in all honesty, the technicality of it meant nothing to me in the end. Great stories will shine, without any tried and true method assigned to them.

Which leads to my answering of the initial question. Great? It's easily recognizable for me. When I'm reading, that is. When I finish a "good" story, I think "huh, that was pretty good." But rarely does that story truly impact me that day or any other. After reading a "great" story, I usually am stumped for about ten minutes, and I'll sit there thinking "holy shit, dude". The story comes up in my head many times after, I remember it for
quite a while. It hit something deeper than just words. It made your heart swell, and will leave a scar. It made you frightened and lingers in your fears for long after. It turned you on, and tickles your fancy from then on out.

As to what specific things do this? I don't think there is anything specific, no formula or standard or technical rule to follow to achieve a great story. You can't really duplicate it or orchestrate it. Some writers can just see the pieces and place them where they want them to go. I've seen a range of techniques and styles and stories hit the mark for me. All had that lasting aura. So what made them stand out? Hard to say. I guess the author, the one who can see beyond the veil and put the pieces together right under your nose without you noticing. The author that was once inspired by a tale and wanted to share their own.

Honestly, if there's one ingredient I say makes a story great, it's the campfire presentation. It's the way an author tells it. I don't wanna be lulled into glancing around and drawing stick men in the dirt. I want that storytelling spark that has me scooting closer to the fire with wide eyes. I want an author's flavor that is so potent, that even if I don't give a fuck about the subject of their writing, their flavor tastes too good not to taste.

So my answer is the story teller. I've seen wonderful concepts fail because of stale flavor, and bizarre ones soar.

SecondCircle said:

Really in the end, I don't find that it really matters.

Click to expand...

I agree it really doesn't matter (much--it still shortchanges true short stories, though, I think) within the self-contained world of Literotica. For any who see the comments they are getting here as honing their skills for moving to writing in mainstream competition or publisher acceptance, though, they'll have a great awakening to come on the issue of constraints.

sr71plt said:

Since you like to live vicariously through other folks who actually write and critique, I'll recommend Michael Dirda's On Conan Doyle to you. Dirda is the Pulitzer-prize winning literary critic for the Washington Post, and, quite frankly, I'll take his discussion over your "I just reinvented wheel" novice writing opinions any minute of the day.

You've only attacked Conan Doyle here, of course, as part of your smear campaign of me. You have no scruples in the applying of your agendas.

(And in your own writing you have no trouble with brevity, because you rarely can achieve even the elements of a short story.)

The problem with novice writers giving any credence to what you post is that so often you are just ragging on another poster for your agenda effect rather than trying to contribute constructively to the discussion. You really know precious little about writing or publishing.

Click to expand...

I cant recall anyone ever wishing they were Conan Doyle.

sr71plt said:

I agree it really doesn't matter (much--it still shortchanges true short stories, though, I think) within the self-contained world of Literotica. For any who see the comments they are getting here as honing their skills for moving to writing in mainstream competition or publisher acceptance, though, they'll have a great awakening to come on the issue of constraints.

Click to expand...

I suppose so. But I think more often when we think of feedback helping us we think more of "in general". As in "oh they thought my characters were realistic" or "well this did seem implausible given the plot" and "huh, they thought my sex was hot" or "my dialogue is confusing people".

Not, "I'm learning precisely the methods I need to get published. If I do exactly this, I'll sell one day."

Kinda like the gym. You don't bench press and think "if I do this exact motion, over and over, I'll one day be able to lift a heavy object from my chest". You just know that you're working the muscles to strengthen them for whatever you may need the strength for.

http://gadetection.pbworks.com/w/page/7931263/Notes on the Detective Story by Raymond Chandler

Some thoughts about Conan Doyle and others by Chandler.

"The English may not always be the best writers in the world, but they are incomparably the best dull writers." Chandler

SecondCircle said:

Much of what you've said is true about the short story. Seems like we're getting longer winded to convey the story, rather than being able to deliver the idea in a couple pages. And there are many ways we try to assess short stories as though they were longer works. And truthfully, many elements will not be quite the same, like characterization and plot complexity.

....

I don't think the "true" short stories are being treated unfairly, it's just that readers don't put much thought into technicalities like that. It's good, or it's not. ...

Click to expand...

