Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular

by Lawrence Rust Hills

"There are now not enough commercial magazines regularly publishing literary fiction to count on the fingers of a single hand," says Rust Hills. So why bother writing literary short stories, or books about doing so? Because, says Hills, a longtime fiction editor at Esquire, "what young writers want to write, or ought to want to write, is literature." In Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular, Hills examines "the essential techniques of fiction and how they function." The short story is a tricky form, with no margin for error: "The successful contemporary short story," says Hills, "will demonstrate a more harmonious relationship of all its aspects than will any other literary art form, excepting perhaps lyric poetry." Many of the fictional elements discussed in this book will not be new to most fiction writers. We know that stories must have beginnings, middles, and ends; we know about epiphany and suspense and stock characters. But Hills claims that much of how we look at fiction derives from drama theory and from the formulas of "slick fiction" (fiction that once served the purpose mindless television now serves). Learned but not pedantic, Hills addresses these elements strictly in terms of literary short fiction.

An interesting side note here is Hills's discussion of the shift in support for American writers. "It is no longer the book publishers and magazines," he says, "but rather the colleges and universities that ... provide the major financial support for the great majority of American writers today." Given that, we might find it odd that this book comes from a man best known for his magazine editing. But we shouldn't. "Teaching fiction writing and editing magazine fiction have ... the same rather odd ultimate purpose in common: trying to get someone else to produce a fine short story." One caveat emptor: our copy of this edition fell quite apart upon our first, gentle reading of it. --Jane Steinberg

Genres: Writing, Nonfiction, Reference, Crafts, Literature, Self Help, School

159 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

Reviews

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published in the late 70s, and it’s apparent to a large extent. The vestiges of the period are apparent, which include what Hills considers “modern”, his long, rambling paragraphs on personality and what “the latest research” on psychology show about the character within fiction, and gendered writing (which was getting on my nerves more than I thought it ever could – really goes to show how this is not commonplace in our writing anymore). However, despite all of that, this remains a gem of a book for the basics of storytelling, specifically within the format of the short story. It introduces key elements of the short story and fiction while keeping it relatively agenda free. Loved the discussion of foreshadowing, technique, and point of view.

As always, I’m an absolute sucker for discussions of what makes art “good” – what scale do we use to measure whether something is a masterpiece or just pulp. I like Hills’ contribution to this discussion (I will be paraphrasing a small chunk of his text). Obviously, we are talking about fiction. If the relevant question is the effect of fiction on the appreciator, then we are looking at fiction as a communication. Sure, he says, we can do that. But then we fall into the vote-taking aesthetic (basically Goodreads and the aggregate rating system) where we care about how many people liked the story, how much they liked the story, and how qualified they were as readers. We are no longer discussing the story in and of itself.

Hills then goes on to mention that considering art/fiction as an expression brings us to issues like the intention of the creator, how the work relates to his/her life and thought, and how it is related to the period in which it was created, and so on. These issues similarly lead us away from the story itself! Considering art as an expression of the artist leads us to the “intentional fallacy”, while considering it as communication leads us to the “affective fallacy”.

But (and there is always a but), if the only “non-fallacious” way of considering art is to look at it as the object in and of itself, now we have to demonstrate just what the hell is “good”. We can look at something like unity, Hills says, and doing this allows us to see that the short story is that compact piece of art, where the parts are in dialogue with each other and there is perfect harmony among the pieces. They also fit in with what our good old Stephen (from Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) lists as the three necessary qualities for art: integritas (wholeness), consonantia (harmony), and claritas (radiance). The first, integritas, refers to “the identity or separateness of the art object from the rest of the universe – thus it is to be considered apart from the perceiver and the creator.” The second, consonantia: “led by its formal lines, you apprehend it as balanced part against part within its limits… You apprehend it as complex, multiple, divisible, separable, made up of its parts, the results of its parts and their sum, harmonious.” Finally, claritas, which is “the luminous silent stasis of esthetic pleasure, which is called forth, prolonged, and at last resolved by the rhythm of beauty; the esthetic relation of part to part in any esthetic whole, or of an esthetic whole to its part or parts, or any part to the esthetic whole of which it is a part.”

