consistency in short stories

Well, for one, most writers are terrible judges of their own work. There have been plenty of times where I've sent my first readers a story I think is great, and their reactions are basically 'meh.' Other times I've sent them stories I think are terrible--so terrible I've told the, they really don't have to read it if they don't like it--and they come back saying it's one of their favorites so far. My publications thus far are a mixture of stories my first readers though were great and stories they thought were so-so.

I think consistency just comes with practice--well after the first million words. And even well established pros will write a dud now and again.

MJNL said:

I think consistency just comes with practice--well after the first million words. And even well established pros will write a dud now and again.

Click to expand...

This. And you can't really judge your own work that well, especially at first. That's what magazine / anthology editors are for.


..

gettingby said:

I feel like I am lacking consistency in the quality of my short stories. Sometimes I am amazed by myself. Other times I wonder what the hell I am trying to do. Do you guys have consistency in your short fiction? How do you do it? This is something I really seem to be struggling with. Do any of you have this problem? What can be done about it?

Click to expand...

Well, right now I am reading a big fat 700 page book, the collected stories of Lydia Davis. She is well known and has been writing short stories for decades and all that jazz and I look up to her. But, I must say some of the stories, I finish reading and think are you serious? LOL. So maybe it's just the way it goes...

MJNL said:

My publications thus far are a mixture of stories my first readers though were great and stories they thought were so-so.

Click to expand...

agree with this all. except I'm the only "first reader." Stuff I think meh was published, the sublime can only be be found on my computer's memory.

I'm not sure what you mean by consistency, but you'll get better simply by writing lots of stories and pushing yourself to do different things with each one.

What can be done about it? Write more. Get more feedback. Read more.

Sometimes, you just need to catch the story as it exits your head, and then when you go back to it is when you elevate it, bring it to the pros. Sometimes it comes out that way. Sometimes, well, maybe you should look at it as an exercise and use it in the bones of something else.

It is what it is. Reading short story collections, even authors I like have some stories that I think were just there to up the page count.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how well a story turns out, too. Then I'm equally amazed when it doesn't sell anywhere, to any magazine, for any price.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how lousy a story turns out. Then I'm amazed when a top magazine buys it first time out, and pays me an obscene amount of money for it.

I can only really speak as a reader (as a writer I know for certain that I simply cannot judge my own work), but I think even the best short story authors are hit and miss.

I've read collections from my favorite writers and there are always one or two duds, so I simply assume it is impossible to just always be amazing

That said, I also definitely enjoy seeing early stories written by people who I think are great writers. I often see their early work and think "wow, they stank!" which means it was practice that helped them get better.

OP, I empathize with you in this regard. Sometimes I will work on a certain story, not really knowing where I'm going with it, hit a road block and shelve it for weeks. But when I return to it and read what I've already done, one of two things tends to happen:

1. I read it and wonder what the heck I was thinking and wind up scrapping the whole project.

2. I read it and get a sudden burst of inspiration/direction and am able to revise the inconsistent portions of it and even push forth towards completing it. (I usually hit the wall before the end and go through this cycle again. Every once in awhile I finish one.)

This is my strategy for maintaining consistency: giving myself time away from it and returning with a fresh mentality. Granted, one big criticism of this is that I am judging the "consistency" of my work by myself and this can be skewed since I wrote it. Typically, I strive to be happy with my own work personally before asking anyone else for their opinions on whatever that work may be.

Do you have a critique group of other writers that can give you honest feedback on your stories?

What is it about one work that makes it better than another. Figure that out, then make the bad one better.

Sometimes - rarely - my first pass at a story is really, really good. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it can be almost as close to perfect as I can make it.

Usually, my first draft is crap. I decide if it's pure crap or crap with potential. If it has potential, I re-write. Sometimes I have to go over it several times to get it ready for human consumption.

Then, I submit it to my critique group. That's the only way I really know if my story is up to snuff or not. They will tell me if it's publication ready, or if I need more polish.

By the time I'm on submission with a story, the quality is fairly consistant.

Linda Adams said:

I'm not sure what you mean by consistency, but you'll get better simply by writing lots of stories and pushing yourself to do different things with each one.

Click to expand...

I agree with Linda.

And to take it one step further, it's all objective anyway. I.e. what is "consistent"? Everyone's favourite band has at least one "bad" album; which is likely another person's favourite.

Everyone's favourite author has one "bad" book, which is also likely another person's favourite.

All art suffers from consistency issues; you've just got to keep going, and building your portfolio.

Consistency is mostly about selecting consistently good stuff from a big pile of inconsistent stuff.

Listen to the "extra tracks" version of any great album. Most of the time you'll understand immediately why the extra tracks were originally omitted: They weren't up to the standards of the rest of the album.

That is, the people who recorded the great album were inconsistent in their writing and recording, but they (along with their producers) were better at selecting what would go on the album.

[Also: I endorse the large "don't be so confident about your ability to judge your own work" theme running through the answers.]