I have two examples which essentially show the same thing, in different ways, and one example that I'm theorizing became something different.

A Day, by William Trevor and I Bought A Little City, by Donald Barthelme are both EXCELLENT short stories. They both:

• Tell a complete story

• Could not be any longer than they are and still be interesting

They're also about as well written as anything can be. There are things under the surface, but no real loose ends that those unsaid things leave undone. A Day is a better example of this because it's much deeper, and longer, but the Barthelme has its own message as well.

My other example is a portion of Remains Of The Day, by Kazuo Ishiguro. There is a portion of the early book devoted to the main characters father, and the story behind why he is in the yard. To me, the book never gets better (though it is still awesome) than that story. I don't know anything about the writing of the book, but my theory was that he wrote that section as a short story and then wanted to tell me about the rest of the world afterwards. Even if this isn't the case, I do think it is a short story that exists in the novel even if by accident. The point here is that, if this where a short story on its own it would violate my rule number two. There is obviously a whole world surrounding the narrator, who has an interesting voice of his own, and I would invariably want to know about it and him. The first two stories, I don't walk away with that at all. I've been given everything I need to know, and nothing more.