Vonnegut’s Rules for Writers

Posted on by

by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell

Kurt Vonnegut (Wikimedia Commons)

In the introduction to a collection of his short stories, Bagombo Snuff Box, Kurt Vonnegut tells a bit about his writing career. After several stories were published in magazines, and a couple of paperback novel sales, Vonnegut (with a growing family) ran out of dough. He thought about quitting. Then he was invited to teach creative writing at the famous Iowa Writers Workshop, which gave him the breathing space to write the novel that made him famous, Slaughterhouse-Five.

In that same intro Vonnegut gives eight rules he calls “Creative Writing 101.” Let’s have a look and ponder:

  1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
  2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
  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.
  5. Start as close to the end as possible.
  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.
  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.
  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.

With the exception of #8, I mostly like these, ahem, suggestions.

#1 is an overall goal for all of us, isn’t it? I mean, people have too many tasks and not enough discretionary income as it is. They don’t want to feel like time invested in your book has not been worth it.

#2 is essential, even if the main character is negative, like Ebenezer Scrooge. Why do we root for Scrooge? We are hoping he’ll be redeemed.

#3 is a key to writing a good scene. The main characters in a scene should have agendas, and they should in some way be in conflict. Give your minor characters desires, too. That’ll add more spice.

#4. To this I would add that sentences can also establish mood.

#5 is a bit too amorphous. Vonnegut did not write long books. He was the Bizarro World James Michener. What do you think he meant by this?

#6 is essential. Plot and character are not separate matters. Plot (trouble) forces the revelation of true character. That’s why there is no such thing as a “character-driven” novel, unless that character drives off the road, and soon (even better if forced off the road by another driver!)

#7 is interesting. It’s true if you try to please everybody, you’ll be taken in too many directions to have an effective tale. But who is the “one person” Vonnegut is talking about? Some authors like to think of an “ideal reader.” Some authors say the one person is them: “I don’t care one whit about what anybody thinks. I write to please myself!” Personally, I always write to please myself, but I also give a nod to the market. You usually don’t make a lot of lettuce at this thing if you completely ignore the latter. The pulp writers all knew this. What is your approach?

Which brings us to #8. To heck with suspense? Come on! You can’t have page-turning readers without it. And if readers can finish the story themselves, that means it’s predictable, which also means boring.

Vonnegut was a comic novelist with bite. He wrote about ideas, wrapping them up in playful—even absurdist—guises. I don’t wonder then that he paid no heed to mystery and suspense. For the rest of us, though, I say, “Heed indeed!”

So what do you think of the Vonnegut Rules?

32 thoughts on “Vonnegut’s Rules for Writers”

  1. I agree on you with number 8. That’s counterproductive. The idea, for many of us–both as writers and readers–is suspense.

    Number 1 is Number One in my view: if you’re producing anything with the notion of foisting if off on someone for money, then you’d better make it worth their time and their dime.

    But, maybe that’s just me …

  2. Jim, I wonder if Vonnegut’s tongue was firmly in his cheek when he called these “rules.”

    #5 – do you think he meant don’t include lots of backstory? Get to the problem/disturbance right away and start the action?

    #8 – I agree…to a point. I like to be well grounded in a story world, and not have to guess who is who and where the scene takes place. Some authors think withholding basic information increases suspense. It just irritates me.

    But as far as mystery and surprises go, I totally disagree with him. Readers should not be able to finish writing the story themselves. If they can, what’s the point of reading to the end?

    His video about the shape of stories always makes me chuckle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ

    Wishing you and your family a happy Easter!

    • Ha. I’ve seen that amusing clip.

      I”m still not sure what he meant by #5. Backstory can be something that slows the opening, but is really part of it. Maybe he meant too much set-up before getting to the disturbance. I’d agree with that.

      Happy Easter to you!

  4. I remember reading Cat’s Cradle in a hammock by Mobile Bay one summer when I volunteered at La Casa de Amigos and my two-year-old charges napped around me while I read. Good times.

    I love suspense, so I agree about #8.

    I’m a pleaser. Trying to write so everyone will like it is a real issue for me. Ironically, my newspaper columns (back when I used to write them) that were the most popular were the ones where I said “Listen up, y’all. This is how things really are. Wise up.”

    It’s time for me to get back to writing after a way too long absence. Easter is a good time for rebirth. It feels right.

