Jump to content


Vonnegut's advice for writers

Started by Guest_Lord E_* , Apr 18 2007 02:17 AM

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:17 AM

I don't know where this is from, but a Finnish blogger posted it, saying it is what it says above. I'll post with comments.

One of his rules of writing a story: something must happen.


Mm, yeah. Which brings me to a recent writing problem. I suck at plots! I can't think of plots! Stories without plots suck! I suppose it is improvement of sorts - I used not to have ideas. Nowadays I have plenty of ideas. Bad ideas, average ideas, and even some that I consider pretty good. I don't know if my imagination works better, I am better at plagiarizing without realizing it or whether I just have lowered my standards. But improvement. However, I don't know what to do with my brilliant ideas, because I am totally stuck with plots. Any ideas how to get out of this?


1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.

Not to much to add... perhaps the point is that the reader does not owe us anything. It is our job to make reading our stuff worth his or her while.

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

Abso-frigging-lutely! Can't stress this enough from the POV of a reader. I recently thought I hit a motherload when I found a lot of paperbacks at sale, older and lesser known novels by a crime novelist I like. But I discovered they were amazingly bad compared to the newer ones she has written after she came up with her recurring detective character (the older books are stand-alone stories). Reason? All the people were more or less unpleasant, ranging from homicidally psychotic to painfully stupid and pompous or gold-digging and shallow. I have experienced the same before. I think a story just can't fly if you hate everyone in it (or don't care one way or the other). Same thing can happen in TV shows: in Ally McBeal I hated all the characters.

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.

Eek. I confess I like the hooblewhatever the word was (you know, the unnecessary stuff like Japanese words in a story happening in Japan etc). Of course, enough is enough.


5. Start as close to the end as possible.

Obviously Vonnegut thinks good fiction is written much the same way as good journalism. And why not - I like that sort of no-nonsense, compact style.

6. Be a sadist. No 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.

Laufey and Ophi, have you been reading and taking notes? The advantages are obvious.

7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

Yeah, again. Trying to please everyone will, depending on the writer's personality, either make him/her exhaust him/herself in a doomed attempt or make him bitter at people who are mean enough not to like his/her stuff even though it is perfect.


8. 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.

I'm not so sure about this one. I like a story where you sort of collect pieces of puzzle and then they click in place at the right moment. I also like writing techniques in humor, where circumstances of an action or debate slowly reveal what is going on, where things are implied rather than stated.

#2 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 18 April 2007 - 08:37 AM

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

Abso-frigging-lutely! Can't stress this enough from the POV of a reader. I recently thought I hit a motherload when I found a lot of paperbacks at sale, older and lesser known novels by a crime novelist I like. But I discovered they were amazingly bad compared to the newer ones she has written after she came up with her recurring detective character (the older books are stand-alone stories). Reason? All the people were more or less unpleasant, ranging from homicidally psychotic to painfully stupid and pompous or gold-digging and shallow. I have experienced the same before. I think a story just can't fly if you hate everyone in it (or don't care one way or the other). Same thing can happen in TV shows: in Ally McBeal I hated all the characters.

I very much agree. Philip Athans, anyone? Change the characters and his novels might be, well, bad but entertaining. Well, with boring gore. And really stupid writing from time to time (amidst the merely bad writing for rest of the time). But anyway.

But this also ties with #7; you can't always make it work. If it was enough for a character to be virtuous, everyone would love Drizzt. And even if we're talking about mostly good characteristics, it's a personal matter what one is willing to forgive. For example, in Wysard, the main character was mostly heroic and all, but it annoyed me greatly how he could never resist being seduced by some random succubi that obviously really wanted him harm. I could sympathize with the "having lived in forced celibacy" part, but not such weakness resulting from it. So I ended up sort of if not really rooting for the villain (described by the author as psychotic) who tormented him about it.

#3 Guest_Kelarin_*

Posted 18 April 2007 - 12:53 PM

I've just started reading "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes (And How To Avoid Them).

It's written by a Jack Bickham.

His first rule is Don't Make Excuses. If you procrastinate, it will kill your work. However if you can write one page a day, you'll have a 365 page novel to revise at the same pace next year.

This comes right after the Forward(yes without the 'e'). In it he says two things that he italicized for importance.
All good fiction moves forward; all good fiction writers look ahead.





On an unrelated note. Gah! Stupid cats. Walking across the keyboard while I'm sitting right there.

