Everything is so raw. There is nothing left to mystery anymore. Critical thinking skills have been placed aside because we don't wish to dig deeper into our reading or into our lives; we want it all there for us to see and digest quickly and easily.
I'm starting to submit short stories to journals and am finding that most of the journals I research want you to get to the point right now. Right away. Don't open up a story with setting. Don't open up a story with background noise.
Get to the death in the opening paragraph so we can decide to read further as if it matters that the rest of the story is just setting you up for the eventual death of the character - If the character, in fact, dies. If your character dies in the first sentence doesn't that mean that the rest of the story is just background noise?
I find it boring and lazy to open a story with the ending. It works in novels, but doesn't always work for a short story. This speaks to the fast, first world that we live in. Our need to get to the end fairly quickly has now blossomed into our writing because the publishers (and even famous writers) think you just need to get to the point already.
Building up to the moment is climactic and engages us to hold on just a little while longer. It offers hope, it offers mystery and allows you to trust the narrator. If you get to the point right at the beginning of a story, you come across as a used car salesman. The deal sounds great, but is it great?
I'd rather write so that you can think about your life, about the mystery, about the hope that a story can offer.
Eliminate the "fluff" they interject, not realizing that sometimes
fluff is necessary when writing for people that have reality blasted onto their faces each and every day. Sometimes, the mystery of it all is what helps us to endure and to strive to overcome.
