May Versus Ferguson, Research Paper Example

The history of the short story is characterized by the continuous debate over its nature and its very characterization as an independent genre. The focal point of its conceptual establishment in the critical literary practice was embodied in Edgar Alan Poe’s publication of his “Review of Twice-Told Tales”, May 1842. The main significance of his work to the field of literary criticism and the short story development was that he distinguished the short story from the realm of tale and legends and emphasized its literary formal outline. Unlike the folk origin of the short story, he considered it being a sophisticated art of intellectual ability to reflect one’s aim on the readers creating a unique, full and interrupted experience. Poe wrote:

“We allude to the short prose narrative, requiring from a half-hour to one or two

hours in its perusal. The ordinary novel is objectionable, from its length, for reasons

already stated in the substance. As it cannot be read at one sitting, it deprives itself, of

course, of the immense force derivable from totality… During the hour of perusal the

soul of the reader is at the writer’s control.” (Poe 47)

Poe managed to make a distinction between the novel and the short story on the basis of the different experiences each gives to a reader. This argument was further developed in the context of the distinction between the short story, novel and poem by Brander Matthews. In his work “The Philosophy of the Short Story, ” Matthews detailed the ideas of Poe arguing that the short story differs from the novel mainly “in its essential unity of impression,” singularity of character, event and idea integrity and the sense of completeness  (Matthews 52). In terms of the identification and prescription of the genre into a specific geographic location, Matthews was convinced that although the genre of the short story was born English, by the time of the publication of his work, it became a distinct American genre. Probably, exactly due to this emphasis of the American belonging of the genre, the debate about the nature of the genre between Matthews and the English Magazine The London Academy was so severe. While Matthews was promoting the distinctiveness of the short story as an independent genre, The London Academy was convinced that the short story was a narrative rather than an independent genre.  The main argument was that the short story was a sub-genre, and it used all narrative strategies applicable to the novel. Thus, denying an extra feature, or a series of extra features engendered by brevity.

The significance of the first debate on the nature of the short story is that it remained relevant ever since, resulting in the revival of the discussion with each new wave of criticism of one or the other. However, the essence of the debate remains virtually the same which will be demonstrated in the discussion between Charles May and Suzanne Ferguson. Like The London Academy, the debate is one between the short story as mode and the short story as a genre.

The development of the short story genre characterization in the history of short story critical analysis was significantly influenced by the contemporary argument between Charles May and Suzanne Ferguson regarding the existential nature of the short story, which inevitably was a revival of the first wave of the critical argument on the subject matter of Matthews vs. Anonymous reviewer from The London Academy.  Laconically, the argument can be summarized as follows: whether the short story is a genre per sé or whether it is the same as the novel but shorter, using all the narrative strategies and devices of prose fiction. If it is a genre, can this be substantiated by one principal characteristic or, following Wittgenstein, is there a cluster of features in the sense of family relationships which better define the genre. In the offered below narration, two arguments are structured by their crucial elements and differences in their interpretations.

The nature of the short story in respect to the reader

Following Poe’s perception of the short story, May became convinced that the nature of the short story and its consequent feature of the genre was achieving the momentary experience characterized by deep thinking and a certain sense of confusion and alienation (May, Short Story Theories 12). The reader relates to the core idea of the short story through the mythically conditioned sense of loneliness that all human beings share, which cannot be achieved through the novel since it demonstrates the main characters in their social contexts, while the short story demonstrates the unique momentarily sense of individuality and loneliness that relates the character to the reader directly and instantly.  Thus, May argues that the short story is defined by the totality of interconnected elements of the story and the impression the short story has on the target reader. He situates the specific difference between the short story and the novel in the reader’s experience, for he writes:

“How the very shortness of the short story compels it to deal with a different mode of

reality and knowledge than the novel and therefore how it has a different effect on the

reader” (May, “The Unique Effect” 290).

As a counter-argument to May’s alienation and belonging dichotomy of the short story instant effect on the reader, Ferguson applied constructivist approach to the subject matter and views the short story as an embodiment of author’s subjectivity applied for the sake of impressionist impact on the audience (Ferguson, “The Short Stories of Lousie Edrich’s” 455). In terms of constructivism, she argues that there are several similar features between the short story and the novel: the foregrounding of perspective, presentation of sensation and inner experience, deletion or transformation of elements of traditional plot, reliance on metaphor and metonymy in presentation, rejection of chronological temporal organization, a formal and stylistic economy, and finally, a foregrounding of style (Ferguson, “Defining the Short Story” 218, 226). In her interpretation on the difference of the impact of the short story and the novel on the reader, she argued that the main rationale for more impressionist effect was conditioned by the authors’ subjectivity in expressing moods instead of reality. In its turn, “this emphasis on subjectivity inevitably affects the typical themes of modern fiction, alienation, isolation, solipsism, the quest for identity and integration” (Ferguson, “Defining the Short Story” 222).

