# Kurt Vonnegut's Rules for Writing Fiction



## Philip Overby (Sep 25, 2012)

http://www.novelr.com/2007/11/15/kurt-vonneguts-8-rules-for-writing-fiction

I have a friend that was telling me about these tips today.  I think they're excellent.  Thoughts?


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 25, 2012)

All good apart from the last.



> Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.  To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding  of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story  themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.



Now, Kurt does say "as possible", but to disregard suspense is foolish. 

I would never want to show my hand so quickly like he appears to be suggesting is better. Certain modern people do get tetchy not understanding everything in minute detail and any specific moment, but that isn't for me. I like to treat my readers with a little more respect. I know it's possible to suspend your questions until the book/movie/whatever answers them for you. I do it all the time!

_We_ are the writers, not them. They should enjoy being taken for a ride. If they can finish the story for me... I've done it wrong and I've failed to write what I would want to read. 

Does anyone here really want to read something in which they can guess every single damn plot turn coming? That's dull. I'm sure Kurt didn't mean this _exactly_, but then again he should have specified, shouldn't he.

Now perhaps he's coming from the same tradition as Herbert and Dune, where you know the twist, but the agonising journey towards the reveal is the fun part. While that is a legit tool, I don't think Kurt should be seen to suggest thats the only way. 

Whether he meant it or not.

What's everyone elses take on this "rule"?


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 25, 2012)

I like Kurt. Not sure I'd want to spend much time with him or PKD, but I like the way they think.
As for rules; I like Robert Heinlein's rules too:
Robert A. Heinlein Rules for Writing
and there is usually a 6th one - Start Working on Something Else


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 25, 2012)

I think these sort of "rules" are whatever you take away from them.  For example, I wrote a story recently, sort of an urban fantasy.  I had an ogre EMT.  One of the people critiquing said, "Why did you tell us he's an ogre?  I would have rather figured that out myself."  Really?  Why?  It's wasting time.  

My take on this is don't waste a reader's time by making them try to figure out things that aren't that important to figure out.  Another thing is that readers do like a sense of familiarity to what they're reading.  One "rule" I've heard before that I like is "Make your reader think they know what's going to happen and give them a satisfying conclusion even if it's not what they expected."  In *A Game of Thrones* the plot goes along in a predictable path and then "wham!"  Wow, didn't see that coming.  But in a good way.  

Of course all stories need some tension and unpredictability, but they need a sense of familiarity as well or else they become experimental.  That's why fantasy is a genre with all the tropes and themes connected to it.  Because it breeds that sense of "I know what to expect here."  The best writers take that reader comfort and twist it and manipulate it without jarring them too much.


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 25, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> My take on this is don't waste a reader's time by making them try to figure out things that aren't that important to figure out.  Another thing is that readers do like a sense of familiarity to what they're reading.  One "rule" I've heard before that I like is "Make your reader think they know what's going to happen and give them a satisfying conclusion even if it's not what they expected."  In *A Game of Thrones* the plot goes along in a predictable path and then "wham!"  Wow, didn't see that coming.  But in a good way.
> 
> Of course all stories need some tension and unpredictability, but they need a sense of familiarity as well or else they become experimental.  That's why fantasy is a genre with all the tropes and themes connected to it.  Because it breeds that sense of "I know what to expect here."  The best writers take that reader comfort and twist it and manipulate it without jarring them too much.



I figure that's probably what he meant. Still I believe he could have put it better. (I'll admit I've never read anything by him, not sure if he plays into my tastes.)

"Make your reader _think_ they know whats going to happen."

That's an especially good one Phil. I would rather follow that philosophy for sure


----------



## Guru Coyote (Sep 25, 2012)

My take on rule 8 (give all info as soon as possible): "Suspense" is not so much about not knowing what will happen... but about Knowing What Will Happen.... and not knowing When or How.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 25, 2012)

CupofJoe said:


> I like Kurt. Not sure I'd want to spend much time with him or PKD, but I like the way they think.
> As for rules; I like Robert Heinlein's rules too:
> Robert A. Heinlein Rules for Writing
> and there is usually a 6th one - Start Working on Something Else



I think those are about as close to "right on" as a set of rules can get.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 25, 2012)

Of Vonnegut's rules, I think I do number 6 the most. I'm horrible to my characters, short of killing them (most of the time), and I don't plan to change that. XD


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 25, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> http://www.novelr.com/2007/11/15/kurt-vonneguts-8-rules-for-writing-fiction
> 
> I have a friend that was telling me about these tips today.  I think they're excellent.  Thoughts?



