The short story can't really hold an interesting event. It can't hold a death or a war or a loss of great magnitude the way either a long story or a novel can.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You kind of hope that the events themselves are interesting. I think that's what you have to hope for, that on a broad level it's an interesting story.
Stories hold conflict and contrast, highs and lows, life and death, and the human struggle and all kinds of things.
I want the reader to feel something is astonishing - not the 'what happens' but the way everything happens. These long short story fictions do that best, for me.
I do think that short story writing is often a matter of luck.
Novels are so much unrulier and more stressful to write. A short story can last two pages and then it's over, and that's kind of a relief. I really like balancing the two.
I often say flippantly that the short story is... shorter; you can be done with it more easily. It's much less of a commitment of time and energy than a big project like a novel or long nonfiction book.
I've never been a true fan of the short story and have only published a single example of my own.
I think there's only one interesting story... and that's struggle.
Short stories are wonderful and extremely challenging, and the joy of them, because it only takes me three or four months to write, I can take more risks with them. It's just less of your life invested.
Short stories consume you faster. They're connected to brevity. With the short story, you are up against mortality. I know how tough they are as a form, but they're also a total joy.