I believe that Matthews’ definition of the short story - "A short story deals with a single character, a single event, a single emotion, or the series of emotions called forth by a single situation" - is a little too narrow. Largely, it feels like he made the assumption that because a short story is short, it can only deal with one of each element a story has. While it’s true that short stories often work with less than a novel would have in terms of characters, settings, actions, and emotions, it does not mean that the short story is so limited as to only be able to deal with one of each. Perhaps a single focus or message, but certainly not with individual elements. My biggest complaint with the restraints of this definition is the rigidity of the phrase “deals with a single character”. The main antithesis to this that we have read so far is “The Machine Stops”.
This may not be an obvious choice, but allow me to explain. “The Machine Stops” relies on the fact that there are two well-developed characters that affect one another. I don’t mean to nit-pick Matthews and say that any story with any number of disposable side characters proves him wrong. His argument seems to be that a short story cannot focus on more than one 3 dimensional character. In “The Machine Stops”, there are two major well-developed characters; Vashti and Kuno. While Vashti is the main character of the story, Kuno is a crucial character by her side and without him, she would not have developed as she did and the story would not have followed the same path.
Vashti is what we’ll call the central character for this story. The story revolves around her and mostly stays in her point of view. She as a character is very self-assured and trusting in the Machine. She thinks to herself at one point “Of course she knew all about the communication-system” even though it is obvious it has been a very long time since she had used it (55). She trusts the knowledge given to her by the Machine so much that even when things are falling apart at the end. The narration is “time passed, and they resented the defects no longer” (74). She has blind faith in it, and this is her main character trait.
Kuno, her son, is more of a secondary character. He, unlike Vashti is questioning of the Machine. He believes strongly in a sense of humanity as something that is separate from the Machine, that life exists past what the Machine can provide. He tells his mother “You talk as if a god had made the Machine (...) The Machine is much, but it is not everything” (52). He exercises skepticism towards the Machine, which is his main character trait.
The relationship between Kuno and Vashti is almost like that of an immovable object being met with an unstoppable force. Kuno recounts his adventures on the surface of the earth, hoping to convince his mother of how they are being manipulated by the Machine. Yet his mother does not heed his words until the very end, and even then she secretly hopes that perhaps the Machine will revive and fix the society that it broke. It is not that these characters change each other, but that even with their differences, they can still love each other and support each other in their moment of crisis. This strong message would not be possible if either character were underdeveloped, had other character traits, or simply did not exist, thereby disproving Matthew’s narrow definition of the short story.
This may not be an obvious choice, but allow me to explain. “The Machine Stops” relies on the fact that there are two well-developed characters that affect one another. I don’t mean to nit-pick Matthews and say that any story with any number of disposable side characters proves him wrong. His argument seems to be that a short story cannot focus on more than one 3 dimensional character. In “The Machine Stops”, there are two major well-developed characters; Vashti and Kuno. While Vashti is the main character of the story, Kuno is a crucial character by her side and without him, she would not have developed as she did and the story would not have followed the same path.
Vashti is what we’ll call the central character for this story. The story revolves around her and mostly stays in her point of view. She as a character is very self-assured and trusting in the Machine. She thinks to herself at one point “Of course she knew all about the communication-system” even though it is obvious it has been a very long time since she had used it (55). She trusts the knowledge given to her by the Machine so much that even when things are falling apart at the end. The narration is “time passed, and they resented the defects no longer” (74). She has blind faith in it, and this is her main character trait.
Kuno, her son, is more of a secondary character. He, unlike Vashti is questioning of the Machine. He believes strongly in a sense of humanity as something that is separate from the Machine, that life exists past what the Machine can provide. He tells his mother “You talk as if a god had made the Machine (...) The Machine is much, but it is not everything” (52). He exercises skepticism towards the Machine, which is his main character trait.
The relationship between Kuno and Vashti is almost like that of an immovable object being met with an unstoppable force. Kuno recounts his adventures on the surface of the earth, hoping to convince his mother of how they are being manipulated by the Machine. Yet his mother does not heed his words until the very end, and even then she secretly hopes that perhaps the Machine will revive and fix the society that it broke. It is not that these characters change each other, but that even with their differences, they can still love each other and support each other in their moment of crisis. This strong message would not be possible if either character were underdeveloped, had other character traits, or simply did not exist, thereby disproving Matthew’s narrow definition of the short story.