I don't necessarily agree with #4 or #8.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 25, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't necessarily agree with #4 or #8.



One of the comments states that the list was written for short stories.  Not sure if that's true.

I think that #4 is dependent a lot on style and genre.  For a thriller, that makes a lot of sense.  For fantasy, not so much.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> One of the comments states that the list was written for short stories.  Not sure if that's true.
> 
> I think that #4 is dependent a lot on style and genre.  For a thriller, that makes a lot of sense.  For fantasy, not so much.



Ah. If it is for short stories, then I am more in agreement with #4, though still don't think #8 is necessarily true. Good catch.


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> One of the comments states that the list was written for short stories.  Not sure if that's true.



Ah, if that is true then my problem with number #8 has been cleared up some what. Still not quite certain, but yes, for short stories you don't want to languish in the unimportant. Get it out of the way and move on.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 25, 2012)

JCFarnham:

I think it helps with respect to #8, but I think you can still do some great things with short stories by not giving the reader everything, and instead holding them in suspense or giving them a twist or two at the end. See, for example, the short stories of Jeffrey Deaver, which are often quite good and take just this approach.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 25, 2012)

It's hard to evaluate rules without knowing the intent.  If his purpose is:

Here's how to write short stories like Kurt Vonnegut

Then, perhaps, he's spot on.  

With the reason behind the list effectively removed, it makes the discussion much more speculative.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 25, 2012)

I don't do number 6 very well. Whenever anything bad happens to my main characters, they usually just get around it or power through it, because they're awesome.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 25, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> All good apart from the last.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that he means don't make the fact that they are reading the story be what prevents them from figuring it out. In other words, if they were present in this world and would reasonably figure it out, don't artificially prevent them from being able to figure it out.


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 25, 2012)

> 6. Be a sadist. Now matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters,  make awful things happen to them – in order that the reader may see what  they are made of.


I should follow this advice. Too many of my story ideas are wish fulfillment fantasies that treat the MCs way too well. I need to show more brutality.


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 25, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I think that he means don't make the fact that they are reading the story be what prevents them from figuring it out. In other words, if they were present in this world and would reasonably figure it out, don't artificially prevent them from being able to figure it out.



You have a good point. I _hope_ that's what he was driving at, and young amateurs aren't going to start making drab stories 'cause "he told them to".


----------



## Ghost (Sep 25, 2012)

I love 3. Not every character in my stories wants something, but the ones who stick around for more than a couple of paragraphs do. I also like 5, but it may have to do with writing short stories. Starting near the end keeps the story from meandering.

7 is great. The more you try to please everyone, the more you dilute your story's essence. Consulting too many critics/readers can also dull your voice and your vision. I've seen someone refer to it as "death by critique."

I don't have a problem with 8. Giving the reader all the available information to the character is my preference. That means relying on the changing situation, reactions, and revelations to provide drama. When the reader has a complete understanding of what is going on and why, it's a different kind of suspense. _How will these issues all be resolved?_

I think the problem I have with concealment comes when a plot relies on Big Secrets to work. If revealing the secret(s) means the central conflict would fizzle out and the characters would get along with each other, I often come away thinking the characters are nitwits. It's similar to doing a twist ending. When it works, it's fine; otherwise it can feel contrived. It should feel natural and not like the author is pulling the strings, even though she is. 

6 gives me trouble. I'm slowly working through it. It feels awful to make a character suffer, but it feels worse to compromise the story's truth.

4 is my least favorite. I get the intention, but unless character includes things like mood and setting, I'm not on board.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 25, 2012)

Ghost said:


> I think the problem I have with concealment comes when a plot relies on Big Secrets to work. If revealing the secret(s) means the central conflict would fizzle out and the characters would get along with each other, I often come away thinking the characters are nitwits. It's similar to doing a twist ending. When it works, it's fine; otherwise it can feel contrived. It should feel natural and not like the author is pulling the strings, even though she is.



I loathe reading stories like this! And I hate when it occurs in otherwise great stories!

