Talk:Flash fiction

Advertising

There seem to be more external links than actual content in this article, which leads me to believe its mostly advertising. Anyone want to help me pare down the list? Shy 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree... the last several edits are just people adding external links. It seems most of them violate the spirit of the External link guidelines as well as what Wikipedia is not. The list should be pared down to just a couple appropriate links. Any suggestions? Phrenq 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No relation?

Am I the only one who can't see the relation between the fiction made on Flash section and the main part of the article? ~ Mccow28 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize at first which part you were referring to, before I added the section below on Macromedia Flash. Phrenq 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the definition itself in the first line of the article? "Flash fiction is a style of fictional literature or fiction of extreme brevity" Is the "or" appropriate? Perhaps it should be replaced by "; it is a term sometimes used for...." Abhijitsengupta ias (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hemingway

Can anyone find evidence that Ernest Hemingway actually wrote that six-word story about baby shoes? --Justallie 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is widely believed that Ernest Hemingway wrote the story but that does not mean he was the first person to tell draw attention to bereavement in a similar form of words. Derekmcmillan1951 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So just change it and make it by another author. Look here for inspiration http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.html. Butterflyvertigo 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001014;p=1 has more discussion. It's a good question, but it doesn't look like anybody else is claiming to have written it. Maybe he just never found anyone willing to pay him to print it. Ojcit 04:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Short short story (and microfiction?)

I've suggested the Short short story stub be merged into Flash fiction, as it is largely just another word for the same concept. In fact, I don't believe there's really anything to do, other than add "short short story" to the list of alternate terms in the first paragraph. Any opinions? Phrenq 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's considerable overlap in these terms and no clear consensus on just how many words constitute a flash or a short-short. The only procedural consideration of any consequence in a merge might be deciding which term users are more likely to search. Davidbdale 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Should consideration be given to merging "flash fiction" and "short short story" with "microfiction"? The three concepts do seem closely related. Personally, I would tend to favor "microfiction" for the common name. But whichever name were selected, links would guide readers from the remaining names to the common article. logologist|Talk 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to worry about broken searches because the merge procedure includes adding a redirect from the old term to the new one. I agree that it's probably a good idea to merge microfiction as well. I'll mark microfiction as suggested to be merged.

As far as which is the appropriate common name, I'm going to vote for flash fiction, as it seems to be the more commonly used term. A google search (though hardly definitive, I still think it's a reasonable measure of zeitgeist) backs me up:

• "flash fiction" (in quotes) gives 707,000 results
• "short short story" (in quotes) gives 88,100 results
• microfiction OR "micro fiction" (to catch usages with a space) gives 160,000 results.

- Phrenq 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you also check for "micro-fiction," with a hyphen, and for "micro-story"? logologist|Talk 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Google includes hyphenated words when you search for words separated by a space (even with quotes), so that's included in the previous link. As for "micro story" OR microstory, that search returns 51,300. None of them are on the same scale as the 700,000+ results for flash fiction.

Anyway, I want to be real careful not to imply that a google search is the authoratative source for which is the correct term. I just wanted a quick gague of which seems to be the more popular one, and google is good for that. Another term might be more appropriate for reasons other than popularity. I just can't think of any. Phrenq 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There really is no significant difference structure or style-wise between a Short Story and Flash Fiction. Flash Fiction emerged as a subclassification of the short story meant to designate very short works that 1-2000 words approximately (but no real number has been established to my knowledge).Blueskelton 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Blueskelton

Macromdia Flash

I have doubts about the paragraph that begins "Recently, a new twist on this form has appeared within short fictions written for the web that are created entirely in Flash", which refers to multimedia stories presented using the Macromedia Flash player. I've never heard of this referred to as "Flash fiction", and none of the sites referred to appear to use this term, so this description may not belong in this entry. Anyone have a source for this usage? Phrenq 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Flash Player (and application) post-date the original use of the term "Flash Fiction." This suggests that a partial updating of this term may be in order, as we have seen with other etymologies of terms in current usage. Would it be appropriate to leave in the paragraph referenced above simply to show that the term has multiple possible meanings, particularly with the emergence of new technologies? (Added by sm81email on Nov. 26, 2006)

My problem with this is that I can't actually find any usage of the term "Flash Fiction" that refers to macromedia flash, other than in this article. It would seem to have much more in common with, say, Hypertext fiction. Perhaps we should use the otheruses4 template, like this:

This article is about very short stories. For interactive multimedia stories, see Hypertext fiction.