Comparing these two arguments, first of all, it should be emphasized that they apply two different ways of observing the connection between the author and the audience. May views the short story as a means of triggering the perception of the reader and relating the story with the exiting feeling of alienation characteristic to all human beings. Thus, the short story is not just about the author and his intention, the short story has an active function of affecting the reader, irrespective of the author’s initial intentions.  On the other hand, Ferguson uses instrumentalist and holistic approaches to the role of the short story. In her perception, through the expression of author’ subjective perception of reality and making the reader feel it that way impressionist intention is achieved. The main flaws of Ferguson’s argument is that she tried to quantify and rationalize the degree of impression based only on author’s intention, while, in fact, she missed out the distinctiveness of the reader’s impression which is often different from the author’s intentions. She also lacks historical continuity in her perception of alienation being only a theme of the contemporary short fiction or the impression authors want to impose on the readers (Ferguson, “The Rise of the Short Story” 177). In fact, due to her rejection of the historical and mythological conditionality of the short story, she fails to outline the origin and the uniqueness of the reader’s experience from the short story in contrast to the novel.

The reflection of the reality

May argues that the primary uniqueness of the short story and its consequent reflection upon a reader in contrast to the novel is in the unique aspect of reality it reflects and the experience it triggers in the reader. May states that “short fiction, by its very length, demands both a subject matter and a set of artistic conventions that derive from and establish the primacy of ‘an experience’ directly and emotionally created and encountered,” and furthermore, in stark contrast to the realism of the novel, “the short story exists to ‘defamiliarize’ the everyday” (May, “The Nature of Knowledge”328-329). In this regard, the concentration of the short story on the moment between past and future, which combines both in the very moment of narration, contributes to the fullness of its perception and unconventional re-evaluation of one’s self and life in general. In other words, the short story is aimed at making the reader reconsider the mundane aspect of his life through the lens intensity of climactic moment of the short story (May, “Metaphoric Motivation” 67). The novel, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose – the detailing of the settings and plot development are aimed at making it as close to the reality as possible.

On the other hand, Fergus continues to externalize the effect of the short story arguing that the short story just as novel are aimed at describing reality, and that the authors of the short story prefer to concentrate on the impressionist side of the matter due to the limited size of the short story. She writes “insofar as impressionism is an extension of realism in its sensational, experiential aspect, settings are established through the use of detail to give verisimilitude” (Ferguson, “Defining the Short Story” 225). In her argument she intentionally avoid the diversity of the experience the reader get reading a novel and a short story, because it does not fit into her externalist paradigm of author-centered explanation of the short story as narrative rather than a genre. It can be argued that although she agrees on the diversity elements differentiating the two literary phenomena, the shift of attention from the author-centered to reader’s experience-centered paradigm would deprive Ferguson’s generalization discourse of its primary argument.

Another weak point in her justification is that by making the reality even in its impressionist interpretation a crucial unifying element for the two narratives, she fails to explain how the surreal element of the short story fits into the overall reflection of the reality either in terms of subjective impressions or strict description of the reality (Ferguson, “Defining the Short Story” 223). In this regard, by eliminating the crucial element of reader’s experience in the context of the reconsideration of the reality, Ferguson loses the ability to explain the short story systematically rather than partial where it favored her model. The reality-concentrated difference between Ferguson and May can be outlined in terms of individual vs shared perception of reality and experiencing the literary works. May manages to explain that the short story’s experience is individual because it is based not on the author’s intentions but on a reader’s personal interpretation of what is the short story all about. It is an individual search for the truth and meaning that even the author of the short story would be able to make easy or right, because as May often outlined the authors did not know what the meaning, in fact, was. May agrees with Welty that “the most interesting thing about the short story is its mystery and goes beyond Jarell to assert that the story is the “dream verbalized”” (May, “The Unique effect” 291). Thus, the experiential process of unraveling the mystery of the same short story is individualized and unique for each reader. On the other hand, the experience of the novel is socially-constructed phenomenon conditioned by the commonality of the knowledge and facilitation if the reality for the sake of reaching the target audience. This argument refutes Ferguson’s statement that both the short story and the novel reflect the reality in the same way but with different means.

The historical context of the short story

On various occasions, May outlined that the short story originated in the folk oral tradition, and it carries certain features from the tales and legends. In this regard, the mysterious nature of the short story it orientation on the individual perception of it remain similar to myths and legends of the oral folk tradition (May, The Reality, 108). On the other hand, the turning point in the history of the short story was Boccaccio’s Decameron, which demonstrated the short from religious morality in storytelling towards a human-centered approach in the short story as a literary genre. Based on the changes in the approach to outlining this human-centered orientation of the short story, May distinguished different epoch in the history of the short story.  Romanticism aimed at making explaining the supernatural through the scientific means and make divine images more human (May, The Reality, 110).