#4 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 18 April 2007 - 11:25 PM

I see what you mean about readers not always agreeing about who is likeable (big duh, Aerie anyone? :shock:) But I think the difference lies in the writers intentions. In those books I didn't like I have the feeling that the writer doesn't particularly like any of her characters, either. Or that she doesn't think it is necessary for the story to have a character to root for. As a writer I would solve the problem by writing about character(s) I like myself. If the reader is the kind of person I'm writing for, s/he will probably like at least some of them.

I don't think I could be bothered to write about only nasty, annoying or otherwise unpleasant people. I would feel like abruptly ending the story like... NWN 2 Good storyline :).

#5 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 19 April 2007 - 12:31 AM

His first rule is Don't Make Excuses. If you procrastinate, it will kill your work. However if you can write one page a day, you'll have a 365 page novel to revise at the same pace next year.


I know of this approach, and it does have merit. Coming from Stephen King it helped me break a ten years writer's block. But that novel is still not finished.

See, the above is not true. With my current insight into plotting I would not have a 365 page novel, but 365 pages of disjointed gibberish.

I come up with situations, characters and themes that could be good - if only I could think of a story arc to put them into. I get nothing, zip, nada. This is something new. Has anyone else ever had this particular problem?

#6 Guest_Kelarin_*

Posted 19 April 2007 - 02:00 AM


His first rule is Don't Make Excuses. If you procrastinate, it will kill your work. However if you can write one page a day, you'll have a 365 page novel to revise at the same pace next year.


I know of this approach, and it does have merit. Coming from Stephen King it helped me break a ten years writer's block. But that novel is still not finished.

See, the above is not true. With my current insight into plotting I would not have a 365 page novel, but 365 pages of disjointed gibberish.

No it doesn't always work. But he does explain it better than a second hand account.

I come up with situations, characters and themes that could be good - if only I could think of a story arc to put them into. I get nothing, zip, nada. This is something new. Has anyone else ever had this particular problem?

Yes. His suggestion is Conflict. He goes into great detail that I don't have time to relate on why conflict is the driving force of a story. I'd suggest getting the book yourself. He's a teacher of writing, and has been for years. I'm a 17 year old writer attempter, who's read through part of the book once.

#7 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 19 April 2007 - 08:58 PM

See, the above is not true. With my current insight into plotting I would not have a 365 page novel, but 365 pages of disjointed gibberish.

I started writing a story on that basis, that is to say, so that it could freely be gibberish so long as I wrote it, so that I would write something. The result: a story full of lame personal allegories, except for one that was incredibly strong, which I kept writing for some time but then got stuck with anyway.

I come up with situations, characters and themes that could be good - if only I could think of a story arc to put them into. I get nothing, zip, nada. This is something new. Has anyone else ever had this particular problem?

I'm not even sure myself, as my problem is writing even so far into a story that a plot would show up. Mind you, in one story I got stuck because I couldn't think of the characters and situation to go with the plot. Got any spare ones? :shock:

#8 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 19 April 2007 - 09:04 PM

Bah. I sure seem whimsical tonight.

#9 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 19 April 2007 - 09:05 PM

I see what you mean about readers not always agreeing about who is likeable (big duh, Aerie anyone? :shock:) But I think the difference lies in the writers intentions. In those books I didn't like I have the feeling that the writer doesn't particularly like any of her characters, either.

Mmmm. Aerie.

Er, I meant to say (and this is not related to the above), it also doesn't help if the writer likes the characters way too much.

(It occurs to me I must be rather tired to do a Homer Simpson "imitation" for any reason.)

#10 Laufey

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:13 AM

I don't know where this is from, but a Finnish blogger posted it, saying it is what it says above. I'll post with comments.


One of his rules of writing a story: something must happen.


Definitely.

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.


Agreed. If I hate all the characters, the story won't hold my interest.

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.


That makes sense, I suppose.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.


Mmm...I try, but I know it's easy to ramble on at times.


5. Start as close to the end as possible.


Not sure if I agree with that one. I suppose it depends on how far you go with it.


6. Be a sadist. No 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.


Laufey and Ophi, have you been reading and taking notes? The advantages are obvious.


Doing so, and enjoying it. :P

7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.


Yeah, again. Trying to please everyone will, depending on the writer's personality, either make him/her exhaust him/herself in a doomed attempt or make him bitter at people who are mean enough not to like his/her stuff even though it is perfect.


Very much agree. I want people to like my writing of course, but I realized a long time ago that it's impossible to please everybody, and I don't try to do so.


8. 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.


