Professor Florence Goyet of Stendhal University, Grenoble, was kind
enough to send me a copy of her book, The
Classic Short Story, 1870-1925, now available in hardback, paperback, and
kindle on Amazon. Originally published in France in 1993, this new edition is a
revised and updated, translated version published in the United Kingdom and the
United States by Open Book Publishers in 2014.
By "classic" short story, Goyet refers to a period of short
story development somewhere in between the romantics of the mid-nineteenth
century—Poe, Hawthorne, Gogol, Nerval, Gautier, Merimee, Turgenev—and the
moderns of the early twentieth century—Sherwood Anderson, James Joyce,
Hemingway, Crane, Conrad, Kafka. Goyet is quite right in pointing out that this
"in-between" period has been relatively ignored by critics either
because the stories were "naturalistic, an approach not always conducive
to the short story, or "well-made," an approach that often led to
simplistic plot-based tricks.
From the publication of Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener"
in 1853 until Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio in 1919, the
development of the short story in America can be traced by examining stories in
the following loose categories, which I pose for the sake of convenience
only. The discernible development of the
form focuses on those stories that have been classified as "local
color," which then compels a movement toward realism. The most representative
examples are George Washington Harris, Mark Twain, George Washington Cable,
Constance Fenimore Woolson, Joel Chandler Harris, Mary Noailles Murfree, Thomas
Nelson Page, James Lane Allen, Kate Chopin, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Charles
Chesnutt, Bret Harte, Sarah Orne Jewett, and Mary Wilkins Freeman. However, Cable's local color cannot be
appreciated fully without an understanding of his use of gothic conventions,
any more than Kate Chopin's local color can be understood without an
appreciation of her use of Maupassant's convention of the well-made story. And Mary Wilkins Freeman's local color must
be seen in the context of Jamesian realism.
The second issue that must be considered is how local color compelled,
abetted, or served the growing development of realism, and how realism flowed
quite naturally into modern impressionism.
The realists that might be discussed are William Dean Howells, Hamlin
Garland, Theodore Dreiser, Jack London, and Frank Norris. The realists becoming impressionists are, of
course Henry James and Stephen Crane.
And included with this influential pair that presaged the kind of poetic
realism that characterized Anderson, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner and others
of the 1920s, should be Edith Wharton, Ellen Glasgow, and Willa Cather. The final group includes those writers who
developed the structural pattern of the short story to such an extent that it
became the well-made story. These
include Edward Everett Hale, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, Frank Stockton, Fitz-James
O'Brien, and O. Henry. All of these
strands had important influences on the American short story in the last half
of the nineteenth century and continued to influence the development of the
form into the twentieth century.
Goyet has chosen to focus primarily on five writers in the latter
part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth:
Maupassant, Chekhov, Giovanni Verga, Henry James, and Akutagawa Ryunosuke. She says she has read all the stories by
these writers, and has placed them in the context of their contemporaries, e.g.
Daudet, Kipling, etc. She has chosen a
corpus of one thousand stories, reading them in their original language in the
newspapers and journals where they first appeared. In addition to reading all this primary material, she has
documented her research in secondary material scrupulously. Indeed, on some pages, the footnotes take up
as much space as the text. The three
major sections of the book approach the classic short story from three
perspectives; its structure, its
original publication site, and its relationship between reader, author, and
character. Goyet's book is an ambitious project, and it is certainly a strongly
grounded work of academic research and critical analysis.
I don't intend to offer a detailed review of the book. If you have an academic or historical
interest in the short story, you will want to read it. Instead, I want to talk a bit about those
aspects of the classic short story Goyet emphasizes that interest me most.
Goyet's argument about paroxystic characterization in the short story,
that is, that characters are always symbolic, representative and dependent on a
structural tension or antithesis, rings true to me. For example, in discussing a
story by Verga about a manhunt, she says the story is about the manhunt par excellence. She says, like the fairy tale, the classic
short story works with unequivocal entities: "paragons of virtue or
vice." But she adds, this paroxysm does not characterize only the main
characters, it permeates the entire narrative.
