What do you think?
Rate this book
Single Scene Short Stories
A compilation of acclaimed short stories that each take place within a single scene.
256 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 7, 2021
(3.5)
A small, unique collection of stories that take place in a single scene, defined loosely and eclectically. A worthwhile read for anyone looking to write or read small, especially when occupying the space between flash and short fiction. This review’s anger levels don’t reflect my overall feelings towards the book, which are just neutral.
I have to agree with the other reviewers before me—dissing flash in the introduction to this book is a major mistake on the part of the editor. It’s unprofessional and should have been immediately removed. This isn’t a blog post; it’s a published book (the only one available, in fact, of its specific kind), and attempting to throw shade on flash fiction while collecting short stories for their concision is embarrassing. I felt like spraying the editor with a water bottle.
You know what? Here’s what Margaret Bishop (said editor) says in the introduction. I’ve spoilered it because just re-reading it made me angry again.
Bishop continues by assuring us that the works in here aren’t flash, there’s no micro fiction, and actually though these are short they’re good because they “hold a fully developed purpose, passion and perception,” as well as having “all the story, and all the heart.” You know… things a flash fiction reader/writer might also well say about flash.
The thing about editing a collection of “single scene stories” is that your readers are likely to value concision, and if they do, they will probably value flash fiction. Notice that Bishop’s defense of the stories she’s chosen doesn’t hinge on assuring you that they still have fully fledged plots—a sentence or so later, she even tells us that these stories often excise everything possible from the usual plot diagram, to leave only what is necessary. Many of these stories, having actually read the book, don’t have what one would consider a full plot. They don’t do the triangular exposition-conflict-climax-resolution thing.
But you could still argue, hypothetically, that some deranged word count decides whether or not a story is good. Alright, fine. Flash fiction, meaning anything under 1000 words, is bad. Okay.
One of my favorite pieces from this collection, San Francisco by Amy Hempel, is exactly 334 words.
Coincidentally, this story was described as “bad gimmick writing” by an upset critic who went on to shred an even shorter story of hers, both at least partially for their length. The second, at 249 words, is definitively, objectively, and without a doubt, MICRO FICTION. By coincidence, this week while reading flash fiction specifically I came across yet another piece by Hempel. So you have authors reprinted here who then had their writing choices in other venues trashed. Hell, who had their writing choices in this venue trashed!
Can you imagine printing a collection of realistic fiction stories and then insulting science fiction? Printing minimalist poetry and insulting Imagism? Why in the world would you so needlessly alienate both your readers AND your writers? Let me tell you, I would have a lot to say if I submitted work to an anthology which then insulted my other pastimes in the introduction. Which then insulted WORK THAT WAS SELECTED FOR THE ANTHOLOGY ITSELF.
And you know what? I’m feeling mean. So I’m going to say it.
*Led.
*led to flash fiction.
Just thought I’d correct that typo.
I know I’m putting a lot of emphasis on this intro, and at this point I’m just being a tool, but it feels like it’s committing every sin of bad books. The choice is unnecessary, easy to fix, unprofessional, mean-spirited, and incomprehensible. What really gets me about this is that it’s right in the introduction, and that sets the tone for the entire collection; once I read this I couldn’t stop wondering whether I really trusted this editor with the rest of this book. How did I know I was actually reading a well-collected book? Did the author’s needless prejudices color the choices of the stories? What was I missing out on? A good collection should not make its readers feel that way, and this one seems to go out of its way to do it.
Another strange decision that affected my experience from the beginning: the formatting. Hear me out here. The pages of the book are flat white, and the font is quite small. I really don’t mind construction of a book that looks a little unprofessional—the structure of the cover, for example, is a giveaway to someone with experience in self/indie pub—but this actively made it more difficult to read. Ask yourself: what’s the last non-comic book you read with flat white pages? Something about this arrangement made it quite difficult to read the stories (at least for me), and I found myself occasionally putting the book down to blink and de-squint. I am not nearsighted, mind you.
And the book—look, I know I’m focusing on little things here, I’ll be done soon—contained a metric ton of typos. I pointed one out in the introduction, but there are more scattered throughout, including in classic stories I’m confident don’t contain these mistakes. I was especially frustrated to find these errors in stories I’ve read multiple times, knowing that the errors were simply due to someone not bothering to give this one read through as a document on the computer. Any spelling/grammar tool would have caught these errors, so why not the human beings working on this book?