Like Wheel of Time! Will the guys and girls just trust each other and talk to each other for once?! F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-N-G


----------



## Ireth (Sep 25, 2012)

Ghost said:


> I think the problem I have with concealment comes when a plot relies on Big Secrets to work. If revealing the secret(s) means the central conflict would fizzle out and the characters would get along with each other, I often come away thinking the characters are nitwits. It's similar to doing a twist ending. When it works, it's fine; otherwise it can feel contrived. It should feel natural and not like the author is pulling the strings, even though she is.



That makes me think long and hard about my Fae duology; the whole plot of the second book hinges on the identity of one central character being concealed until the climax. Granted, she has very good reason to hide her identity, as the characters she interacts with are essentially unpaid bounty hunters, ordered against their own wills to bring her before the Kings of Faerie on pain of imprisonment or torture if they should fail or try to disobey the command. All of them consider her (her real self, not the persona she takes on to hide) to be their friend, but she doesn't trust them not to hand her over the moment she reveals herself, and they have a hard time even trying to get the point across that no, they do not actually intend to hand over their target to the Kings -- mainly because said Kings are tracking their every move, and whatever they say may be overheard.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 25, 2012)

Ireth said:


> That makes me think long and hard about my Fae duology; the whole plot of the second book hinges on the identity of one central character being concealed until the climax. Granted, she has very good reason to hide her identity, as the characters she interacts with are essentially unpaid bounty hunters, ordered against their own wills to bring her before the Kings of Faerie on pain of imprisonment or torture if they should fail or try to disobey the command. All of them consider her (her real self, not the persona she takes on to hide) to be their friend, but she doesn't trust them not to hand her over the moment she reveals herself, and they have a hard time even trying to get the point across that no, they do not actually intend to hand over their target to the Kings -- mainly because said Kings are tracking their every move, and whatever they say may be overheard.



Characters hiding things from each other is not the same as the author hiding things from the reader. One is natural and the other one feels artificial.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 25, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I loathe reading stories like this! And I hate when it occurs in otherwise great stories!
> 
> Like Wheel of Time! Will the guys and girls just trust each other and talk to each other for once?! F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-N-G



What's this about Wheel of Time?


----------



## Ireth (Sep 25, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Characters hiding things from each other is not the same as the author hiding things from the reader. One is natural and the other one feels artificial.



Yes, but I was planning to hide that certain detail from the readers as well, by virtue of the other characters not knowing it and the character in hiding never being a POV character, until the reveal comes at the climax. Would that still work?


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What's this about Wheel of Time?


You never got frustrated by the male-female relationships? Jordan basically presents males and females as being absurdly proud of their sex and unwilling to accept that the opposite sex has any positive qualities whatsoever. This devolves to the point that the characters that LIKE and trust each other are unwilling to reveal what they know to each other and causes further issues for them. 

I think it is a very backwards view of gender relationships, but maybe that is how it is for most people? Do all men assume that women know nothing and are ruled by their hormones and that a guy would know better in any situation? and do all women assume that men know nothing and are ruled by their anatomy and that a girl would know better in any situation?

Any male/female relationship in that book series almost always has internal dialogue where the POV character talks about how inept the opposite gender character is and how they can't confide in them because of their gender, when the thing that they should be confiding in them is the missing piece of the puzzle that the opposite gender character needed or if they would just bloody talk to each other without trying to take dominance they could see what they needed to do and how to beat the bloody bad guys. 

In one-five chapters, the POV is reversed and we get _treated_ to how the opposite gender character thinks all the characters that are opposite gender to them are inept and they can't tell them _their_ missing piece of the puzzle.

It is B-E-Y-O-N-D frustrating for me while reading that series and the only thing I dislike about it. 



Ireth said:


> Yes, but I was planning to hide that certain detail from the readers as well, by virtue of the other characters not knowing it and the character in hiding never being a POV character, until the reveal comes at the climax. Would that still work?



It would just depend on how you manage it. Anything can be done and any rule can be broken if done well. I hide things from my readers too, but I definitely hint at what is hidden so there is no Deus Ex shenanigans.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 26, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> You never got frustrated by the male-female relationships? Jordan basically presents males and females as being absurdly proud of their sex and unwilling to accept that the opposite sex has any positive qualities whatsoever. This devolves to the point that the characters that LIKE and trust each other are unwilling to reveal what they know to each other and causes further issues for them.
> 
> I think it is a very backwards view of gender relationships, but maybe that is how it is for most people? Do all men assume that women know nothing and are ruled by their hormones and that a guy would know better in any situation? and do all women assume that men know nothing and are ruled by their anatomy and that a girl would know better in any situation?
> 
> ...



