Kurt Vonnegut's Rules for Writing Fiction

[Philip Overby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

All good apart from the last.



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"?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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