Basically, I was climbing uphill for no reason on this one. With all of that ranting done, the stories themselves were not bad! A handful of forgettable ones, a handful of solid ones, a handful of really good ones. It is hard to collect single-scene stories, and this gave me a very good look into the general contours of the style, if through a (sigh) tragically anti-flash lens. I found the balance between new and classic authors pleasing and the book certainly gave me more reading research to do. I did stop a few times, and I wasn’t particularly driven to finish the second I sat down, but I did finish, and the book ended up feeling worthwhile; I’ll be keeping it on my shelf. Overall? Solid.
So I’ll give it a 3.5, if visually a 3: some small (but strange) errors on the part of the editor kept me from enjoying a crop of generally decent stories.
Would I recommend it? The trouble is, like I said above, it’s the only collection of its kind—another reason I’m a little pissed off at it. I myself received a recommendation for this book because I enjoy reading and writing… wait for it… flash fiction, and was working on something non-flashy told in one scene. So, sure, I would recommend this to someone specifically looking for one-scene stories. And you can bet we’d have a fantastic time ranting to each other about the intro.
A small, unique collection of stories that take place in a single scene, defined loosely and eclectically. A worthwhile read for anyone looking to write or read small, especially when occupying the space between flash and short fiction. This review’s anger levels don’t reflect my overall feelings towards the book, which are just neutral.
I have to agree with the other reviewers before me—dissing flash in the introduction to this book is a major mistake on the part of the editor. It’s unprofessional and should have been immediately removed. This isn’t a blog post; it’s a published book (the only one available, in fact, of its specific kind), and attempting to throw shade on flash fiction while collecting short stories for their concision is embarrassing. I felt like spraying the editor with a water bottle.
You know what? Here’s what Margaret Bishop (said editor) says in the introduction. I’ve spoilered it because just re-reading it made me angry again.
Bishop continues by assuring us that the works in here aren’t flash, there’s no micro fiction, and actually though these are short they’re good because they “hold a fully developed purpose, passion and perception,” as well as having “all the story, and all the heart.” You know… things a flash fiction reader/writer might also well say about flash.
The thing about editing a collection of “single scene stories” is that your readers are likely to value concision, and if they do, they will probably value flash fiction. Notice that Bishop’s defense of the stories she’s chosen doesn’t hinge on assuring you that they still have fully fledged plots—a sentence or so later, she even tells us that these stories often excise everything possible from the usual plot diagram, to leave only what is necessary. Many of these stories, having actually read the book, don’t have what one would consider a full plot. They don’t do the triangular exposition-conflict-climax-resolution thing.
But you could still argue, hypothetically, that some deranged word count decides whether or not a story is good. Alright, fine. Flash fiction, meaning anything under 1000 words, is bad. Okay.
One of my favorite pieces from this collection, San Francisco by Amy Hempel, is exactly 334 words.
Coincidentally, this story was described as “bad gimmick writing” by an upset critic who went on to shred an even shorter story of hers, both at least partially for their length. The second, at 249 words, is definitively, objectively, and without a doubt, MICRO FICTION. By coincidence, this week while reading flash fiction specifically I came across yet another piece by Hempel. So you have authors reprinted here who then had their writing choices in other venues trashed. Hell, who had their writing choices in this venue trashed!
Can you imagine printing a collection of realistic fiction stories and then insulting science fiction? Printing minimalist poetry and insulting Imagism? Why in the world would you so needlessly alienate both your readers AND your writers? Let me tell you, I would have a lot to say if I submitted work to an anthology which then insulted my other pastimes in the introduction. Which then insulted WORK THAT WAS SELECTED FOR THE ANTHOLOGY ITSELF.
And you know what? I’m feeling mean. So I’m going to say it.
*Led.
*led to flash fiction.
Just thought I’d correct that typo.
I know I’m putting a lot of emphasis on this intro, and at this point I’m just being a tool, but it feels like it’s committing every sin of bad books. The choice is unnecessary, easy to fix, unprofessional, mean-spirited, and incomprehensible. What really gets me about this is that it’s right in the introduction, and that sets the tone for the entire collection; once I read this I couldn’t stop wondering whether I really trusted this editor with the rest of this book. How did I know I was actually reading a well-collected book? Did the author’s needless prejudices color the choices of the stories? What was I missing out on? A good collection should not make its readers feel that way, and this one seems to go out of its way to do it.
Another strange decision that affected my experience from the beginning: the formatting. Hear me out here. The pages of the book are flat white, and the font is quite small. I really don’t mind construction of a book that looks a little unprofessional—the structure of the cover, for example, is a giveaway to someone with experience in self/indie pub—but this actively made it more difficult to read. Ask yourself: what’s the last non-comic book you read with flat white pages? Something about this arrangement made it quite difficult to read the stories (at least for me), and I found myself occasionally putting the book down to blink and de-squint. I am not nearsighted, mind you.