...maybe this is just me, but I find that kinda funny.


----------



## The Dark One (Sep 26, 2012)

Rule 4 is a fairly standard rule re short stories, but off the top of my head I can't think of any Vonnegut short stories. Someone may enlighten me.

I don't think he's serious about rule 8 - subverting the 'rule' paradigm perhaps (which would be typical Vonnegut). If you think about his better stories, there's a fairly standard drip feed of information which reveals the plot. Sirens of Titan for example - brilliant story that could never have been guessed by the reader until pretty much the last page but made perfect sense in retrospect.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 26, 2012)

The Dark One said:


> I don't think he's serious about rule 8 - subverting the 'rule' paradigm perhaps (which would be typical Vonnegut). If you think about his better stories, there's a fairly standard drip feed of information which reveals the plot. Sirens of Titan for example - brilliant story that could never have been guessed by the reader until pretty much the last page but made perfect sense in retrospect.



So... he's trolling?


----------



## Amanita (Sep 26, 2012)

I feel about those rules the same way I'm feeling about such things most of the time. They're worth looking at and thinking about but definitely not something you actually have to follow.
Following rule 3 has actually helped my story greatly during the last weeks. My main character finally has a goal rather than being pushed around by other people and circumstances which solved many of my problems at the same time.
All the rest is up to discussion though I'm also having my doubts if the last one is really supposed to be taken seriously.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 26, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> It is B-E-Y-O-N-D frustrating for me while reading that series and the only thing I dislike about it.



Yeah. It actually renders the entire series somewhat stupid. I couldn't take reading them anymore around book ten, so I just listen to them in audio format when I have the time and desire.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah. It actually renders the entire series somewhat stupid. I couldn't take reading them anymore around book ten, so I just listen to them in audio format when I have the time and desire.



Am I the only one who finds gender hostility humorous?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Am I the only one who finds gender hostility humorous?



It's not a matter of humor or something like that. Jordan isn't writing a comedy. These are serious, world-changing issues and the characters in the book act quite seriously with respect toward them. Then you get people who have known each other all their lives withholding essential information from one another because of some gender consideration and the conspiracies that goes with them, and at some point it stretches credulity to the breaking point. It is one thing to poke fun at gender or even have ongoing tensions that revolve around gender, but when they characters get to the point that their actions are outright stupid and inexplicable (like not having a thirty second discussion with someone you've known your entire life in order to bring resolution to a problem), then it is so contrived as to be ridiculous. That's my problem with it.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 26, 2012)

For the record, why _do_ men and women not get along in Jordan's world? I mean aside from the usual reasons. Is there some kind of magical gender-distrust doohickey?


----------



## Ankari (Sep 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> For the record, why _do_ men and women not get along in Jordan's world? I mean aside from the usual reasons. Is there some kind of magical gender-distrust doohickey?



Yeah, it's the way power is distributed unevenly.  Aes Sedai, Wisdom, Aiel wise ones and whatever the people that call the winds for the seafaring folk (Windcallers?).  You don't have a lot of power falling in the hands of men, do you?  It's unsettling to find all the power concentrated in one group with the other group having _no chance_ of obtaining that power.

Until Rand came.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 26, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Yeah, it's the way power is distributed unevenly.  Aes Sedai, Wisdom, Aiel wise ones and whatever the people that call the winds for the seafaring folk (Windcallers?).  You don't have a lot of power falling in the hands of men, do you?  It's unsettling to find all the power concentrated in one group with the other group having _no chance_ of obtaining that power.
> 
> Until Rand came.



Social commentary? lol


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 26, 2012)

Could we start a new thread to discuss Wheel of Time gender roles?

Pertaining to what people have said about these rules, I think "rules" are good to follow if they help your writing.  Take a rule from one guy and take another from another one.  If it helps your writing to have the rule "Always write upside down on Tuesday," then do that.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 26, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> Could we start a new thread to discuss Wheel of Time gender roles?
> 
> Pertaining to what people have said about these rules, I think "rules" are good to follow if they help your writing.  Take a rule from one guy and take another from another one.  If it helps your writing to have the rule "Always write upside down on Tuesday," then do that.



