One of the mysteries of a great flash fiction is the unique way that context is created or added in individual stories. Novels often start in media res and then provide backstory or backfill to “catch the reader up” to why we should care about the inciting incident. Short story openings are often concerned with dropping the reader firmly into the time and place of the story, with grand sentences about the weather or the way the landscape crowds the main character. These are generalizations, but also fence posts to work off of when considering how to open a flash and provide context and sense of conflict and character and point of view, and yes, a place for your characters to act out their quick, but powerful dramas. One of the ways to create context is to position the story or characters in the world created by the title. To start this discussion of the power of titles to provide instant context, we’ll look at Margaret & Beak Discuss Jazz for The Last Time by Kathy Fish.
Here the title doesn’t melt into the first line, but acts more as a stage direction, a summary of the event we’re about to witness. It announces its story occasion, which I love. Already we know why this story is taking place, who the characters are, and what they will be “discussing.” Though we’ll find out that this is more of an argument, a civilized one on the surface that quickly devolves into a situation where Margaret will likely make the choice to leave Beak, someday. I say this because Fish gives us what I would call a cut ending, a dramatic drop of the story into the imagination of the reader, who must decide what happens to these characters in the white space of the ending of the story. The reader must become an active participant by the story’s end. And that too adds a depth of context, one that leaves some readers cold or confused, while other readers are thrilled by the opportunity to use their inferences to “complete” the story.
But here the title grants us all the evidence we need to know that Margaret will move on. Context, when using such small word counts, must be applied with pinpricks rather than the full ax of the short story, often given in wide paragraphs of exposition. Most successful flashes razor out this expositional flab if it’s there in the drafting stage or some writers I assume do this more naturally as they write, their minds always wondering what can be cut, what dash of spice will become ingrained in the experience of reading the story? Neither approach denotes more mastery than the other, as each word or line left or excised imparts its own weight on the completed story.
Notice also how the title provides us with a sense of the point of view. Fish uses an omniscient narrator to ping-pong back and forth between these two principal characters. Immediately counter-pointing their personalities and their desires in this moment. Usually, an omniscient narrator creates a lot of distance between the reader and the characters, but we need that distance here to understand the relationship, the dynamic between them. The context of who they are together. because that’s the story.
If flash often evokes the one moment in a character’s life, our narrator is here with the spotlight! There’s a feeling of Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” but this comes more from Fish’s mastery of story-rich dialogue and the way the characters parry back and forth. This story refuses its objectivity and takes sides, both sides with its smart interjections of exposition, of character thought, and framing the setting. All of which when teased out here may look flat, but inside this story, these pieces, these fragments, and sentences color the world of this story.
Without the title, we’d start this story with the weather, and a lack of filter, a lack of understanding of the story occasion, the possible conflict besides the weather. But since we already have context from the title, we’re invited into the story in the middle. We’re invited into a miserable setting. And this last line shows us that the narrator is privy to the intimate inner thoughts of at least Margeret. And I find that really intriguing. I want to know more of what she thinks about Beak and just why this is/has to be the last time. Intrigue is the gift we give to any reader, the gift we give to our stories if we want readers to continue to the end.
Beak took no offense. He lit a slim, brown cigarette and drew on it. "But have you heard the flugelhorn? I mean, have you heard a particularly adept flugelhorn?"
Margaret allowed that she had not. There were many things she'd not heard. She felt, however, that she'd heard enough.
Here’s another structural choice that Fish makes by using the omniscient narrator and their ability to enter into the character’s heads, to cipher their feelings. There’s a couplet form here that gives us that back and forth that amplifies the conflict, that makes these characters more than just a couple arguing over a cup of coffee while it rains. Creating unique and specific characters is a hard business because we’ve seen so many archetypes are stereotypes played out on our screens that it’s hard to form unique humans out of such small word counts. But notice that there is no description of what they look like, but Margaret comes alive for me because “she’s had enough.” I love characters that are ready to say enough, to fight back, to argue, to make choices, take on these small opportunities to walk away or walk into something else.
Beak spooned sugar into his cup and stirred in a leisurely fashion.
Love how Fish stays away from Beak’s mind and focuses on this action, this I could care less about her feelings. Look at the sumptuous adverb, too! Because this is uniquely Beak, right? and we’re starting to kind of hate him. All by not going into his head, Fish controls how we feel about his character!
The story shifts as Margaret is provoked by Beak’s lack of understanding. This is a great escalation. Flash doesn’t necessarily hang on the Freytag pyramid, so they need other ways of creating velocity of pushing the story forward, of creating plot, and one way to do this is to allow characters to make a scene, to push against rules or convention. To speak out, to speak up!
"I'm so sick of the jazz!" She shivered. Really, it was not a good day. "My stomach hurts."
Beak is being challenged here. Margaret is daring him to show her some compassion, some understanding. And here our story gains another notch of the plot. Flash often have rhythms, much like other story-telling forms, where things come in threes or balance their shifts through mirrored or repeated actions with different outcomes. So we want to know what Beak will do?
He folds his newspaper, continues to lecture, which prompts Margaret to tell him again, how she feels physically, but also hints at her frustration with his lack of compassion. Certainly, Beak will notice her now? But no, and here’s another exposition move, another way the narrator can be omniscient and more camera than voice.
"Well, stop drinking it then. Here, I'll take it." Beak pulled her cup towards him. "It says here the flugelhorn is the deepest, most mysterious of the jazz instruments. Furthermore..."
He rejects her physical feelings, with that move to take her cup. Silently chiding her for her physical symptoms. All of this is inferred by the reader, established by this context, this refusal of the narrator to enter his head. Fish invites us into the puzzle of this relationship and that’s why this story works so well!
And here the narrator disappears and we’re left with only their dialogue. Two actors on the stage of this story, trying to express themselves without the help of the narrator, and we get our last escalation, Margaret’s last attempt to shock Beak into something real, something passionate, by saying “I wonder if we should get a divorce." and don’t we hang there on this single sentence paragraph? Just what is it going to be Beak? But he’s been here before, he’s in control and he wants to show her this by telling her just what they will do and how she will react, and thank god, Fish gave us this great title, giving us a sense of relief, because, unlike Beak, we know what’s going to happen. And all of this is set up beautifully and powerfully by that lead-in title!
Prompt: Think of two characters that have had enough of each other. Put them in a place where it would be deviant to have an argument. A bank lobby, a kindergarten music recital, dinner at a fancy restaurant. Try out the omniscient narrator and only allow the narrator into the head of one of the characters, while they take an objective view of the other character. Make sure to build context in these very specific, unique thoughts, exposition, or characterizations. Focus on a ping-pong dialogue style with the fight or argument simmering between these two characters. Try out this 3 step escalation plot with one character giving the other character several opportunities to exhibit compassion and have that character fail to see or fail to act!
What I’m Reading:
Try At Home: Find a song you love and find its instrumental version. Listen to this on repeat. Write a story using the sense of rhythm and the ways the song makes you feel. Evoke all 5 senses and put us in this moment. Feel free to switch between the instrumental versions of songs and see how the writing of each paragraph might change. How does the music free you to write?
My Upcoming Classes:
In this 8 week zoom workshop, we’ll use the work of Raymond Carver to investigate how to create tone and mood in our flash and short stories. The way Carver’s character’s long for and fight against isolation in an alienating world. We’ll focus on how Carver balances character, setting, and conflict while deploying his famous minimalism. How can we apply his craft moves to our own writing in 2021? Let’s find out together!
Thursdays 3-5 pm (EST)*
8-weeks
September 30 – November 18
* Time subject to change slightly based on student availability.