I definitely agree that Matthew's definition of short stories is too narrow-minded. While each aspect of his definition can be argued, I think his idea of "a single event" isn't totally unrealistic. Based upon the stories we have read so far, I would instead argue that the foundation that each story is built upon is a single event but then the story builds upon that event. Matthew's definition extremely simplifies the extent of short stories which is inaccurate because short stories provide just as much depth and analysis as huge novels.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I definitely agree with this criticism. Now that we've read more stories, I think another good example contradicting his "single character" point is "Fleur". I think both Fleur and the narrator (forgot her name) are well-developed characters. The story really centers around Fleur, her real or imagined powers, and her personality, but we still get a good picture of the narrator, an initially submissive character who ultimately makes a risky decision to help Fleur. That said, I kind of wonder whether the "or" in his definition means you can have a single character with multiple events and emotions and stuff, or a single emotion with multiple characters and events, or whether he means a short story should have only one of each.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you are saying. I think there is also an argument that short stories often offer a larger field of questions to ask and think about. A lot of the short stories we have have read have many parts that are open to interpretation. Short stories are not just the plot and characters but the meaning behind and so far I have felt that every story we read had a lot of meaning behind it. I think the fact the stories are short means the author can't explain everything which is actually good because it allows for much more interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this viewpoint. I think that "The Machine Stops" is an especially good counterexample to Mathews' point because it focuses on the conflict between two characters who are family members but also very different, as well as their conflict with the society in which they live. In addition, "The Machine Stops" details the entire fall of a society over a lengthy unspecified period of time as a result of its suppression of dissidents like Kuno, which is on a much grander scale than "single event" short stories like "First Person Shooter" and "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge".
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I agree with your argument, that short stories shouldn't just be limited to "a single character, a single event, a single emotion, or the series of emotions called forth by a single situation". The point that you made about the characters from The Machine Stops is a perfect example of this. Vashti and Kuno both have their own 'main' traits and express it throughout the text. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteMany of the stories we've read are focused on one single character, and while there are characters besides them, I only felt like it was the main character who we fully understand and see develop. However this blogpost made me realize that even short stories need not be simple. I think you were able to effectively explain why Kuno and Vashti are both characters who are focused on in the Machine Stops. By reading this, I doo not think I would agree with Matthew's definition as much.
ReplyDeleteI think that the description of a short story somewhat holds up, because while Kuno is an essential part of the story, Vashti and her relationship with her son and the machine is the real focus of the story. the characters themselves dont develop all that much in the story and instead serve as a medium through which we see the impact of technology on human society and how the human family has become obsolete.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard this quote before, but I definitely agree that there is much more to a story than just the one character. While the story may focus primarily on a single character, the story is really about the connection between the various characters throughout the story. In addition, many other stories (such as "There Will Come Soft Rains") don't have any human characters, but rather bases its story off the connections between the reader and the world made by the author.
ReplyDeleteI, too, think that Matthews' definition of a short story is restricted and narrow-minded. Just because a story is a short story, it doesn't mean it can't be complex. Since the story doesn't focus on a bunch of characters, the author is able to provide a complexity to their connections.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good criticism that the definition is too narrow, especially bringing up the usage of multiple characters. Adding on to your points about "The Machine Stops," "Speech Sounds" is another story with a larger character pool that is still executed well as a short story. It is in fact necessary to have multiple characters, since the focus of the story is the interactions between humans when societal restraints are no longer present. In this case the typically higher number of characters greatly adds to the story rather than drags it down.
ReplyDeleteLike basically everyone else in the comments I agree that the definition is too narrow. I think that in short stories particularly there can be less of an emphasis on characters. To me (from the stories we've read so far) the characters and plot usually have a larger moral or meaning. You see it in "There Will Come Soft Rains" where there aren't really any main characters but the plot/character/setting is the house that is just "running through the motion. The same can be said for "The Machine Stops".
ReplyDeleteI think you're totally right. Short stories usually center around some sort of moral or critique of society (I think, I have no idea), and whether they have one character focus or multiple has never impacted their validity as a short story imo.
ReplyDelete