I'm surprised you didn't go make the thread, but I tried to sum up all salient points and started it. Here yins go: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/novels-stories/5580-gender-roles-wheel-time.html#post69807


----------



## Ghost (Sep 27, 2012)

Ireth said:


> the whole plot of the second book hinges on the identity of one central character being concealed until the climax. Granted, she has very good reason to hide her identity





Ireth said:


> I was planning to hide that certain detail from the readers as well [...] until the reveal comes at the climax. Would that still work?



I can't tell without reading it, but based on what you've said, she has a good reason to keep her secret. When it makes sense for the character to keep the secret and the reveal feels natural (instead of convenient), it's fine. What I'm against is situations where it doesn't make sense for characters to hide information, given their personalities and the stakes. Characters withholding important info for petty reasons despite knowing the stakes annoy me.

When the author holds his cards close until the end instead of revealing things to the characters or the reader, things get trickier. While reading, I sometimes feel like the author jumped out of my closet, twirled his cape, and said "A-ha!" when the reveal occurs. The reader should be the one saying "A-ha!" not the author, and it's an a-ha that means "I understand now!" vs. the author's "I gotcha!"

I was going to say you could show that the stakes are too high for the character to reveal her secret or establish that she's not a trusting person, but it sounds like you've done the first. I didn't mean to frighten people by complaining so much. 

If you haven't, it might help to show hesitation or guardedness on her part. Maybe she hesitates to help with the other characters and trails off when she talks about herself. Maybe she snaps at them to leave her alone when they ask about her past. Maybe she laughs it off or distracts them. Telling too much about her might put her real identity at odds with the reader's perception of her. If we never know much about her history, only her present personality, it might be easier to digest new developments.

I'm guessing blindly since I haven't read it, but it seems that the reveal is the most important part of this scenario. That's when the characters and the reader all find out about her identity and when the reader might possibly feel cheated. Since she's not a PoV character, I'm not sure how that works. I can see how it might frustrate some readers that she had this card up her sleeve all along. Someone else might have a better idea of what it takes to balance those elements.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 27, 2012)

Ghost said:


> I can't tell without reading it, but based on what you've said, she has a good reason to keep her secret. When it makes sense for the character to keep the secret and the reveal feels natural (instead of convenient), it's fine. What I'm against is situations where it doesn't make sense for characters to hide information, given their personalities and the stakes. Characters withholding important info for petty reasons despite knowing the stakes annoy me.



Well, she's not quite as trusting as you might think. One of the POV characters is her former lover; they still have strong feelings for each other despite being forbidden to be together. However, she is now a fugitive from the Kings of Faerie, thanks in part to said former lover (who helped her escape from prison to avoid a fate worse than death), and as they were separated while fleeing for their lives, she fears he may have been captured and forced to reveal her whereabouts, so she hides her identity because she feels she can't risk him discovering her again. This gets complicated when they actually do meet again, and he hasn't actually revealed her whereabouts to anyone. He doesn't recognize her, but she recognizes him.



Ghost said:


> When the author holds his cards close until the end instead of revealing things to the characters or the reader, things get trickier. While reading, I sometimes feel like the author jumped out of my closet, twirled his cape, and said "A-ha!" when the reveal occurs. The reader should be the one saying "A-ha!" not the author, and it's an a-ha that means "I understand now!" vs. the author's "I gotcha!"



Understood.



Ghost said:


> I was going to say you could show that the stakes are too high for the character to reveal her secret or establish that she's not a trusting person, but it sounds like you've done the first. I didn't mean to frighten people by complaining so much.



No worries. ^^



Ghost said:


> If you haven't, it might help to show hesitation or guardedness on her part. Maybe she hesitates to help with the other characters and trails off when she talks about herself. Maybe she snaps at them to leave her alone when they ask about her past. Maybe she laughs it off or distracts them. Telling too much about her might put her real identity at odds with the reader's perception of her. If we never know much about her history, only her present personality, it might be easier to digest new developments.



*nodnod* Good points. 



Ghost said:


> I'm guessing blindly since I haven't read it, but it seems that the reveal is the most important part of this scenario. That's when the characters and the reader all find out about her identity and when the reader might possibly feel cheated. Since she's not a PoV character, I'm not sure how that works. I can see how it might frustrate some readers that she had this card up her sleeve all along. Someone else might have a better idea of what it takes to balance those elements.



The four POV characters are those I follow from the first couple of chapters; the woman in question doesn't show up in this story until several chapters in. This is just like the prequel, which has two main POV characters from the beginning, and a third that shows up for one scene when his POV companion is asleep but plot-relevant stuff still needs to happen.