What does all of this mean? Hills sums it up: “Consideration of the relationship of parts to part, and of parts to whole, seems really, finally, the most reliable way to demonstrate the excellence of a work of art. A short story, for instance, considered as an object separate from the author and his intentions and separate from the reader and his reactions, is to be evaluated according to internal relationships, not external ones.” So, to demonstrate how excellent a story is, we have to demonstrate the inseparability of all of its aspects.

Two more quotes from the book which I really enjoyed:

“Imagine that a reader has been pleased by a story, and since it pleased him he feels that ‘hence’ it is a good story. This experience and conclusion are open to proof or disproof, depending on the reader and the story. If the reader was pleased by a bad story, it is possible to show him why it was bad, if he’s willing to listen – which your average reader pleased by a bad story is unlikely to be. If he is pleased by a good story, it is equally possible to prove to him that it was in fact good, and show him why it was good. This can be done only by showing him how harmoniously and effectively the parts of the story work together so as to create the story’s excellence.”

“No reader can pick up a short story and expect to ‘submerge’ himself in it for a long lonely evening, much less a rainy weekend. No writer can expect to celebrate his friends, destroy his enemies, push his predilections and prejudices, air his grievances, propound his theories of sociology or psychology or politics or religion or whatever – all in one short story. That’s for the novel to do.”

[Aloha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe the lit majors would give this a different rating. For a reader like me studying the literature itself without any background in literature beyond basic school requirements, this is a terrific guide that lays out the basic meat of a short story without pegging the writer into a certain style. This is important since I've been reading creations of wildly diverging styles.

[E.S.O. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best writer's guides I've ever read about the structure of the short story. Some of Rust Hill's opinions on popular fiction get pretty elitist. But his advice on how to write a quality short story has given me a lot to think about. It's a very good book.

One of my favorite passages is when he talks about how Joyce Carol Oates claims to have conquered writer's block. "She says writer's block is caused by some problem in the work that the mind can't consciously solve, and that the solution is to put the work aside for a bit until the subconscious solves the problem"(p. 194).

[Shima · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read my fair share of books about writing. I didn't expect anything new from this one. In fact, considering it was published a while ago, I expected it to feel outdated.
Instead, I found it surprisingly insightful. In terms of writing books, this doesn't fall on the side of practical writing advice, as much as it is an analysis of how and why short stories work the way they do. It tells you what is mystery, what's conflict and what's tension, but it doesn't try to tell you how to create them in your own stories. It's a book that would be just as helpful, if not more, for readers of short stories that it is for writers. Rust Hill's language is simple and he explains concepts very well. The entire book is short but dense with information. I would definitely recommend it to anyone trying to understand short stories better.

[Katherine Addison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was a lot less impressed with Mr. Hills than he seemed to be with himself, but then I don't actually think the "literary short story" is the be-all and end-all of creative writing.

He said three things I liked.

1. "Most of the playwright's theories about 'plot structure' and 'dramatic action' are solutions to problems the fiction writer doesn't even have" (p. 94).

2. "For surely a great part of what is called a writer's 'vision' comes from how he listens" (164).

3. [about writing] "The truth is that the only way not to feel really terrible is to work.

"But sometimes it seems easier just to feel really terrible" (190).

[SeirenAthena · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was informative and surprisingly idiosyncratic (witty, sometimes pompous and a bit foolish but not in a particularly snagging way).

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

This had a lot of good information in it, largely just breaking down the many aspects of a short story, and how they all have to work together to make a good one. Unfortunately, the pretentious tone and dated feel made the whole thing quite a slog. It read like a textbook, and addressed what makes a short story rather than any sort of methodological advice on writing. Not bad, but so far the least useful craft book I've read.

[Jenai · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was annoying as hell. It had no useful tips or information, and the overall voice of the author was pompous and dry. If you want real help with writing, pick up Strunk and White and read other short stories to get a sense of how to write. Don't listen to this guy.

[Michael Sharkey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really insightful book about writing. A touch dated, and the author comes off as a bit of a snob, but in a humorous way, to me anyway. Some fine ideas on it. Going on my actual shelf. Will probably reread someday.

