So if a writer is giving an account of a “situation”, isn’t that a story? That would mean a “situation” is a type of story (or even part of a story).

And I’m wondering, who ever decided that a story has to have specific components? Or that it even has to have structure? I understand if something is to be considered Literature, in a formal sense, that it must have specific components. But if a writer is giving an account of people/events and it doesn’t have specific components, does that really make it less of a story (in a broader sense of the word).

I can see where if some of those components are missing, it might not be an interesting story. Or a good story. But no where in the definition of story does it say that it has to be interesting. (of course, to sell the story it must be interesting and entertaining, but sales numbers of books don’t make it more or less of a story).

I ask this with the utmost respect, and I look forward to your response (if you give one).

“… how many kids are going to be eaten/killed/probed, how bloody is it going to get, and who will survive” doesn’t sound like having an obvious or direct solution (except for the antagonist). If you mean ‘some kids will be eaten/killed/probed, it will be bloody, and some will survive,’ then yes, an obvious (for the genre) outcome.

As I remember my Robert Ludlum, the situations in his stories were suspenseful and surprising, and typically led to new knowledge, doubt about and reevaluation of previous information and assumptions, new questions, and growing confidence and resolve. Nothing was direct or obvious. Were these then small, stand-alone stories strung together?

it helps with everything.