    Happy Easter, y’all. May your writing be renewed in this beautiful season.

  5. Excellent post for an Easter morning.

    What do I think of Vonnegut’s Rules? I think they are at the core of the instruction here at TKZ.

    What do I think of Vonnegut’s Rule #8? I think he might have been “creating” conflict, having some fun with us, and maybe keeping us talking about him. “Ah, this one will get them stirred up, and they’ll be arguing about it till the cows come home.”

    Happy Easter!

  6. Thanks for the Vonnegut post, Dr. Bell. I have a soft spot for him because he was the key to getting my youngest son interested in reading during all the other high school distractions. That was the key to his success today.

    As usual, my background in R&D leads me to see things in a different way. A more nuanced view of #8 could lead one to see it as very reasonable, so much so as to be quite commonplace. “Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves.” I note Vonnegut did not include, “and arrive at the exact same conclusion as the author did.”

    Let’s take the example of a popular movie, “Knives Out.” The young nurse is kind, sweet, and handicapped in dealing with the treachery afoot. She cannot lie like everyone else without it triggering a gag reflex that makes her vomit. She is a goner for sure.

    On this forum we have previously discussed the enjoyment readers get by having enough information that they feel confident to plow ahead with their own conclusion of what comes next. Dr. Bell you do this so often I thought it was a deliberate act, luring readers into thinking they were ahead of you. They have a success or two and just when they are sure of themselves, they hit a patch of black ice on a curve and careen into ditch. There is a heightened enjoyment of active participation, being drawn into a false conclusion and then surprised. A lot more fun than passively following along to the conclusion to react with a, “Oh how nice.”

    • That’s a good deep think, Lars. I’m not quite there, considering his coackroach crack. That implies readers would reach the same ending without the author’s pages, yes? I’m still flummoxed by #8!

  7. I’m not even going to attempt to answer your questions, JSB. Just stopping by to say hello. I’m back on my mountain after a 26+ hour travel day, and will be dealing with all the drudgery of post-vacation catching up for a few days. And even with a 26+ travel day, we arrived only a few hours after we left.
    Happy Easter to those who celebrate.

  8. Good morning, Jim, and Happy Easter to you and everyone at TKZ.

    I like all the rules except #8. Surely you’re joking, Mr. Vonnegut! No suspense from the writer, no pence from the reader.

  9. Good morning, Jim. I agree with all of these except #8. Suspense is essential in fiction, especially in thrillers and mysteries. #6 can be a hard thing for a writer to do characters, but putting your characters through the wringer is essential. Exactly how you torture them and in what level of detail will depend on the genre. A gritty thriller or a horror novel will be different than a sweet romance or a cozy mystery, but torture them you must.

    Hope you have a Happy Easter!

  11. Of the lists of “writing rules” I think this makes the most sense. Number 1 seems a little convoluted, but there are a lot of people who just wastes people’s time.

    I won’t completely defend number 8, but my take on it is that the plot shouldn’t be predictable, but you should know the characters well enough that you can imagine what their response they will give in whatever scenario you put them in. Still not actually doable.

  12. The rules that don’t make much sense are short story rules. That’s why his novels were so short. That, and length is really difficult when you are going for a constant comic /satiric tone.

    • Good point about comedy and length. Few do it well. Douglas Adams and Tom Robbins come to mind.

      OTOH, the covers of A Confederacy of Dunces are too far apart.

  13. #6 strikes me because it’s a learning curve to be mean to your characters. LOL! But if you aren’t, you’ve got a flat story.

    #8 – The way I interpreted that one was “Don’t be confusing”. Not necessarily give as much information as you can, but be clear with the information you do give.

  14. Which brings us to #8. To heck with suspense? Come on! You can’t have page-turning readers without it. And if readers can finish the story themselves, that means it’s predictable, which also means boring.

    Vonnegut was a comic novelist with bite. He wrote about ideas, wrapping them up in playful—even absurdist—guises. I don’t wonder then that he paid no heed to mystery and suspense. For the rest of us, though, I say, “Heed indeed!”

    Any analysis of “rules” for writing should be not only taken with a grain of salt, but understanding the context into which they are presented. After all, Heinlein’s “Rules for Writing” were, in fact, his “*Business* Rules for Writing,” and therefore have less to do with writing and more with how to sustain a career.

