Short Story Structure (spoilers)

[Montecarlo]

I've always had a hard time finding descriptions of structure that resonate with me and help me plot out a story. I actually found Save the Cat Writes a Novel very helpful. I'm thinking about doing more short stories soon and I was rolling in my head, what is a (the?) structure of a short story?

It's been decades since I've read I, Robot. So I checked it out from the library and read "Robbie". Here's my analysis of the structure:

1: Opening
Robbie is a robot nanny for an eight-year-old girl named Gloria. The opening is relevant to, but doesn't directly introduce, the main conflict of the story. Gloria and Robbie are playing, and there is some light conflict in the form of Gloria bullying Robbie and Robbie affectionately making her happy. We see that despite Gloria's impetuous attitude, she is bonded to the robot. The opening is serving several purposes:

• Introduce two of the main characters
• Introduce their relationship
• Provide some interesting dynamic (conflict)
• Relate to the main conflict

2: The Conflict
Gloria's mom calls her in to dinner. Mom doesn't allow Robbie to come to dinner, and is very hostile to Robbie. Later, Mom insists with Dad that Robbie be sold so Gloria will learn to play with human friends. Dad says no. The conflict, plainly stated, is Mom wants Robbie gone, Gloria and Dad want Robbie to stay. I say it this way, instead of something more like "Mom tries to convince Dad to sell Robbie" or "Mom vs Robbie" because I believe this statement of the conflict best matches the rest of the plot. So while the true conflict is introduced here, the exact nature of the conflict won't be firmly known until the story is over.

Initial Battle
Mom doesn't give up here: she tries to wear Dad down. The second attempt, dad stays firm. But he ultimately capitulates.

Catalyst
Dad agrees to sell Robbie. He distracts Gloria while Robbie is being taken away, and then surprises her with a dog. Gloria learns that Robbie is gone, and Mom lies and says that Robbie walked off and no one knows where he is. This is the "life will never be the same moment". I think it's also important to note it's not just what happens, but how. The lie sets the stage for Gloria not being able to let go.

Aftermath
Gloria is depressed for weeks. Dad tries to convince her to change her mind, to buy Robbie back, but she refuses. She suggests an extended vacation in NYC. The key point for me here is that the status quo is not sustainable and something has to be done.

3: Attempted Fix #1
They take Gloria to NYC. As they finalize preparation and plans, Gloria seems happier. However, as they set off for NYC, she reveals why she is happier, to the dismay of her mom: she believes they are going to search for Robbie. The key points for me here are a false sense towards resolution and then a total refutation of impending resolution.

Total Failure
They vacation in NYC, and do many tourist activities, but despite their best efforts Gloria is always looking for signs of Robbie. Finally, Gloria sneaks off and asks a talking robot if it knows where Robbie is. Mom panics when her daughter is missing, and berates Gloria when she is found. Gloria is inconsolable. She declares she HAS to find Robbie.

4: Successful Fix
Dad proposes giving Gloria a tour of the robot factory so she can see first-hand that robots are just parts, not living creatures. Unbeknownst to Mom, Dad arranges for Gloria to see Robbie "on accident" during the tour. When Gloria does, she jumps into the factory floor and is nearly killed, when Robbie saves her. Dad didn't plan for anything that dramatic, but his ploy worked: Gloria and Robbie were reunited, and Mom was unable to say no.

Suspense
Not part of the structure but I think it helps explain the structure. We could just open up right into the conflict, but it might be too much too fast, before the reader is oriented. The opening suspends the introduction of the real conflict while still laying the groundwork for it. Then the initial battle suspends the catalyst. The reason why I bring this up, is if I had an idea for a conflict, I could think "how can I open the story to both introduce the conflict and suspend it at the same time?" Working backwards from the conflict, if you will. If I know what the "no going back" moment is, I can work backwards and devise a scene to suspend the actual catalyst, to bridge the gap between the firm statement of the conflict and the catalyst. I think these moments of suspense are just as critical for the story as the plot points, because they allow the exploration of the theme rather than just bouncing from plot point to plot point.

Critique
Obviously Asimov is talented and extremely well regarded, but I think the story has room for improvement. The characters read like they are from a children's fairytale. The daughter is petulant and demanding. Mom has no redeeming qualities; she is the evil-stepmom, who manipulates and demands her own way regardless of the harm it causes. Dad is good-natured but weak and easily worn-down. But beyond that, my biggest problem with the story is Mom makes a very good point! What are the consequences of raising a child who spends her entire time with a mute robot and not with other kids? But instead of that being explored with nuance, it's just portrayed that Mom is a bitch. That may be addressed in other stories (I only vaguely remember a few), but I felt the story is extremely heavy handed in what should be the thematic question: does having a loving, faithful artificial nanny come at the expense of critical childhood development?