In other words, the paroxystic characterization of the classic short
story makes its characters into exemplary representatives of a category, making them into almost abstract
entities. Reader interest then shifts
from individuals to the development of the story. Thus, the central feature of the classic
short story is its structure, which, she argues, is almost always based on antithesis. Narrative structure takes precedence over the
characters, who primarily are at the service of their role in the plot, or, I
would say, pattern.
Goyet, not surprisingly, chooses Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as emblematic of the deep antithetical tension in the
classic short story. The power of the
classic short story, she says, comes from making the tension between two
opposing forces the governing energy of the story as a whole. This oxymoronic tension, Goyet argues, is a
necessary aspect of the classic short story, but not of the novel.
One of the results of the classic short story's emphasis on
antithetical structure is the form's focus on its ending, what Goyet calls
"the twist in the tail."
Rather than emphasizing the most obvious surprise ending stories, such
as O. Henry's "Gift of the Magi," which she does discuss as an
example of antithetical structure, she talks about Chekhov's story
"Misery," the emotional impact of which is not dependent solely on
the ending when the old cab drive talks to his horse, but rather on the
antithetical structure that permeates the story throughout and culminates
structurally in that ending. Goyet says that great stories with a twist in the
tail ending are more complex than O. Henry's simple trick endings because they
force us into what she calls a "retroreading," i.e., a
reconsideration of the entire story from its beginning.
Comparing the short story to the sonnet form, Goyet argues that the
classic short story is a genre that is so dependent on antithetic tensions and
rests so heavily on the paralleling of elements that the signs in the story do
not take on meaning immediately but rather are half-hidden and put on reserve
in the memory until the ending gives them a definitive place in the structure.
"At the end of the text, one's mind runs through the elements stored
during the reading and gives them back their hidden meaning, the meaning
provided by the general structure and economy of the work."
Goyet concludes her discussion of the structure of the classic short
story by arguing that what gives masterpieces of the genre their greatness is
their effective use of what ancient rhetoricians calls
"hypotyposis," that is, a
particularly vivid depiction that makes us "see," rather than
conceive. She says that it is the
balance between the abstract and the concrete, the powerful descriptions and
schematic material, that distinguishes the classic short story from the
allegory or the medieval exemplum.
I enjoyed reading Florence Goyet's book, and I thank her for sending it
to me. Her scrupulous analysis of a body
of short fiction that is often ignored reaffirms for me some of the characteristics
of the form for which I have argued for many years, especially the short
story's emphasis on thematic structure and its presentation of character both
"as if real" and "representative" at once. I recommend it
to you for its breadth and insight.
It was a real pleasure to read Charles May's post on my book. The book is free to read on the publisher' site at http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/199 and now free to download at Unglue.it (http://unglue.it/work/136328/), where you can also take part in their crowdfunding initiative.
ReplyDeleteHello, Charles. I have read both your "I am your brother" and Goyet's the "Classic short story". I find them both deeply illuminating. But I would like to ask you about something you wrote here: "[...]in the plot, or, I would say, pattern." Why is it that you prefer "pattern"? Is it synonym with structure?
ReplyDeleteRegards from Argentina.
Edgar Allan Poe was the first to emphasize pattern over plot. "Plot" usually refers to the order of the events that take place in the story, while "pattern" usually refers to the way that thematic motifs are structured to suggest an underlying meaning. Poe was more interested in the aesthetic "pattern" of his fiction, not merely the action of the plot. Always good to hear from you Lucas.
ReplyDeleteI see, thanks for your explanation.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I've sent you an email with some comments on "I am your brother" (and a brief list of typos).
Regards.
Right ur own story. Mine is charming and perfect for all of my babies πΆand nothing like that πππ♥is the only way
ReplyDelete