Ireth
Myth Weaver
I'm not sure, I'd have to refresh my memory about the title. Is that the one that includes Assassin's Apprentice?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Kurt Vonnegut's Rules for Writing Fiction
- Thread starter Philip Overby
- Start date
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
Archmage
Yes. Fitz is always bruised, beaten, shot, poisoned, near death, hunted down...the list goes on.
Aravelle
Sage
I completely agree with Vonnegut. Kill your darlings, as he once said.
Mindfire
Istar
Not sure I agree with that. Otherwise have an entire genre full of George R.R. Martins.
Ireth
Myth Weaver
I prefer to torture my darlings relentlessly, and only kill them if absolutely necessary. XD And sometimes not even permanently.
Aravelle
Sage
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.
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).
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
Sage
Oh, you're right! Faulkner said it, as did Stephen King. I swore it was Vonnegut, but I guess I was wrong. Whoopsie!
Mindfire
Istar
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
Troubadour
'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
Troubadour
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.
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.
Probably fair to say, then, his 'rules' are intended for shorter works, probably short stories.
