It was at a luncheon party that the idea of Life’s Short Story Contest was first suggested by Mr. Lincoln Steffens. He propounded this interesting query: “How short can a short story be and still be a short story?” It was thereupon determined to discover, if possible, a practical answer to this interesting question. The columns of Life were thrown open to contributors for many months, prizes aggregating $1,750 were offered and eighty-one short stories were published. This book contains these stories, including the four prize winners. The contest cost in round numbers a little less than $12,000. Over thirty thousand manuscripts were received. They came from all over the world — from sufferers on hospital cots, from literary toilers in the Philippines, from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and from every State in the Union. One manuscript was sent from a trench at the French battle front, where the story had been written between hand grenades. Every kind of story was represented, the war story and the love story being the leaders. Every kind of writing was represented, from the short compound of trite banalities to the terse, dramatic, carefully wrought out climax. Back of many of these efforts the spectral forms of Guy de Maupassant and O. Henry hovered in sardonic triumph. Tragedy predominated. The light touch was few and far between. But it was still there, as the stories published show. Here let me pay a just tribute to the readers who, with almost superhuman courage, struggled through these thirty thousand manuscripts. In the beginning they were a noble band of highly intelligent and cultivated men and women, with strong constitutions, ready and willing to face literature in any form. I understand that many of them survived the contest. This speaks well for the virility of our American stock. Theirs was a noble and enduring toil, and theirs will be a noble and enduring fame. Without them this book now might contain twenty-nine thousand nine hundred and eleven poor stories instead of eighty-one good ones. To those among them who still live, a long life and, let us hope, an ultimate recovery! Naturally, in the method of securing the stories, there had to be some way of getting the contributors to make them as short as possible. Mr. Steffens’ ingenious suggestion admirably attained this end. First, a limit of fifteen hundred words was placed upon all stories submitted, no story longer than this being admitted to the contest. For each story accepted the contributor was paid, not for what he wrote, but for what he did not write. That is to say, he was paid at the rate of ten cents a word for the difference between what he wrote and fifteen hundred words. If his story, for example, happened to be 1,500 words in length, he got nothing. If it was 1,490 words he got one dollar. If there had been a story only ten words long, the author would have received $149. To be accurate, the longest story actually accepted for the contest was 1,495 words, for which the author received fifty cents, and the shortest was 76 words, for which the author received $142.40. The interested reader will be able to discover the identity of these two stories by examining the stories in the book. At the original luncheon party a large part of the warm discussion that took place turned on how short a story could be made and still come within the definition of a short story. It was really a question as to when is a story not a story, but only an anecdote. When a story is a story, is it a combination of plot, character, and setting or is it determined by only one of these three elements? Must it end when you have ended it or must it suggest something beyond the reading? I shall not attempt to answer these questions. The definition of the short story should be relegated to the realm of “What is Humor?” “Who is the mother of the chickens?” and “How Old is Ann?” If you really wish to vary the monotony of your intellectual life and get it away from “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” or “Who killed Jack Robinson?” start a discussion as to what a short story is. It has long been my private opinion that the best short story in the world is the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, but I have no doubt that, should I venture this assertion in the company of others, there would be one to ask: “What has that to do with the price of oil now?” But in order that the reader may have some idea of the method adopted in judging the stories which were finally selected, it may be well to give what I may term a composite definition of what a short story is, gathered from the various opinions offered when the contest was originally under discussion by the judges. This definition is not intended to be complete or final. It is not the cohesive opinion of one individual, but only a number of rather off-hand opinions which are of undoubted psychological interest as bearing upon the final decisions. A short story must contain at least two characters, for otherwise there would be no contrast or struggle. A situation must be depicted in which there are two opposing forces. A short story must be a picture out of real life which gives the reader a definite sensation, such as he gets upon looking at a masterpiece of painting. While it must be complete in itself, the art of it lies in what it suggests to the reader beyond its own limits. That is to say, it must convey an idea much larger than itself. This is the open sesame to the golden principle. (This is well illustrated in the story that took the first prize.) Every short story must of necessity deal with human beings, either directly or indirectly. It must reveal in the briefest manner possible — as it were, like a lightning flash — a situation that carries the reader beyond it. It is, therefore, inevitable that the supreme test of the short story lies in its climax. The climax must gather up everything that has gone before, and perhaps by only one word epitomize the whole situation in such a way as to produce in the reader a sense of revelation — just as if he were the sole spectator of a supremely interesting human mystery now suddenly made plain. The technique of the short story should be such that no word in its vocabulary will suggest triteness or the fatal thought that the author is dependent upon others for his phrasing. When, for example, we read “With a glad cry she threw her arms about him” “A hoarse shout went up from the vast throng” “He flicked the ashes,” we know at once that the author is only dealing in echoes. These were some of the general considerations which governed the readers and judges, but it would be unfair to say that there were not other considerations which came up later on. In a number of instances, manuscripts which were interesting and well written, and even longer than others that were accepted for the contest, were rejected because it was felt that they were not really stories, but more in the nature of descriptive sketches. So far as the practical method pursued was concerned, it will not be amiss to state briefly how the work was carried on. It was deemed best, on general principles, to let the authors of the stories have a hand in the matter, the editors feeling frankly that they preferred a disinterested method which would relieve them in a measure from the fullest responsibility. The conditions were therefore made to read that: “The editors of ‘Life’ will first select out of all the stories published, the twelve which are, in their judgment, the best. The authors of these twelve stories will then be asked to become judges of the whole contest, which will then include all the stories published. These twelve authors will decide which are the best three stories, in the order of their merit, to be awarded the prizes. In case for any reason any one or more of these twelve authors should be unable to act as a judge, then the contest will be decided by the rest. “Each of these twelve judges will, of course, if he so wishes, vote for his own story first, so that the final result may probably be determined by the combined second, third, and fourth choices of all the judges. This, however, will not affect the result. In case of a division among the judges, the Editors of ‘Life’ will cast the deciding vote.” This method worked well and was fully justified by the final result. As the manuscripts were received they were registered according to a careful clerical system and turned over to the readers, who were from five to seven in number, including three women. The rule was that each story should be read independently by at least two readers, their verdicts separately recorded. If they were unanimous in rejecting a story, it was returned. If they were agreed upon its merits, or if they were at all doubtful, it was then passed up to the five members of Life’s editorial staff. It was read and reread by them, and the individual comments of each editor recorded independently. By this sifting process, each story was subjected to a final process of discussion and elimination. The stories, as accepted, were paid for on the basis of ten cents a word for all the words under 1,500 which the story did not contain and were published in Life. From the authors of the eighty-one stories published, the editors selected the following twelve judges, each one of whom consented to serve: • Herbert Heron, Carmel, Cal. • J. H. Ranxom, Houston, Texas. • Ralph Henry Barbour, Manchester, Mass. • Clarence Herbert New, Brooklyn, N. Y. • William Johnston, New York City. • Graham Clark, New York City. • Mrs. Elsie D. Knisely, Everett, Wash. • Mrs. Jane Dahl, San Francisco, Cal. • Selwyn Grattan, New York City. • E. L. Smith, Ft. Worth, Texas. • Herbert Riley Howe, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. • Miss Ruth Sterry, Los Angeles, Cal. These judges, independently of each other, sent in their opinions, several of them not voting for their own stories as the first prize, although this was allowable under the rules. There was no difficulty on their part in awarding the first prize of one thousand dollars and the second prize of five hundred dollars. In the case of the third prize there was such a division of opinion that the editors, under the rule of the competition that gave them the final decision, determined that it would be fair to divide the third prize between two competitors who had received the same number of the judges’ votes. The prize winners were as follows: FIRST PRIZE Ralph Henry Barbour of Manchester, Mass., and George Randolph Osborne of Cambridge, Mass., joint authors of “Thicker Than Water.” SECOND PRIZE Harry Stillwell Edwards of Macon, Georgia, author of “The Answer.” THIRD PRIZE Dwight M. Wiley of Princeton, Ill., author of “Her Memory,” and Redfield Ingalls of New York City, author of “Business and Ethics.” This prize was divided. This book is now offered to the public in the confident hope and the firm belief that it will be found a valuable contribution to the literature of short fiction, in addition to the interest it also merits because of the stories themselves. One final point should be emphasized. This book is not, in the very nature of the case, a book of uniform literary style; it is not the polished expression of the highest literary art. It is the best of thirty thousand attempts to write a short story, by all sorts and conditions of minds — a fair proportion of them amateurs, a fair proportion writers of considerable experience, and a small proportion excellently skilled craftsmen. In their final selection of these stories, the readers and judges were governed, not so much by the question “Is this superfine literary art?” as they were by the question “Is this interesting?” By this touchstone the book certainly justifies its existence...FROM THE BOOKS.

Reproduction of the original.

"Short stories from Life: The 81 prize stories in "Life's" Shortest Story Contest" by Various Authors and edited by Thomas L. Masson This collection of stories aims to uplift readers in a relatable way. Following a multitude of scenarios, each story allows readers to put themselves in the perspective of their main characters. This specially curated collection is the best of the best and still retains relevance today.