[Natalie Konigkin]

Thank you. I am now a short story writer.

[Roux Stellarsphyr · Rating 2 out of 5]

While proving insightful on some points for the beginning writer, I didn't see the utility in the book for the 'seasoned pro' as so claimed by the back of the book. Additionally, Hills takes an awfully condescending tone when discussing anything outside of the short story (plays, screenplays, novels) as if to say "Sure, a novel has x, but it can't do x as a short story can." Or "A stage play may be able to do x, but a short story doesn't need to/is challenged in a different way."

Some bits are good, but there are simply too many books on writing for you, the aspiring writer, to waste your time on this one.

[Brenda Clark Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book Writer's Digest recommends for their short story class. I've found their recommendations are always good. This was a nice little book that talks extensively about the parts of a short story. It goes much further than just beginning, middle, end. It goes through POV and all it's types, talks about the tie-in in the beginning with the ending, and more. It helped me with some things I was unaware of, but I gave it a four star because the book is not divided into chapters. The entire book looks like an essay and the parts are divided by bold headings. Still, I would recommend this book.

[Krista H. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book, and contains my favorite quote to date on most suspenseful dime-a-dozen novels, which can also be applied to bad fiction in general.
"Before one knows it, he's nearly through with the book and then must continue so as to 'find out what happens at the end.' These are the sort of book of which publishers say 'Once you pick it up, you can't put it down,'and one of the major reasons you don't want to put it down is that you don't ever want to pick it up again." ---page 34.

[Laura Neu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent craft book, one of the best I've ever encountered. If you truly want to improve your writing, as a novelist or a short story author, pick this up. Hills makes things unmistakably clear and explains himself beautifully. His techniques are valid and applicable to such a wide range of writing. It is certainly on my re-read list.

[Ezzy G. Languzzi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good information on the elements of a short story but painful to read.

[Eric Piotrowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book when my HS library was culling its nonfiction. I thought I'd have a look, not hoping for much. Little did I know it would become one of the five best books I've ever read about writing. (Along with Algren's Nonconformity, King's On Writing, Goldberg's Writing Down the Bones, and Lamott's Bird by Bird.)

Hills is incisive, smart, and very funny. He makes excellent points about the need to avoid trite suspense stories, boring cliches, and postmodern claptrap. He was writing at a time when fiction in magazines was still a strong market, and it's possible that perspectives like his are just becoming too rare to remember. But this is a valuable volume for anyone aspiring to write a good, solid short story. (I've made several slides for my Creative Writing students, to pass along Hills' most insightful points.)

The final section is perhaps the best, capturing in a stream of consciousness the meshugaas of the writer's mind and providing a nice little self-aware bow on the pages before it. Some of the later sections about New Criticism and POV are a little tiresome; four chapters could have easily been rolled into one. Still, it's well worth the time of anyone looking seriously for guidance on the written word.

[Jim Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular is a helpful book if you're interested in writing for a living or for a hobby. It breaks the short story down to something that's relatable and understandable. The only issue that I have with the writer is his arrogance towards the short story that was popular back in the day; what he refers to as slick fiction. He goes further to delineate between 'lousy stories' and 'literature' in a way that dismisses anything not regarded as literature to be not worth your time and calling the writers of such stories as 'old magazine hacks' and 'simple-minded'. Getting published is certainly an accomplishment as far as I'm concerned, wherever you get published. Those old magazine writers knew how to tell a good story and to engage the reader, whether you consider it literature or not. Even though I find the book helpful, I've never had much use for that kind of snobbery and so give this book 3 stars.

[Jeffrey Powanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who's ever tried to write a short story has probably purchased a half dozen or more books on writing. I've tried several, most long since abandoned at Goodwill.

This one's a keeper. Not because it's the most comprehensive writing class between two covers, and has excellent writing examples. It's not, and it doesn't. But it's a simple, informal, open-minded, practical guide to writing that covers the basics: characterization, plot, point-of-view, style, and theme. It's also reassuring, and it's short. I finished it in a couple hours.

There are only two things you need to do to become a writer. (1) Read good fiction, and (2) Write, write, and write. But if you want clarity, and want to avoid the mistakes beginners make, this book is an essential guide. It's not as valuable as an MFA program, but Rust Hills will ease your fears and get you writing.

