I'm confused by this (recent?) thing of writing "short stories" that aren't stories.

---

---

I'm in my 60s. I've been reading adult-level science fiction and fantasy short stories and novels since I was a pre-teen. (Over 50 years now.)

I've always preferred science fiction and fantasy over mainstream lit, but by this point in my life I have read quite a few mainstream short stories.

I've read lots of short stories and novels written decades and centuries ago.

I think that I have some idea of what a short story is supposed to be.

---

---

However, I've recently been reading a lot of works written in the last few decades and labelled as short stories.

- A lot of them are what I would call "vignettes" rather than "stories" -

a short and descriptive piece of writing that captures a brief period in time.[1][2]

Vignettes are more focused on vivid imagery and meaning rather than plot.[3]

While short stories and flash fiction are complete works that follow a narrative structure of beginning, middle and end, vignettes do not follow this traditional narrative structure.[11]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_(literature)

.

- And a lot of them are more or less "stories", but don't seem to have any "plot resolution" -

They are basically just First thing A happened to Protagonist. Then thing B happened to Protagonist. Then thing C happened to Protagonist. Then thing D happened to Protagonist. And narrative ends.

Yes, something happened, but "nothing happened". There isn't a story there.

.

I've read some dozens of "short stories" like this over the last few years, including a couple dozen recently.

Many of these are award-winning works or by award-winning authors.

.

- Am I missing something here?

- Do I have the right to expect that something labelled "short story" will follow the structure of a story?

- Is it just that contemporary people are now including "vignettes" in the category "short stories"?

- Your thoughts?

---

---