There have been a number of very successful writers on the site who have commented that longer stories do better here because readers with staying power are more likely to give high votes. That agrees with Pilot's suggestion that, for better or worse, there is bias against truly short stories.

No skin off my nose, but worth pointing out.

Great short stories - several, I think yourself included, said that you know them when you see them. They make you think, and as a writer, they make you wish you'd written them. Not very useful in terms of a "how to," but too true.

Kurt Vonnegut's advice on writing good short stories

Not quite what the OP asked for, but I thought Kurt Vonnegut's advice was worth reading:

1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4. Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
6. Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them-in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8. 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.

No offense to anyone posting their thoughts in this thread, but my thoughts are....

People just think too much. Period.

Who cares how short, who cares how long? Who cares about what it conveys, does not, etc....etc....

Did you enjoy writing it? Did you enjoy reading it? Did it get you excited if it was a stroke piece? Did it make you think or get attached tot he characters if it was a long piece that was story driven? Did it leave you satisfied, yet still wanting for more?

If any of those answers are yes then it was a good story! For....you.

No one will ever please everyone and it would be boring if it was that way.

A good/great story is one you enjoyed.

So put your damn books and articles down and forget about what "so and so" says.

Just let it rip have fun, that's what its here for.

Sometimes I guess its easy to be a simpleton like me.

Reality. I find my stories up now and under old profiles that did the best were the ones based off of real honest experiences.

Aynmair said:

There have been a number of very successful writers on the site who have commented that longer stories do better here because readers with staying power are more likely to give high votes. That agrees with Pilot's suggestion that, for better or worse, there is bias against truly short stories.

Click to expand...

Aye, it's a correct assessment that when people stick around for longer stories they'll vote it high.

Well, sure. That means the story was good enough to them that they stayed with it it till the end. That's not bias against a shorter story, that's just natural. There's no underlying movement to do away with the traditional "short story". People just like what they like. In the now on Lit anyway, people enjoy short stories that are a little less short. They do like a bit of stuff that has more characterization and verbalization. It's just what they like to read. They don't log on to read "within the proper standards" of what is traditionally held as a short story. They just wanna read something good.

Two pages, three pages, eight pages or ten. Doesn't matter. The authors at Lit define what they want yo write here, as do the readers for what they wanna read. And as for the death of the original short story? Who gives really? Things change in literature all the time. There's more than one shelf of short story collections in my house, and many of the short stories in those books don't adhere to what a short story is supposed to be. Still doesn't make me not enjoy them because they break the standard. I enjoy them because I enjoy them.

What I fear in writing is that we get too hung up on the steps and rules and standards and how tos and this and that, that we forget what should always come first. Passion and enjoyment. The last several contest winners weren't "short" stories. Fuck it. I loved em.

For me it is always the characters, After i saw "Manchurian Candidate, (the original,not the bullshit redo,) i loved to hate Angela lanbury for many years. The part was so well written and so well acted that the role, not the actor stayed with me! That's my gauge. Do i love them? hate them? Remember them?

My second measure is what i call my peter meter. How hard does the story make me if it is an erotic story, or for non-porn, hoe emotionally involved does it make me?

Serafina1210 said:

I can tell from all your posts in this forum, JBJ, that you spend a lot of time thinking about what's good writing and what's not. I spent a large proportion of a lifetime reading good writing (and some shit) before I ever dared to try to tell a story. And yet it's really fucking hard for me to tell whether a piece of mine is decent or not.

Follow your own star, folks: but know that the memory hole has sucked down legions of writers who believed in themselves and never understood why the world didn't recognize their genius.

Click to expand...

Serafina, JBJ is so jaded that he gets his jollies from jerking off over how much confusion and argument he can generate.

from good to great

Ive got a few stories on here and ive read more than few on here and i have yet to figure the answer to that question.
Looking at my own stuff i have stories that i think are good but dont seem to rate as good as others. For example:-

http://www.literotica.com/s/food-for-thought-8

i love writing this one and felt like it flowed nicely yet it is only rated 4.19
Yet another one of mine is rated as a 5 and i dont think it is as good, but still good.

http://www.literotica.com/s/soldier-boy-ch-05

the chapters before this are all in the high 4s
what the difference is i have no idea and would dearly love to know the answer to the question you have posed.