    The context for Vonnegut, as you stated, were given at the time he took a teaching position at Iowa, and are “101 level,” so I think each rule should be looked at from the perspective of a beginner at the craft.

    Each rule counters a specific beginner mistake:

    1. Infodumps
    2. Unlikeable or cardboard characters
    3. With no goal, there is no story
    4. Infodumps, scenic tours, asides and tangents
    5. Leading with too much backstory
    6. Absent or low stakes
    7. Don’t try to please everybody
    8. Conflating withholding detail with creating mystery or interest

    You asked what we think he meant by #5. You want to start things “at the beginning,” right? When does the action start? If I understand correctly, these 8 rules are also specifically for short stories, not longer works. So this goes back to #1, don’t waste a stranger’s time. How often does a beginner waste time with backstory before getting to the inciting incident? I think the idea of the statement is to frame the ideation process within the context of a driving urgency to see the goal met. The closer to the end it is, the more economic and the more well-paced the story.

    I think #7 can be taken many ways, I’m not sure who Vonnegut’s “single reader” was, but it’s either oneself, an editor, or an ideal reader. I think specifics here are largely irrelevant. Pick one. The idea is that if the story is targeted on a single reader, real or imagined, it is easier to maintain a narrative focus. You don’t set out to write a mystery story while also thinking you need romance for the ladies to enjoy, and action to keep the guys interested, and comedy to make sure it’s not boring, and probably some paranormal for the horror fans…on and on and on. It’s easy for a beginner especially to get lost in the weeds.

    As for #8, I don’t think Vonnegut was against suspense as a rule, just as a focus for beginners. Beginning writers often fall into the trap of thinking that mystery and suspense are the only things that keep readers reading, or that the only way to have real impact is the dramatic twist, and therefore by withholding things we can surprise the reader. They don’t know about hiding things in plain sight, or they use suspense and mystery as a crutch because they’re not good at rules 2-6 yet.

    And listen, it’s Easter. Jesus told his Disciples and the Pharisees what was going to happen to him and they were all still surprised when it did.

  15. #5 – I think Debbie has the right read on this 🙂

    #7 – I’m a hobby writer, so when I initially write a story it’s to satisfy my own curiosity. If I like the end product and think other people would find it interesting, then I try to polish it to shore up the clunky bits of plot and prose. After that comes the audience hunting, lol. I try to find publishers who I think would have readers that would find the story worthy of the time they spend reading it (good old #1 for the win!). My hope is that in sharing my writing I’m helping others to come to a place where they can share the stories they have inside themselves on their terms. I guess every writing journey for me is a little like a Han Solo story arc – starts off a bit self-centered, but by the end I’m trying to help the farm kid shoot their winning shot 😛

    #8 – I wonder if Vonnegut was imagining his audience to be new writers who might try so hard to craft mystique in a piece that they hold too long on delivering for the reader on the elements that will give them a reason to care about the story (the main character, the problem, the stakes, etc.). I think he’s potentially giving a pointer towards presenting the reader with enough information they can ‘imagine an ending’ or ‘set an expectation about the ending’ from the get go. Part of the juice that drives the reader is their ability to quantify a problem, visualize a solution, and be interested enough in how the problem is worked out on the page that they stay to see how the author ends the thought experiment. Admittedly, he’s one of my favorite writers, so I’m frontloaded to view his content through a forgiving lens, lol.

    This was all fun to think about, thank you for asking the questions! Also, happy Easter!

  16. I undersatnd what he meant for start as close to the end as possible. Too much meandering at the beginning will lose your reader, so you need to leave out the boring parts and start with something happening.

    As to the suspense, I disagree. We do need suspense but it doesn’t have to be in your face type. A simple question the reader needs to have answered works in having them turn the page.

    And I’ll disagree with you on Character driven plots. Plots are there but the character should be the focus and what they do and how they react will drive the plot forward. Plot is basic structure, but it shouldn’t over power the characters. So plots should be driven by the character and not the other way around.

    • Thanks for chiming in, Barbara.

      Yes, agree about suspense/mystery. It can, and usually should, be subtle at the beginning. Vonnegut’s categorical statement, however, is contra that.

      And there is no character without (death stakes) plot, just a mask. Plot unmasks character.

Comments are closed.