So it seems like I can only write two kinds of stories:
a) compelling, high-concept, voice-driven stories with lots of soul but no depth (like a mindless action movie),
b) polished, overly neat, highly complex stories with no soul and lots of artificial depth (like a bad experimental film).
The key, I guess, would to be to just write a damn story (which usually ends up in style a)) and revise it until it has the technical flourish of a story in style b). The problem with this strategy is that I get bored during the process of revision and end up with a conceptually similar but otherwise entirely new story in style a) or a beautifully crafted piece of shit in style b). While I guess it's better to have lots of rough drafts and few revisions than the other way around, it can get frustrating if you want to produce things anyone would want to read outside of workshop. I guess you could call this the opposite of writer's block.
I wrote the beginning of a really good story--maybe two really good beginnings of stories superglued together with a poignant but irrelevant concurrent thread--and then I got sick and ran out of steam. Ended up clooging together a sappy ending, which, upon reflection, was very disappointing. It was a story of type b), too, because all my fellow workshoppers were doing artsy, sentimental stories and I felt like I needed validation. Stupid me. Now my workshop is going to look over the fiction equivalent of a half-finished honeycomb and say "Hey, some of these cells aren't six-sided! And it tastes good, but it's all bee piss."
Maybe if I get around to fixing it I'll put it up here. Goodness knows if I'll have the time, though.