And the book—look, I know I’m focusing on little things here, I’ll be done soon—contained a metric ton of typos. I pointed one out in the introduction, but there are more scattered throughout, including in classic stories I’m confident don’t contain these mistakes. I was especially frustrated to find these errors in stories I’ve read multiple times, knowing that the errors were simply due to someone not bothering to give this one read through as a document on the computer. Any spelling/grammar tool would have caught these errors, so why not the human beings working on this book?
Basically, I was climbing uphill for no reason on this one. With all of that ranting done, the stories themselves were not bad! A handful of forgettable ones, a handful of solid ones, a handful of really good ones. It is hard to collect single-scene stories, and this gave me a very good look into the general contours of the style, if through a (sigh) tragically anti-flash lens. I found the balance between new and classic authors pleasing and the book certainly gave me more reading research to do. I did stop a few times, and I wasn’t particularly driven to finish the second I sat down, but I did finish, and the book ended up feeling worthwhile; I’ll be keeping it on my shelf. Overall? Solid.
So I’ll give it a 3.5, if visually a 3: some small (but strange) errors on the part of the editor kept me from enjoying a crop of generally decent stories.
Would I recommend it? The trouble is, like I said above, it’s the only collection of its kind—another reason I’m a little pissed off at it. I myself received a recommendation for this book because I enjoy reading and writing… wait for it… flash fiction, and was working on something non-flashy told in one scene. So, sure, I would recommend this to someone specifically looking for one-scene stories. And you can bet we’d have a fantastic time ranting to each other about the intro.
January 28, 2019
The editor's introduction to this collection left me confused and with a bad taste in my mouth, something that the collection had to overcome for me personally... In it, she attacks flash fiction and micro fiction. I initially thought that this was odd, particularly since single-scene stories lend themselves well to those forms. It became odder still when I saw that several of the authors in the collection were also writers of those forms (kind of in bad taste to attack your authors in the intro, wouldn't you think?) and then completely jumped the shark when I saw that several of the stories in the collection were short enough that many would consider them as flash pieces... Taken by itself, the introduction seemed quite strange (and bitter in its language) and colored the whole book for me. (And right or wrong, the book loses a star for this introduction...)
As for the collection, it isn't bad at all. There's a decent mix of the classics (Hills Like White Elephants probably being the biggest classic short story in the collection) with some great modern writers. All of the stories are at least interesting - I wouldn't say that I personally felt that there were any truly weak pieces here. That said, many of these pieces felt like the second or third best story by ______. I often wondered if the editor's distaste of flash fiction didn't affect the choices here. (At the same time, some of the longer stories seemed to be the best and it was interesting to see how long some of these authors could sustain a single scene...)
It's a worthwhile read if you are interested in short fiction but there are definitely better anthologies out there in my opinion.
As for the collection, it isn't bad at all. There's a decent mix of the classics (Hills Like White Elephants probably being the biggest classic short story in the collection) with some great modern writers. All of the stories are at least interesting - I wouldn't say that I personally felt that there were any truly weak pieces here. That said, many of these pieces felt like the second or third best story by ______. I often wondered if the editor's distaste of flash fiction didn't affect the choices here. (At the same time, some of the longer stories seemed to be the best and it was interesting to see how long some of these authors could sustain a single scene...)
It's a worthwhile read if you are interested in short fiction but there are definitely better anthologies out there in my opinion.
January 30, 2011
This was an excellent collection of short stories. I was introduced to some not so familiar writers and then pleased to find some of my favorite writers. Each story was skillfully constructed and genius. I'd say start with Jorge Luis Borges' 'August 25, 1983 first. You just kind of get into the mood to keep reading after that.
April 29, 2012
It's a collection of short stories by well regarded literary authors that all take place in one scene, more or less, of course it's going to be good. Not every story's gonna hit it with you (especially some of the older stories that really show their age), but almost anyone would enjoy at least half of these. My personal favorite was Joyce Carol Oates's In the Warehouse, chilling.
June 25, 2008
A great collection, well worth a buy for any reader or writer. A broad and excellent selection of stories.
February 25, 2015
A very good collection of classic ("A&P," "Hills Like White Elephants," "To Build a Fire") and lesser known pieces. Nice to nip off a couple each day, feel satisfied.
April 22, 2022
Yikes.
Firstly, am glad that I didn't go near the introduction. Read a view other reviews, and have a feeling that there were things I would have met there that we have made me upset, and simply return the book to the library.