Might that be appropriate? Phrenq 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no current usage of the term "Flash Fiction" in reference to the creation of new, usually short, fictions using Flash. However, hypertext is an old(er) form, predominantly created in HTML, and predating current technologies. It is a bit of a puzzler--hypertext doesn't really apply, and Flash fiction already has a stable reference base. If you don't mind, I'm going to let you run with this one? (Added by sm81email on Dec. 7, 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.184.95 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Market Relevance

Pretty frequently, links are being added to the sentence on markets specializing in flash. Can we set some sort of standard of relevance, similar to what's used in the literary magazines article? The standard there is 40,000 google results. In that case, it probably needs to be that high (or higher) because of the scope of the article. In this niche, a lower threshold might be appropriate.

Examples:

• Flash Me Magazine: 1,290 (this was just added to the article, and is the impetus behind this post)
• SmokeLong Quarterly: 30,700
• Vestal Review: 16,100
• Flashquake: 28,600

I'm not sure what the threshold should be. I'd have suggested 20,000, but that leaves out Vestal Review, which is a very well established market. 15,000, perhaps? DaveClapper 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just the biggest three: when you add one to the list, you must remove one that gets fewer Google hits? (We may run into a problem if there's a flash-fiction magazine whose name means other things as well, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with saying that Google hits are what determines relevance. If that were true, then Britney Spears (9+ million) would be more relevant than Indira Ghandi (49,000).

That aside, I think that at the very least Every Day Fiction and Flash Me are relevant enough to be included in the article. Flash Me already has its own article, so its relevance must be high enough to maintain that. Also, Ruakh points out the problem with multiple meanings -- "Flash Me" the magazine is a very difficult thing to tease out of the various hits that come from a search on "Flash Me". Every Day Fiction is doing something completely different from the other 'zines, and -- if we must discuss Google status -- gets 14,000 some-odd hits. Flash Fiction Online is unique in being the first pro-paying flash 'zine that emphasizes genre fiction, but if people have heartburn with it, we can leave it out until it's bigger. Jdfreivald (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your citation of Ghandi versus Spears, that's a case that isn't specific to entities that exist primarily online. In this case, all of the publications being cited DO exist primarily online, so Google is a very reasonable source. If you'd like an even more relevant source, perhaps Duotrope would suffice? Here are the number of submissions tracked there over the past 12 months for each of the publications being discussed:

• SmokeLong Quarterly: 191
• Flashquake: 144
• Vestal Review: 103
• Flash Me: 85
• Every Day Fiction: 82
• Flash Fiction Online: 22

As of right this moment, the three pubs originally listed in the article have the highest level of relevance, according to both Google and Duotrope. Previous editors thought it made sense to limit the number of publications listed as examples of markets to three to avoid the article becoming a links list. There are other articles on Wikipedia which serve the purpose of lists without diluting more tradtionally written articles. You're welcome to disagree, but at the moment you're alone in pushing for more than three. I wish you all the luck in the world with FFO (the more markets that exist and thrive, the better for all markets, in my opinion). And if FFO (or either of the other two) surpass SLQ, FQ, or VR in relevance as agreed upon by editors here, then by all means, they should replace the least relevant cited in that sentence. I'm going to revert again. If editors come to a different conclusion based on this discussion page, so be it, but for now, I think the article should reflect what has previously been agreed to.DaveClapper (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been about six months since we last discussed this topic. As I suspected back in January, things have changed somewhat with respect to Google hits and Duotrope submission tracking. Here are the rankings as I see them:

• Smokelong Quarterly: Duotrope = 216 + 9 pending = 225 total. Google = 14,200 hits, page rank 4.
• Every Day Fiction: Duotrope = 158 + 13 pending = 171 total. Google = 22,700 hits, page rank 4.
• Flash Fiction Online: Duotrope = 146 + 17 pending = 163 total. Google = 16,100 hits, page rank 4.
• Vestal Review: Duotrope = 133 + 23 pending = 156 total. Google = 9,990 hits, page rank 5.
• Flashquake: Duotrope = 131 + 8 pending = 139 total. Google = 15,900 hits, page rank 5.
• Flash Me: Duotrope = 84 + 17 = 101 total. Google = 25,000+ hits (very many erroneous), page rank 3.

The search results can vary widely based on the precise terms you use, including quotation marks, so here, in (parentheses), are the search terms I used for the Google results: (Smokelong), ("every day fiction"), ("flash fiction online"), ("vestal review"), (flashquake), and ("flash me" magazine).

The top three for Duotrope (which, as I previously stated, I consider more relevant and precise than Google results) are Smokelong, EDF, and FFO.

I have concerns about the Google results for EDF, FFO, and Flash Me. If anyone wants to discuss that, we can. Perhaps more relevant is the Google page ranking, which is based on more than just a keyword search. Among other things, Google's page rankings appear to give some weight to the longevity of a site.

A discussion of what factors would lead to periodicals being included in a listing of this sort might be in order. For now, I'm doing what Dave Clapper talked about back in January, and altering the list to include Smokelong Quarterly, Every Day Fiction, and Flash Fiction Online. I hope this is satisfactory. Jdfreivald (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

By none of the points mentioned above does "Quick Fiction" qualify to replace Every Day Fiction as a market of relevance. Until an argument is made showing that it has more relevance, I am abiding by the points made Jdfreivald and DaveClapper --Jordan Lapp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.176.97 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Quick Fiction has a Wikipedia article and Every Day Fiction doesn't. If that should be the other way around, we might as well address the existence of the articles first. --McGeddon (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure "existance of a wikipedia article" is a good metric for how much relevance a market has... that seems a little... self-referential. In fact, EDF is a good representation of a flash fiction market, because unlike Smokelong Quarterly, Flash Fiction Online, and Quick Fiction, it is published daily. This alternative format alone should qualify it for a mention.Jordan Lapp (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Duotrope seems like the fairest arbiter of which top three pubs to include. The argument for Google rank that was previously brought up certainly has relevance, but a bit less relevance when Quick Fiction, which is print only, is brought into the equation. As editors seem to have agreed on listing three examples, I checked Duotrope's stats as of today for what appear to be the top three markets in terms of flash submissions (looking only at the usual suspects that have appeared in this article at one time or another):
SmokeLong: 300 + 7 pending = 307
Flash Fiction Online: 228 + 54 pending = 282
Quick Fiction: 195 + 24 pending = 219
Every Day Fiction: 169 + 28 pending = 197
Vestal Review: 138 + 25 pending = 163
Flashquake: 149 + 13 pending = 162
Flash Me: 108 + 13 pending = 121
As such, I've edited the article to list only SmokeLong, Flash Fiction Online, and Quick Fiction as the examples of markets.DaveClapper (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vestal Review has been re-inserted a couple times over the last few days. While I strongly appreciate its relevance, especially as the oldest (that I know of) existing market focused exclusively on flash, it doesn't meet the criteria set out by the several editors who have weighed in here. And while I personally think that being the oldest existing market warrants a mention, I wonder if listing it in that way opens up the door for a whole slew of claims of importance based on other things (see above for examples: Every Day Fiction for posting flash daily, Flash Fiction Online for its pay rates, etc.). Actually, I could maybe see removing the markets sentence altogether and setting up a list of markets with what makes them relevant, i.e.:

Oldest Existing Market: Vestal Review

Highest Paying Market: Flash Fiction Online

Most Popular Online Market: SmokeLong Quarterly+

Most Popular Print Market: Quick Fiction+

+as reported in number of annual submissions by Duotrope

Editors? Thoughts?DaveClapper (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, DaveClapper. Duotrope is too easily influenced. I could log on anonymously and report 20 more submissions, and bang, Every Day Fiction is back on top. Alternatively, Every Day Fiction has 200 stories in its slushpile. If I rejected 20 of those, Every Day Fiction would be back on this list. Alternatively, I don't think "how many reprints" should factor into this because a) it's difficult to track, and b) clearly this favours older magazines. Although I admit some bias, I do think EDF should be included simply because of its format (which has been duplicated quite often recently (right off the top of my head "Every Day Weirdness" is a newer magazine that uses the same format).Jordan Lapp (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is why Duotrope is a poor metric of market relevance. It changes too frequently. Every Day Fiction now has 10 more responses than Quick Fiction, so I'm adding Every Day Fiction again. In a month or so, if there are no protests, I'm implementing DaveClapper's suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Quick Fiction still has higher numbers based on the criteria outlined above:

Quick Fiction: 168 responses + 43 pending = 211 submissions reported in last 12 months

Every Day Fiction: 172+32=204

SmokeLong is at 342+10=352, and Flash Fiction Online is at 235+46=281.

Reverted. DaveClapper (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

VRflash I think that the relevance of Vestal Review goes beyond seniority. How many reprints? Vestal Review's stories have been reprinted in many anthologies such as "Flash Fiction Forward, "You Have Time For This," "Mad to Live." A story "Sleeping" has been made into a movie. http://www.group-six.com./sleeping. It has been mentioned by "Washington Post" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/12/19/ST2008121901680.html and "San Francisco Chronicle" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/12/RV90149LTC.DTL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrflash (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about just removing this section completely? it seems like this has become too much contrversary for what its worth. Or better yet create a page (alphabetically sorted) with a list of all the different Flash fiction markets List_of_flashfiction_magazines similar to List_of_literary_magazines. Markets would still have to make a case for there own wiki pages existents instead of wither it should be included on the list or not.Funvill (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Added List_of_flashfiction_magazines and copied a link to all the magazines mentioned in the artical and in the talk page to this page... next step is to remove these links in the main article. Funvill (talk) 15:26, 26 Sept 2010 (UTC)

origin of term

Could someone add info on the origin of term and when it was first used? Because I don't really consider it an actual literary genre -- it's not a term used in university literature classes, is it? It sounds simply like an outgrowth of the internet, and then retroactively applied to things that aren't really so-called "flash fiction" but merely short short stories. The term is, in my opinion, clearly a cyber-term, and hence I think it needs some sort of history or authentication if it belongs in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer the term "micro-story." Nihil novi (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal preference is fine, but micro-story isn't recognized as the name of the form to nearly the degree that flash fiction is. (See the discussion above under "Merge from Short short story (and microfiction?)".)DaveClapper (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the section "Other Names," you'll see:

The term "flash fiction" likely originated in James Thomas, Denise Thomas, and Tom Hazuka's 1992 anthology of that name. As the authors of that anthology said in their introduction, their own definition of a "flash fiction" was a story that would fit on two facing pages of a typical digest-sized literary magazine, or about 750 words.

While the internet certainly existed in 1992, it wasn't the driving force in defining the form. The internet has absolutely expanded the audience for the form, as the length seems better-suited to the attention spans of surfers than does the more traditional short story form.

As to whether it's a term used in university literature classes, I can't speak definitively to each university setting, but I know it's covered in several places. Robert Shapard, one of the current editors of the Flash Fiction anthology series for W.W. Norton, is a professor in the writing program at the University of Hawaii, for example. (He's the best example, but I can cite others.) Flash fiction has also generated several panels at AWP (The Association of Writers & Writing Programs) conferences in recent years. That an organization such as AWP, which specifically represents university writing programs, recognizes flash fiction to the point of hosting panels on it during its national conferences would seem to belie the idea that the term isn't used in the university setting. I might agree that it's not in wide use in university literature classes, which tend to focus on older writing, but in university writing classes, which obviously focus on contemporary writing, the term is in wide use.

Regardless, I'll check the section I cited above to make sure that it references the actual book in question, and if it doesn't, I'll add a citation accordingly.DaveClapper (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Flash fiction is one of the opening modules in Warwick University's English Literature and Creative Writing degree =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.70.165 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Anachronism???

The statement "Aesop's Fables is an early example of flash fiction" is preposterous anachronism! What next - Christ's parables? "Hemingway's six-word story is an early example of Twittering"? 203.17.70.161 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Snopes has concluded that the Hemingway "baby shoes" story is apocryphal. I suggest that it be removed, or at least labelled as apocryphal. --WaldoJ (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Snopes classifies the anecdote as "Undetermined", so there is no basis for calling it apocryphal based on this source; "possibly apocryphal" would be more precise. In any case, there is no point in having both the word "apocryphal", and a "dubious" tag; there is no doubt that such a story exists. I'll remove the tag. Lampman (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

253

Why has no-one mentioned 253, the collection of 253 stories of 253 words each, by Geoff Ryman, concerning the passengers on a train in the London Underground? Are the stories too long to be considered true flash fiction? 253 is online and is also a paper book. The online version is at http://www.ryman-novel.com/. It is on Wikipedia on the page 253 (novel).

Internet Popularity

Should it be metioned this style of fiction is very poplular on the various *chan image boards?208.67.140.2 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Micro award

The article flows from generic/background content toward more specific info. To that end, Micro should go after Vignette. Comments? Lionel (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this section before I moved Micro Award. I think it best belongs under History as it is part of the history of flash fiction. It's not Vignette and don't fit there. Any other thoughts? HeartSWild (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology unnecessary. Lionel (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

References largely failed reliable sources rules

This article was largely a bunch of trivia that was sourced to very small online sources that failed the rules set out in WP:RS quite dramatically. Notability is based upon mentions in mainstream, respectable publications, not just some author's personal web site, blog, and fan fiction. This topic could certainly be sourced to very notable and reliable sources. Until such time as it actually is, the crap sources (and the content found only in those sources) must be removed. I have tagged the article accordingly. DreamGuy (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Drabble

As bad as this article is, it at least demonstrates some basic notability. Drabble, however, does not show enough to give it its own separate article, so I proposing merging that to this one. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Internet Presence

I made a reference to Vestal Review, a notable magazine. I linked it to the article about the magazine, which gives clear reasons for my assessment. Someone keeps removing Vestal Review, however, without giving a reason. I didn't see any reason given for the inclusion of Flash fiction Online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrflash (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vrflash (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC) vrflash

I'm not convinced that Vestal Review is actually a notable magazine - I have started a deletion discussion on it. The mention of Flash fiction online at least has an independent citation. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Pretty much what Ollie said, with the addition that I feel that your reasons for adding the site to so many articles is tainted by a conflict of interest, as your username insinuates that you are affiliated with the site. While it's not against the rules completely to edit if you have a COI, it is discouraged because it can often be seen as advertising/promotion and it's easy to see notability where there is none.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, your edits are arbitrary. "I'm not convinced" is not a logical argument. Are you a flash fiction expert that you have an authority in establishing notability for it? Yes, I am the editor of Vestal Review. What is "an independent citation" for Flash fiction online? Vrflash (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)vrflash

Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia. The article does not cite independently written sources that meet our guidelines, so it isn't notable. But if you want to debate that, the place is on the deletion discussion, which I linked above. Flash fiction online's independent citation is the PC World article, which is footnoted in the main article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

*Just so everyone knows, I'm bringing this up at the revert war admin page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strike that, I can't add it without one more reversion. So let me put this bluntly: From what I can find, there's nothing to suggest that Vestal Review is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Let me repeat that this is per Wikipedia's guidelines. There are a good many things that might be popular or seem notable to others but ultimately aren't notable because they lack coverage in reliable sources. By this I mean that the magazine has not received coverage in places such as news papers/shows, books that do more than just list various websites, and the like. Blogs, routine listings of the magazine, and anything released by the magazine themselves do not count as reliable sources, which is what I ultimately found. What this means is that as far as Wikipedia goes, the magazine is not notable. Where this differs from FFO is that it has been covered in reliable sources enough to merit a mention. Now the one concession I will make is that the book is notable per WP:NBOOK because it received multiple reviews. Whether this means that the author is notable or not, I can't say as of yet. I will say that having one notable book doesn't automatically mean that an author passes notability guidelines. That's not how Wikipedia works and it's likely that the article will merely redirect to the book's article. I really, really suggest that we leave the article as I just wrote it, with a mention of the book under "see also". The magazine is not notable and however you might personally interpret that, in the end we have to go by Wikipedia's rules for notability, which it fails at this point in time. If sources ever are found that pass WP:RS, we can look about re-adding it, but it's just not notable enough right now. I want to warn you, continuing in even one more edit will result in my reporting this to the admin revert board and it's likely it could end in a block. As it is now, there's a possibility that your username could be blocked as promotional since you're editing under the name of the magazine. There's no set rule that says you can't absolutely edit, but it is discouraged for well... what is currently going on here. You have a magazine that you're obviously fiercely proud of and you should be. You wouldn't be much of an editor if you weren't. BUT what this also means is that you're viewing it through biased eyes. This is your baby and few parents see any flaws in their babies, so it's likely that you're seeing notability where there is none (as far as Wikipedia goes). It's also insanely easy to take statements of non-notability as a personal attack. I'll warn you, most of the COI editors I've seen come through Wikipedia were ultimately doing it for personal gain and promotion. This might not be your ultimate goal, but you have to understand that this is how this is ultimately seen by most editors.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong citation attribution / proposition to rename the article "Flash literature"

This sentence :
« Author Paulo Coelho remarked that the "democratization of communication offered by the Internet has made positive in-roads" and directly influenced the style's popularity. »
...is supposedly based on this article :
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/15/short.stories/index.html
But that source reads as :
« Author of the worldwide bestseller "The Alchemist," Brazilian Paolo Coelho believes the boundless possibility for communication offered by the Web makes it a great medium for storytelling.
"Today everybody can tell a story. That is magical because everybody can express themselves," says Coelho, who keeps in touch with his global audience via his own successful blog.
One area of storytelling where this democratization of communication offered by the Internet has made positive in-roads is in the world of "flash fiction." »
The actual Paulo Coelho quote ends at "express themselves", so the following sentence expresses the CNN article's author's opinion, and Paulo Coelho did not say anything specific about flash fiction as far as I can tell (even though I'm just waking up, haven't had enough sleep, and english isn't my first language), and what he did say seems quite dull, about as dull as a t-shirt slogan. So I'm going to change that sentence and remove the reference to Paulo Coelho.

Also, a more general problem : I was looking for a proper Wikipedia article to link for the expression "two-word poem" in the article "Michael Portnoy". I did not find any article named "short poem" or "short form poetry" or anything like it (although there is a "long poem" article), so I put this one but it's not satisfactory; apparently this article used to be named "flash literature" (which redirects there), which would seem better as it encompasses non-fiction writing, including poetry, or micro-essays and "capsule reviews" for that matter. So would it be possible to rename it as such ? Or should there be a distinct article dealing specifically with very brief poems ? Or both ?
Thanks.
--Abolibibelot (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You can try your hand

Teenagers - even stroppy teenagers - are quite capable of writing flash fiction. Over 65-year-olds are also capable of writing flash fiction. You do not need a Pulitzer Prize or a Nobel Prize for Literature to write it. In fact, you could give it a go yourself and I would encourage you to do so. It is misleading to suggest that only famous writers can write flash fiction. Derekmcmillan1951 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Single scene

In my experience, a single scene is likely to contain under 1000 words, or at least under 1500, leading to flash fiction. Even 2 or 3 scenes usually result in a short story, but rarely pure flash. Word count is one aspect, but a 1300 word story may "feel like" flash fiction on occasions. Complexity of plot cannot be achieved in very short fiction, but complex thoughts, emotions, and ideas can sometimes be contained in a deceptively small space. 86.15.129.200 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)