[Norman Birnbach · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains a lot of good advice but, despite Rust Hills' experience as longtime fiction editor at Esquire and editing some great names (like Raymond Carver, I believe), nothing I hadn't read elsewhere. He does have some interesting theories about the difference between a novel and a short story in terms of what each can achieve.

One thing I felt was odd about the book was this: Carver's short stories had plenty of white space on the page but this book, while its chapters were manageable, its paragraphs seemed endless. I happen to think a certain amount of white space can be helpful.

Good information but less concrete than others. More philosophical about the approach and intentions of the author.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had deeper thoughts about how unhelpful this book was, about how it assumes that what belongs to the Good Art of the literary short story, as perceived by an Esquire editor of the 50s, was some timeless category unbounded by taste, while also recognising that the techniques of fiction are things that have evolved over time and the terms in which its value was recognised have also changed; I forgot most of them; like the book, it wasn't anything profound. Hills writes with a breezy competence that isn't all that surprising; the ending couple of pages, in which he confesses his own inability to ever Do The Work of producing art of his own, were surprisingly affecting, though possibly just because I empathise.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

When the title says Short Story in Particular, it means the literary short story. This leads to one of the biggest flaws in Hills's work: he is very dismissive of genre fiction (among other things), and is frequently condescending and conceited. Nevertheless, I still learned a lot about writing from this book, so I can't rate it too low and must recommend it to aspiring writers with a thick skin and a lot of patience, for this book is also fairly dry and uses long sentences and paragraphs.

The book also somewhat neglects setting, style, and theme, as each is given one brief chapter (or maybe essay is a better word?) while character, plot, and point of view receive several.

[Alex Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good. A lot of useful information in here, but the ending was weak talking about how no one reads short stories anymore (which you didn't have to spend 30 pages to tell me that). Still, I was expecting to be inspired in some way to go write a new short story of my own at the end, instead, he spends the last five pages ramb on about his process only to wrap it up with essentially 'yeah, writing sucks.' I like to disagree of course. Moreover, I don't know why in a book that was doing such a great analysis of the short story he would make it so personal in the end.

[Gregory Freeman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know how much actual value these types of books are to the aspiring writer but it has many nice insights into the short story form,especially when using examples of past authors. There are bits inspiration sprinkled throughout but I didn't get much outbof it. Had it gone a little deeper into where to draw ideas for stories and how to structure them beyond mere daydreams committed to paper it might have been more informative. It does give one a greater appreciation of this shortened form of fiction.

[N · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The truth is that the only way not to feel really terrible is to work. But sometimes, it seems easier just to feel really terrible"- Rust Hills.

A practical and informative manual for beginning writers on how to formulate their short-stories. It was particularly important for me to read this- as I am working on writing my own novella.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent an honest book on craft. Important that it deals with writing short stories in particular. Too many of these books focus on writing in general. Wish I had found this book sooner. Best to have this craft book and maybe a few others and throw everything else out. If you're looking for a good book on the art of the short story, this one will do right by you.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my absolute favorite book on the subject of writing. At the time I read it, it was introducing me to many structural concepts that hadn't been explored at all in my general education, including foreshadowing. Looking back on it now, I find that while I don't love the tone, the content is still excellent and extremely dense.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some useful tips and concepts here, but the structure got tiresome after a while. This almost read like a series of blog posts on different elements of writing. Very conversational and a little repetitive. Some parts are a bit dated, especially the outlook on trends in publishing industry and writing instruction at the end.

[Evangeline · Rating 2 out of 5]

"he" this and "he" that, I almost forgot women are writers too. Other then completely forgetting an entire gender, the tone is bitter and unpleasant. The only reason I didn't give it a 1 star is because I learned a thing or two from it.

[Jacqueline Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clarity

Hills has views on things.

He also has complete clarity on what constitutes a good literary short story, and having read his book it’s hard to disagree with him.

Although he’s wrong about Browning.

[T. Alan Newton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good points made but overall feels like the ramblings of someone who has read a lot of fiction but not written any.