Secondly, the font, and size of the font, were ill-advised for anyone with old eyes. Also disliked the layout of the pages themselves. The author and title of each story was located so close to the top of the page that it was like they were trying to climb out of the book, and take off running down the shelves for writing that they'd feel more comfortable being associated with. Also the page numbers were in a peculiar placement as well, plus the font made the numbers almost unreadable. Also disliked the use of black and white for the authors name on the back cover. Could only read the names in black with ease, the ones in white were a great struggle. I suppose that's why I was delighted with some of the authors I found once I got into the book - as I had no idea they were included. And one more complaint, or observation, the cover was 'cute' but a bit bewildering. Was it so hard to write these single scene short stories that the authors threw their pencils into the ceiling? Were they so bored with writing that they tossed their instruments? And the pencils looked like they were all fresh out of the box - none used, none of different length, the erasers not worn down even a bit. Did all the writers eschew old materials used for writing? Did they write so perfectly they never had to erase? Were they so wealthy from their writing that they could use pencils - and ceilings - as mere toys?
The stories were great. I think I went there looking for William Carlos Williams, and was delighted to find Jorges Luis Borges, Anton Chekhov, James Joyce, Dorothy Parker, and many many others. Lots of really good reads.
Here is a favourite paragraph from a story by Michael Chabon. It's a story about a young couple looking at houses, perhaps hoping that getting the right place will make their new marriage work. Things go a bit awry with their peculiar real estate agent, and they end up having time alone together in the master bedroom, where much intimacy ensues. Here's the paragraph I liked.
'...and that was when Daniel saw the mistake that they had made. Although sex was something they both regarded as perilous, marriage had, by contrast, seemed safe - a safe house in a world of danger; the ultimate haven of two solitary, fearful souls. When you were single, this was what everybody who was already married was always telling you. Daniel himself had said it to his unmarried friends. It was, however, a lie. Sex had everything to do with violence, that was true, and marriage was at once a container for the madness between men and women and a fragile hedge against it, as religion is to death, and the laws of physics to the immense quantity of utter emptiness of which the universe was made. But there was nothing at all safe about marriage. It was a doubtful enterprise, a voyage in an untested craft, across a hostile ocean, with a map that was a forgery and with no particular destination but the grave.'
Oh, and what last word - also enjoyed the wee author bios located at the back.
Firstly, am glad that I didn't go near the introduction. Read a view other reviews, and have a feeling that there were things I would have met there that we have made me upset, and simply return the book to the library.
Secondly, the font, and size of the font, were ill-advised for anyone with old eyes. Also disliked the layout of the pages themselves. The author and title of each story was located so close to the top of the page that it was like they were trying to climb out of the book, and take off running down the shelves for writing that they'd feel more comfortable being associated with. Also the page numbers were in a peculiar placement as well, plus the font made the numbers almost unreadable. Also disliked the use of black and white for the authors name on the back cover. Could only read the names in black with ease, the ones in white were a great struggle. I suppose that's why I was delighted with some of the authors I found once I got into the book - as I had no idea they were included. And one more complaint, or observation, the cover was 'cute' but a bit bewildering. Was it so hard to write these single scene short stories that the authors threw their pencils into the ceiling? Were they so bored with writing that they tossed their instruments? And the pencils looked like they were all fresh out of the box - none used, none of different length, the erasers not worn down even a bit. Did all the writers eschew old materials used for writing? Did they write so perfectly they never had to erase? Were they so wealthy from their writing that they could use pencils - and ceilings - as mere toys?
The stories were great. I think I went there looking for William Carlos Williams, and was delighted to find Jorges Luis Borges, Anton Chekhov, James Joyce, Dorothy Parker, and many many others. Lots of really good reads.
Here is a favourite paragraph from a story by Michael Chabon. It's a story about a young couple looking at houses, perhaps hoping that getting the right place will make their new marriage work. Things go a bit awry with their peculiar real estate agent, and they end up having time alone together in the master bedroom, where much intimacy ensues. Here's the paragraph I liked.
'...and that was when Daniel saw the mistake that they had made. Although sex was something they both regarded as perilous, marriage had, by contrast, seemed safe - a safe house in a world of danger; the ultimate haven of two solitary, fearful souls. When you were single, this was what everybody who was already married was always telling you. Daniel himself had said it to his unmarried friends. It was, however, a lie. Sex had everything to do with violence, that was true, and marriage was at once a container for the madness between men and women and a fragile hedge against it, as religion is to death, and the laws of physics to the immense quantity of utter emptiness of which the universe was made. But there was nothing at all safe about marriage. It was a doubtful enterprise, a voyage in an untested craft, across a hostile ocean, with a map that was a forgery and with no particular destination but the grave.'
Oh, and what last word - also enjoyed the wee author bios located at the back.
April 22, 2026
This editor should never compile a book ever again...and from the looks of it, she hasn't since.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews