I’ve seen all different kinds of stories, from mircofiction to a whole series of books. For a while I thought that longer stories made a bigger impact than the smaller ones. However, now I’m beginning to see that they are both equally powerful.
I was asked this question just a few months ago in my creative writing class. I told myself that longer stories had more of an impact because it took a longer time to read them. Therefore, it stuck better than a one or two sentence story I’d seen countless times. I thought the more time I spent reading a story the more I would learn. A few weeks afterwards I read a short story called Videotape by Don DeLillo:
It shows a man driving a car. It is the simplest sort of family video. You see a man at the wheel of a medium Dodge.
It is just a kid aiming her camera through the rear window of the family car at the windshield of the car behind her.
You know about families and their video cameras. You know how kids get involved, how the camera shows them that every subject is potentially charged, a million things they never see with the unaided eye. They investigate the meaning of inert objects and dumb pets and they poke at family privacy. They learn to see things twice.
It is the kid’s own privacy that is being pro- tected here. She is twelve years old and her name is being withheld even though she is neither the victim nor the perpetrator of the crime but only the means of recording it.
It shows a man in a sport shirt at the wheel of his car. There is nothing else to see. The car approaches briefly, then falls back.
You know how children with cameras learn to work the exposed moments that define the family cluster. They break every trust, spy out the undefended space, catching Mom coming out of the bathroom in her cumbrous robe and turbaned towel, looking bloodless and plucked. It is not a joke. They will shoot you sitting on the pot if they can manage a suitable vantage.
The tape has the jostled sort of noneventness that marks the family product. Of course the man in this case is not a member of the family but a stranger in a car, a random figure, someone who has happened along in the slow lane.
It shows a man in his forties wearing a pale shirt open at the throat, the image washed by reflections and sunglint, with many jostled moments.
It is not just another video homicide. It is a homicide recorded by a child who thought she was doing something simple and maybe halfway clever, shooting some tape of a man in a car.
He sees the girl and waves briefly, wagging a hand without taking it off the wheel—an underplayed reaction that makes you like him.
It is unrelenting footage that rolls on and on. It has an aimless determination, a persistence that lives outside the subject matter. You are looking into the mind of home video. It is innocent, it is aimless, it is determined, it is real.
He is bald up the middle of his head, a nice guy in his forties whose whole life seems open to the handheld camera.
But there is also an element of suspense. You keep on looking not because you know something is going to happen—of course you do know something is going to happen and you do look for that reason but you might also keep on looking if you came across this footage for the first time without knowing the outcome. There is a crude power operating here. You keep on looking because things combine to hold you fast—a sense of the random, the amateurish, the accidental, the impending. You don’t think of the tape as boring or interesting. It is crude, it is blunt, it is relentless. It is the jostled part of your mind, the film that runs through your hotel brain under all the thoughts you know you’re thinking.
The world is lurking in the camera, already framed, waiting for the boy or girl who will come along and take up the device, learn the instrument, shooting old Granddad at break- fast, all stroked out so his nostrils gape, the cereal spoon baby-gripped in his pale fist.
It shows a man alone in a medium Dodge. It seems to go on forever.
There’s something about the nature of the tape, the grain of the image, the sputtering black-and-white tones, the starkness—you think this is more real, truer to life than anything around you. The things around you have a rehearsed and layered and cosmetic look. The tape is superreal, or maybe underreal is the way you want to put it. It is what lies at the scraped bottom of all the layers you have added. And this is another reason why you keep on look- ing. The tape has a searing realness.
It shows him giving an abbreviated wave, stiff-palmed, like a signal flag at a siding.
You know how families make up games. This is just another game in which the child invents the rules. as she goes along. She likes the idea of videotaping a man in his car. She has probably never done it before and she sees no reason to vary the format or terminate early or pan to another car. This is her game and she is learning it and playing it at the same time. She feels halfway clever and inventive and maybe slightly intrusive as well, a little bit of brazenness that spices any game.
And you keep on looking. You look because this is the nature of the footage, to make a channeled path through time, to give things a shape and a destiny.
Of course if she had panned to another car, the right car at the precise time, she would have caught the gunman as he fired.
The chance quality of the encounter. The victim, the killer, and the child with a camera. Random energies that approach a common point. There’s something here that speaks to you directly, saying terrible things about forces beyond your control, lines of intersection that cut through history and logic and every rea- sonable layer of human expectation.
She wandered into it. The girl got lost and wandered clear-eyed into horror. This is a chil- dren’s story about straying too far from home. But it isn’t the family car that serves as the instrument of the child’s curiosity, her inclina- tion to explore. It is the camera that puts her in the tale.
You know about holidays and family celebrations and how somebody shows up with a camcorder and the relatives stand around and barely react because they’re numbingly accustomed to the process of being taped and decked and shown on the VCR with the coffee and cake.
He is hit soon after. If you’ve seen the tape many times you know from the handwave exactly when he will be hit. It is something, naturally, that you wait for. You say to your wife, if you’re at home and she is there, Now here is where he gets it. You say, Janet, hurry up, this is where it happens.
Now here is where he gets it. You see him jolted, sort of wire-shocked—then he seizes up and falls toward the door or maybe leans or slides into the door is the proper way to put it. It is awful and unremarkable at the same time. The car stays in the slow lane. It approaches briefly, then falls back.
You don’t usually call your wife over to the TV set. She has her programs, you have yours. But there’s a certain urgency here. You want her to see how it looks. The tape has been running forever and now the thing is finally going to happen and you want her to be here when he’s shot. .
Here it comes, all right. He is shot, head- shot, and the camera reacts, the child reacts—there is a jolting movement but she keeps on taping, there is a sympathetic response, a nerve response, her heart is beating faster but she keeps the camera trained on the subject as he slides into the door and even as you see him die you’re thinking of the girl. At some level the girl has to be present here, watching what you’re watching, unprepared—the girl is seeing this cold and you have to marvel at the fact that she keeps the tape rolling.
It shows something awful and unaccompanied. You want your wife to see it because it is real this time, not fancy movie violence—the realness beneath the layers of cosmetic perception. Hurry up, Janet, here it comes. He dies so fast. There is no accompaniment of any kind. It is very stripped. You want to tell her it is realer than real but then she will ask what that means.
The way the camera reacts to the gunshot—a startle reaction that brings pity and terror into the frame, the girl’s own shock, the girl’s identification with the victim.
You don’t see the blood, which is probably trickling behind his ear and down the back of his neck. The way his head is twisted away from the door, the twist of the head gives you only a partial profile and it’s the wrong side, it’s not the side where he was hit.
And maybe you’re being a little aggressive here, practically forcing your wife to watch. Why? What are you telling her? Are you mak- ing a little statement? Like I’m going to ruin your day out of ordinary spite. Or a big statement? Like this is the risk of existing. Either way you’re rubbing her face in this tape and you don’t know why.
It shows the car drifting toward the guardrail and then there’s a jostling sense of two other lanes and part of another car, a split-second blur, and the tape ends here, either because the girl stopped shooting or because some central authority, the police or the district attorney or the TV station, decided there was nothing else you had to see.
This is either the tenth or eleventh homicide committed by the Texas Highway Killer. The number is uncertain because the police believe that one of the shootings may have been a copycat crime.
And there is something about videotape, isn’t there, and this particular kind of serial crime? This is a crime designed for random taping and immediate playing. You sit there and wonder if this kind of crime became more possible when the means of taping and playing an event-playing it immediately after the taping-became part of the culture. The principal doesn’t necessarily commit the sequence of crimes in order to see them taped and played. He commits the crimes as if they were a form of taped-and-played event. The crimes are inseparable from the idea of taping and playing. You sit there thinking that this is a crime that has found its medium, or vice versa—cheap mass production, the sequence of repeated images and victims, stark and glary and more or less unremarkable.
It shows very little in the end. It is a famous murder because it is on tape and because the murderer has done it many times and because the crime was recorded by a child. So the child is involved, the Video Kid as she is sometimes called because they have to call her something. The tape is famous and so is she. She is famous in the modem manner of people whose names are strategically withheld. They are famous without names or faces, spirits living apart from their bodies, the victims and witnesses, the underage criminals, out there somewhere at the edges of perception.
Seeing someone at the moment he dies, dying unexpectedly. This is reason alone to stay fixed to the screen. It is instructional, watching a man shot dead as he drives along on a sunny day. It demonstrates an elemental truth, that every breath you take has two possible endings. And that’s another thing. There’s a joke locked away here, a note of cruel slapstick that you are completely willing to appreciate. Maybe the victim’s a chump, a dope, classically unlucky. He had it coming, in a way, like an innocent fool in a silent movie.
You don’t want Janet to give you any crap about it’s on all the time, they show it a thousand times a day. They show it because it exists, because they have to show it, because this is why they’re out there. The horror freezes your soul but this doesn’t mean that you want them to stop.
When I first read this story I was almost brought to tears. I didn’t think a short story like this could have such an impact on me, but it did.
Now, I think that if a writer puts at least some thought into what they want to write their words can go a long way. No matter how long or short the story is.
What do you think?