----------



## Jess A (Sep 27, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Of Vonnegut's rules, I think I do number 6 the most. I'm horrible to my characters, short of killing them (most of the time), and I don't plan to change that. XD



Have you read Robin Hobb's _Farseer_ trilogy? Her main character is a walking punching bag.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 27, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Have you read Robin Hobb's _Farseer_ trilogy? Her main character is a walking punching bag.



I'm not sure, I'd have to refresh my memory about the title. Is that the one that includes _Assassin's Apprentice_?


----------



## Jess A (Sep 28, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I'm not sure, I'd have to refresh my memory about the title. Is that the one that includes _Assassin's Apprentice_?



Yes. Fitz is always bruised, beaten, shot, poisoned, near death, hunted down...the list goes on.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 11, 2012)

I completely agree with Vonnegut. Kill your darlings, as he once said.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 11, 2012)

Aravelle said:


> I completely agree with Vonnegut. Kill your darlings, as he once said.



Not sure I agree with that. Otherwise have an entire genre full of George R.R. Martins.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 11, 2012)

Aravelle said:


> I completely agree with Vonnegut. Kill your darlings, as he once said.



I prefer to torture my darlings relentlessly, and only kill them if absolutely necessary. XD And sometimes not even permanently.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Not sure I agree with that. Otherwise have an entire genre full of George R.R. Martins.



He didn't say kill _all_ the darlings. Besides, half of why George R.R. Martin is so big because he is unpredictable; you never know who will live, and who will die. It's a matter of killing strategically. If you manipulate tragedy in literature, you can capture your readers in the palm of your hand. Make 'em bleed, and they'll remember the gunshot.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 12, 2012)

I always thought it was Faulkner who is famously credited for saying "Kill your darlings...". 

Also, even though the phrase is commonly referred to as pertaining to the killing of characters, it actually is directed at deleting pieces of writing an author loves (his or her darlings).


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 12, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I always thought it was Faulkner who is famously credited for saying "Kill your darlings...".



Oh, you're right! Faulkner said it, as did Stephen King. I swore it was Vonnegut, but I guess I was wrong. Whoopsie!


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 12, 2012)

Aravelle said:


> He didn't say kill _all_ the darlings. Besides, half of why George R.R. Martin is so big because he is unpredictable; you never know who will live, and who will die. It's a matter of killing strategically. If you manipulate tragedy in literature, you can capture your readers in the palm of your hand. Make 'em bleed, and they'll remember the gunshot.



True. But some people will inevitably take this advice to it's logical extreme and start killing _everyone_, just for the shock value. (Which, ironically, lessens the effect of the shock value.)


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Oct 12, 2012)

'Kill Your Darlings' doesn't mean get rid of things you love _just because_ you love them. That's stupid. It really means to learn that you must be able to get rid of things you love _if_ they are not working for the benefit of the story.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 12, 2012)

Sheriff Woody said:


> 'Kill Your Darlings' doesn't mean get rid of things you love just because you love them. That's stupid. It really means to learn that you must be able to get rid of things you love if they are not working for the benefit of the story.



Although I agree with your interpretation more, I believe the original intention was exactly meant as "get rid of them because you love them so dearly". Faulkner felt that when a writer loved their work to an extreme level they lost any sense of objectivity. To him that was dangerous. I hardly think Faulkner would qualify as stupid.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Oct 12, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Although I agree with your interpretation more, I believe the original intention was exactly meant as "get rid of them because you love them so dearly". Faulkner felt that when a writer loved their work to an extreme level they lost any sense of objectivity. To him that was dangerous. I hardly think Faulkner would qualify as stupid.



I was commenting more on the reflection that anything loved should be disregarded at once in spite of its overall importance or effectiveness, rather than on the man himself.

Yes, it's absolutely imperative that you are not blind to your own work. If that was the intention of the original comment, then Faulkner's interpretation, as well as my own, would share the same lesson.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 13, 2012)

Saw a stack of Vonnegut's novels and short story collections in a used book store today.  By and large even his novels are on the short side by todays standards; the ones I was looking at tended to be around 110 - 140 pages, or less than half the length of what's common now.  But then again, that was true of a lot of the older novels.

Probably fair to say, then, his 'rules' are intended for shorter works, probably short stories.


----------

