This following passage is taken from a post I made a few months ago offering some consideration as to how to make short works more effective. I have, on occasion, made posts in various groups discussing how to improve one's use of language and literary devices to create compelling stories. If this sounds like something you would like to see, leave a comment or a like.
-----
In a short story, nothing is left up to chance. Every word and sentence exists with care and intent. It must take the effort of a larger work, a novella, and compress it so that there is focused, deliberate action on the author's part. ~ SwordTune

In the broadest sense syntax is the way a writer structures a sentence or sentences, and for short stories, it is critical to the impact of a message. Take, for example, this sentiment by Jonathan Swift, a 17th and 18th-century satirical writer, in his book written work, The Battle of the Books:

I'm paraphrasing here for the sake of taking syntax into consideration. Swift's style was much slower and explanatory; in his book, he takes a great deal of time building the premise of an actual battle between books as if they were sentient beings. However, modern readers find literary impact in brevity. Reworking the paraphrased idea, we get something shorter:

Notice the use of a full stop to separate the clauses. It is the short phrase, interrupted by staccato punctuation, that heightens the importance of each statement. These are not sentences where the information is reserved at the end, or at the front followed by a trail of additive details. The two clauses are only comprised of statements that the author intends to convey to the audience. Additionally, the rhythms of both halves are even, demonstrating a comfortable flow of thought that mimics the reasoning that Swift initial tries to convey: war is ultimately the result of nations striving for wealth. Contrast this with a very similar phrase:

The decision to use "which" weakens the rhetorical strength even if it is grammatically replacing the word "pride." The repetition of a word at the end of a phrase at the beginning of the next is known as anadiplosis. Not only does that technique help the development of a logical progression, but simply reiterating the word helps solidify its idea in a short space.

Of course, replacing "which" with "pride" would correct the sentence, but the difference in pauses plays a smaller, though not insignificant, role too. Commas are softer pauses, which can vary in length between dialogue, narration, conversation, etc. An author has far more control using the full stop if the intent is to create a disruption, forcing the reader to pay attention to each idea instead of passing over it as a single sentence.

Thank you for reading, this has been a brief lesson with your Instructional Assistant, Sword Tune

My man, you're bang on with that little quote of yours – which, funnily enough, is why I struggle so noticeably to handle my one-shots. A one-shot is a letting off of steam for me, but what that sets you up to do is write a shallow hunk of fluff. I would like to write a serious short story... but their entire function for me generally is a flexing of the fingers and nothing more. However...

Just the other day I wrote a meaningful one-shot. As you can guess, the chronic impatience had me itching to slam that submit button. But I didn't, because it could be so much cleaner. Its words, although carefully chosen, haven't been read over and questioned and tested carefully enough. This post of yours is exactly what I needed right now and will help me temper the story in question to ensure its brevity becomes its strength.

Please excuse the italicisation abuse.