I'm not so sure about this one. I like a story where you sort of collect pieces of puzzle and then they click in place at the right moment. I also like writing techniques in humor, where circumstances of an action or debate slowly reveal what is going on, where things are implied rather than stated.


I'm not sure I agree with this one either. It depends a bit on what type of story it is, I think.
Rogues do it from behind.

#11 Guest_Coutelier_*

Posted 22 April 2007 - 05:53 PM

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.


Well, that seems the same as what actors are taught about their characters 'motivation'.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.


Have to disagree there... As Quentin Tarantino once said, if every line of dialogue is just to advance the plot then it's not real dialogue. In real life, 90% of conversation is about absolutely nothing. Real people think about even less... so anyway, I take a similar approach to writing in general.

You certainly shouldn't have too much of it, but a bit of utter nonsense is fun. Plus it does serve a purpose in making the characters seem more 'real'.

6. Be a sadist. No 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 have no problem making bad stuff happen even to characters I like... looking at what lies ahead in my stories, Aerie gets bashed more by me than by anyone else ever. So I guess I am a sadist.

7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.


Yes, as to paraphrase another great movie person, Led Zeppelin didn't write songs that everybody liked... they left that to the BeeGees.

#12 Guest_Theodur_*

Posted 23 April 2007 - 06:06 AM

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.


This at first might seem a bit contradictory with not trying to please everyone (because there will undoubtedly be people who hate ‘all’ characters), but to be honest, the characters in the story should be diverse enough so that nearly everyone can find someone to cheer along. This seems reasonable enough.

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.


This is kind of superfluous, I feel. We already know that characters should feel realistic, and that in itself means they have their needs/wants/desires.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.


Nope. And those who have read Vonnegut will know that he didn’t exactly follow this himself. So this is bull.

5. Start as close to the end as possible.


He did this in quite a few of his books. And ¾ of said books actually consisted of the character’s flashbacks of things in the past. The fact that you start close to the end didn’t mean that his novels were of the short kind, not at all. And I wouldn’t describe his style as very compact or minimalist either.

6. Be a sadist. No 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 thought that was the reason we all were writing for, making the characters suffer.

8. 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.


He never did that himself, the old fart. Or maybe he did, and this is his way of saying that if his readers couldn’t figure it out, they are just plain stupid. :twisted:

But anyway, it does seem to me that he’s giving away quite a lot of advice that he didn’t follow himself.

#13 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:23 AM


2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.


This at first might seem a bit contradictory with not trying to please everyone (because there will undoubtedly be people who hate ‘all’ characters), but to be honest, the characters in the story should be diverse enough so that nearly everyone can find someone to cheer along. This seems reasonable enough.

How about, "Give that one reader you're writing for at least one character to root for"?

5. Start as close to the end as possible.


He did this in quite a few of his books. And ¾ of said books actually consisted of the character’s flashbacks of things in the past. The fact that you start close to the end didn’t mean that his novels were of the short kind, not at all. And I wouldn’t describe his style as very compact or minimalist either.

Doesn't Galapagos start a million years after the actual events? (I tried reading it once, and for some reason couldn't.)

#14 Guest_Theodur_*

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:39 AM


2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.


This at first might seem a bit contradictory with not trying to please everyone (because there will undoubtedly be people who hate ‘all’ characters), but to be honest, the characters in the story should be diverse enough so that nearly everyone can find someone to cheer along. This seems reasonable enough.

How about, "Give that one reader you're writing for at least one character to root for"?


Yep, that works for me.

5. Start as close to the end as possible.


He did this in quite a few of his books. And ¾ of said books actually consisted of the character’s flashbacks of things in the past. The fact that you start close to the end didn’t mean that his novels were of the short kind, not at all. And I wouldn’t describe his style as very compact or minimalist either.

Doesn't Galapagos start a million years after the actual events? (I tried reading it once, and for some reason couldn't.)


That's one of the few that I haven't read, actually.

#15 Guest_Clight_*

Posted 23 April 2007 - 08:26 AM

That's one of the few that I haven't read, actually.

Well, it certainly doesn't seem to follow #8 about giving much information:

Like Vonnegut's earlier Slaughterhouse-Five, the story is fragmented and told out of sequence. Major events are rarely seen directly, but are rather alluded to and mentioned in reference to other events. In this way, the focus of the reader remains on the characters; the reader is not permitted to become carried away in the storyline itself.


Back to The Smithy


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Gamejag
  2. → The Craft of Writing
  3. → The Smithy
  4. Privacy Policy
Skin Designed By Evanescence at IBSkin.com