 

[Naomasa298]

Critique
Obviously Asimov is talented and extremely well regarded, but I think the story has room for improvement. The characters read like they are from a children's fairytale. The daughter is petulant and demanding. Mom has no redeeming qualities; she is the evil-stepmom, who manipulates and demands her own way regardless of the harm it causes. Dad is good-natured but weak and easily worn-down. But beyond that, my biggest problem with the story is Mom makes a very good point! What are the consequences of raising a child who spends her entire time with a mute robot and not with other kids? But instead of that being explored with nuance, it's just portrayed that Mom is a bitch. That may be addressed in other stories (I only vaguely remember a few), but I felt the story is extremely heavy handed in what should be the thematic question: does having a loving, faithful artificial nanny come at the expense of critical childhood development?

You are misunderstanding Asimov's writing.

His stories aren't about characters. They're about *ideas*, and in the case of his robot stories, about how society reacts to robots. That's what his thematic question is. He doesn't, and never particularly develop characters because that's not what he's trying to explore. Therefore it doesn't matter if his characters are cardboard cutouts without nuance. The central theme of the story is about fear of technology, and more specifically about fear of robots, and Asimov was opposed to it.

Asimov was showing that the robot genuinely COULD be a friend to the human, and therefore COULD provide the child with the support it needed for its childhood development. He isn't being neutral about it.

You are evaluating a story written in 1940 through a modern lens and with modern sensibilities.

 

[Montecarlo]

Don’t tell me I misunderstand Asimov. I grew up reading him.

 

[Naomasa298]

Don’t tell me I misunderstand Asimov. I grew up reading him.

That may be so, but you're demanding that the thematic question be something that it isn't.

Still, there's not a lot of point in me arguing with you about it, so I'm out of this discussion.

 

[Montecarlo]

That may be so, but you're demanding that the thematic question be something that it isn't.

Still, there's not a lot of point in me arguing with you about it, so I'm out of this discussion.

I spent hours researching and writing this post and your response begins with a dig against me, claiming I don't understand an author I've admired since I was a kid. Which may be true, but that's a wild extrapolation of my criticism. If you disagree with my ideas, that's fine. But no need to attack my understanding. Why would you want to derail a thread with tactless attacks? Is that really why you are on this forum?

I think a story about "how society reacts to robots" might be enhanced by having nuanced characters that reflect society better. I think a story about "fear of technology" might be better served with a balanced exploration of the main fear addressed by the mother. I think approaching thematic questions with a heavy-handed, author is right approach diminishes the work.

You are free to agree or disagree with any of that, I don't really care. But if you want to disagree, you might want to consider disagreeing with the substance of my argument rather than just casting decrees about my reading comprehension.

Thanks for taking this thread is a completely sideways direction. Really enjoyed this experience.

 

[big soft moose]

It’s almost as if this is a forum on which people hold differing opinions and sometimes disagree about them, who knew that was a thing

 

[Seven Crowns]

It's been a few years since I've read that story. I had to read it again just to remember it all.

New York City, 1998 A.D., was a paradise for the sightseer more than ever in its history.​

Right, it's sci-fi. haha!

The structure of this one is odd. I don't think the kid is the MC. I know the first quarter of the story is focused on her, but it's the parents who make all the decisions affecting plot.

prologue in disguise: kid playing with robot, establishing the world that was
inciting incident: mother sends the robot away because of its perceived negative influence, now the world is upended
plot point: trying to distract kid with dog (fails)
plot point: trying to distract kid with trip to city (fails, she's still looking for the robot)
plot point: trying to show the kid that robots are just machines (fails, sort of?)
climax: robot saves the kid from dying. He joins the family again. The old world returns.
epilogue: just a bridge leading into the next story, probably was added just for the book

I feel the parents are the MCs. The opening bit is technically a prologue, but no one is going to do such a thing in a short story. Plus, it's too long, and so it's part of the story. That's called a prologue in disguise. Everything is told by a distant narrator, who is actually Susan Calvin at the end of the story, but let's face it, the narrator has mutton chops. Susan is just a stand-in.

There's something of an escalation between plot points. Even that's not stressed too much. It's mentioned in passing that the kid is losing weight. She is shown as withdrawn too. That's about it for escalation. The parents just want her to be normal and happy. Those aren't the highest stakes, but a parent will recognize them, and so those stakes can at least be said to be universally understood. This is something of a cozy sci-fi story (I shudder to use the term. Let's see if that exists . . . Yuck, it does. Please forget I said that, haha.) and so the stakes are mild. It really is more about exploring the beginnings of robot / human interactions.

If it were me . . . I would have done this:

The mother is successful. The robot rusts in the corner, forgotten. The girl finds new interests. Robbie watches the girl grow older. She makes mistakes and he tries to reach her, to communicate and set her on the right path. He fails. A ton of sci-fi happenings would occur in this section as the world continued to change. Perhaps Robbie's scavaged for parts but still retains consciousness. At some point at the end, when he's just barely functioning, he sacrifices himself somehow to save the girl, now a woman. It's just a simple piece of advice, nothing too gung-ho, but it works. She never knows what he did. He's hauled off for scrap.​

So it would be a corruption plot in which an innocent bystander can do nothing. Until the end, that is, and perhaps that reverses things.

That's how I would have gotten it more emotionally driven. I think it would still say a lot about the positivity of the robot too. Robbie should stay as a force for good, following the First Law to the end.