The next stage was characterized by a psychological approach developed in the works of Irving, Poe, and Hawthorne of the nineteenth century, who oriented on the understanding of the inner world of people. That is why irrespective of the place of narration, the general impression from their works was that “they always seem to take place in the mind of the character” (May, The Reality 10).  On the other hand, contemporary modern short story emphasized the creation of “hyperrealism” in works of Chekhov, Hemingway, and Carver. May was particularly interested in works of Chekhov, arguing that:

“Chekhov’s ability to dispense with a striking incident, his impressionism, and his

freedom from the literary conventions of the highly plotted and formalized story

marked the beginning of a new or “modern” kind of short fiction that combined the

specific detail of realism with the poetic lyricism of romanticism” (May, “Chekhov

and the Modern” 199).

This quote and his historical narrative suggests that May is convinced that the short story is historically constructed genre that reflect diverse aspects of the historical and cultural trends within the time of its existence, suggesting  that the contemporary hyperrealism carriers the traces of the previous epochs and trends in the history of the short story.

Ferguson is very straightforward in her ahistorical views of the short story. She is convinced that the only change in the short story narrative was conditioned by the shift from one literary trend across various genres and not by the evolution of the short story as a separate genre. She states “just as impressionism dominates the mainstream of the novel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, so it does that of the short story; but the short story, because of it has fewer “optional” narrative elements in its structural “slots,” manifests its formal allegiances to impressionism even more obviously than does the novel” (Ferguson, “Defining the Short Story” 222). Thus, her perception of the changes in the short story narrative is considered to be conditioned by the shortness and the lack of flexibility in adaptation of the short story to the necessity of reflecting realism in its details. Ferguson argues that the short story can reflect the reality effectively mainly through impressionist perspective that is why this remained predominant in the short story narrative and did not change like in the case of the novel. Thus, Ferguson is convinced that the short story remains the same irrespective of the historical context.

Her argument is quite inconsistent, and it does not take into consideration the folk origin of the short story. Based on her argument, it could have been concluded that the short story appeared from nowhere and is characterized by impressionism because it is structurally incapable of evolving and adopting new trends like novel did. This ahistorical approach to the short story does not manage to overrule May’s argument not only because it is not convincing but because there is no sufficient evidence demonstrated by Ferguson to refute May’s historical context of the short story evolution as a genre. Thus, it can be argued that the main flaw of Ferguson’s approach is the oversimplification of what the short story can achieve and its functionality in terms of reaching the diversity of readers in an individual and unique manner.

Overall, irrespective of the diversity of the differential elements that make various short stories distinctive from one another and the complexity of giving the exact definition of what the short story is as a genre, May managed to grasp the wholeness of the short story as a genre by distinguishing a few elements that remain predominant through its history, meaning that uniqueness of the reader’s instant experience and human-centered nature of the short story. Although it can be concluded that Ferguson’s perspective on the short story has the right to exist, the distinguishing of the short story and the novel simply by a narrative may lead to the overall over-simplification of the literary genres and devaluation of the literature criticism in general. Thus, for achieving stronger critical position, Ferguson’s argument would require a more profound collection of evidence and systematic exploration of the subject matter.

Works Cited

Ferguson, Susanne. “Defining the Short Story, Impressionism and Form.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles May. Athens: Ohio U.P., 1994. 218-230. Print.

—. “The Rise of the Short Story in the Hierarchy of Genres.” Short Story Theory at a Crossroads. Ed. Susan Lohafer and Jo Ellyn Clarey, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1989. 176-192. Print.

—. “The Short Stories of Lousie Edrich’s Novels.”  Studies in Short Fiction, 33.4 (1996): 451-460. Print.

May, Charles, E. “Chekhov and the Modern Short Story.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens: Ohio UP, 1994. 199-217. Print.

—. “Metaphoric Motivation in Short Fiction, ‘In the Beginning was the Story.’” Short Story Theory at a Crossroads. Ed. Susan Lohafer and Jo Clarey Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1989. 62-73. Print.

—. “The Nature of Knowledge in Short Fiction.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens: Ohio U P, 1994. 131-143. Print.

—. “Prolegomenon to a Generic Study of the Short Story.” Studies in Short Fiction. 4 (1996): 461-473. Print.

—. The Short Story: The Reality of Artifice. New York: Prentice Hall International, 1994. Print.

—. “The Unique Effect of the Short Story: a Reconsideration and an Example.” Studies in Short Fiction. 13. 3 (1976): 289-297. Print.

Matthews, Brander. “The Philosophy of the Short Story” Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens: Ohio UP, 1976. 52-60. Print.

Poe, Edgar Allan. “Review of Twice-Told Tales” Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens: Ohio UP, 1976. 45-52. Print.