Eight Tips for Writing Short Stories

I ran across this list of tips for writing short stories from Kurt Vonnegut, and I found them kind of intriguing, so I thought I'd pass them along.

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.

There is food for thought here, though you might not agree with all these points. In particular, number 8 doesn't feel right to me. Lots of good short stories rely on suspense. On the other hand, I suspect many of us can get behind point 6.

This one definitely brings back memories of a little story I read regarding painting and not writing.

A little rabbit was painting a picture and asked his friends to critique it for him. The penguin wanted more ice and now, the mouse more cheese, the groundhog more grass, the bird more trees, the bear more caves.

When the little rabbit once again showed his painting all of them found it horrible. So much of a conglomeration of stuff in one painting. "Oh! This is horrible they said."

I can see where Kurt was coming from on this one. We all know who that one person is.

I personally disagree with #6, there is little reason for sadism and it only appeals to a small group of people, who I would not doubt number less then the number of spankos in the world. I also disagree with #8, information should be continuous but there is no need to let everything be told at the beginning. If I can finish the story myself why would I bother reading the story to the end.

I do agree with #7, because I think the one person I should write for is ME! My recent Life and Blood series has not get a large number of views, however with some encouragement I wrote it anyway, because it was for me.

The rest of the points I am neutral towards, they all have a point that could be argued both ways. Of course the list is "tips for writing short stories" and therefore can be considered for what each point is worth by every individual author. I do wonder if these "tips" were not written with a slight hint of sarcasm, as I find most of them give that impression, at least to me.

CS

I think the list is ideal - if you want to write stories in the manner of Kurt Vonnegut.

However, if i recall correctly, he was appalling at writing spanko stories - which suggests that the authors on this forum should tip their hat to him, and then quietly carry on turning out stuff that clearly delights the readers who come in here.

I tend to agree with 1,2,4 and 7. The rest, not so much.
3--some characters are bit players who are there just to provide a specific function
5--in some stories the beginning is essential to set the hook
6---I think he means figuratively, but while there must be conflict of a sort, it does not have to be awful.
8---no! hold back the reveal until the right moment.

I've read quite a bit of Vonnegut's work, but I had no idea he had written anything with spanking in it. I shall have to look for that.

As for his tips on writing short stories, well, they do seem kind of hit and miss. I never really liked Vonnegut's style of writing. A little too conversational for my tastes. The ideas he incorporated in his works more than made up for that though. I must have read Cat's Cradle twelve to fifteen years ago, yet the thought that something like Ice-9 might one day be developed still gives me the willies.

Technically all tops are sadists. Sadism: Psychological. A condition in which sexual gratification depends largely on the infliction of pain upon others.

You notice the definition says nothing about what kind of pain, how much or even if the person receiving it likes it or not. Likewise all bottoms are masochists.

If you enjoy giving or receiving pain you are a sadist or a masochist, or both, even if you do not like the terms. Spanko, short for spankophile, just explains what kind of sado/masochistic scene that you like.

In a sense all of these ideas can be employed, some with a heavy hand, others in a slightly subtle way. I am not a big fan of Vonnegut, but I think I've used all of these strategies at some point in one piece or another. I must admit, I'm especially fond of holding back the reveal. It suits me, I like it and I am not Vonnegut.

There's sadistic as in content that involves pain, then there's sadist in content that involves other things. Any story where you don't treat your main character as a "Mary Sue" is one where the author is being sadistic.

Every obstacle in that character's path - the author put it there.
Everything that doesn't go completely right - the author decided that they not go right.
Every conflict - the author decided to put that in.
Everything that character has to overcome, to triumph over, to push him/her self to do - that's the author making that character suffer.

But who wants to read a story that lacks conflict? Where everything always goes right for the main character?

Jim Butcher's Dresden series is a perfect example of this. The main character (Harry Dresden) gets to the end of his case, and it's usually a good ending for someone, but he goes through hell to get there. His back story:
He's an orphan whose mother died in childbirth and his father died when he was around 7. Later he learns that his mother was murdered.
He bounced around orphanages until he was adopted by a man who could teach him magic - Justin was hard, but he did pay attention to Harry and mentored him. Justin also adopted a girl around the same age - and when they were teens the two became lovers - until Justin tried to mentally enslave Harry (with the help of Harry's first love), causing Harry to kill them both in a magical fire.
Harry is found by the Mage council and is almost executed for killing another with magic - but gets probation.
His probation officer is the chief enforcer for the mage council, and it's executioner, and someone who thinks that Harry should have been executed for his first offense.

In short, Harry has some serious things in his back story and is faces almost impossible odds in each book - he often adds to his collection of scars (physical and emotional ones). And the endings of those books are so wonderful because Harry had to go through so much to get there.

Jim Butcher tortures the character sadistically in every novel so Harry can overcome obstacles worth overcoming - and that's what Vonnegut meant by being sadistic.

And sometimes it's hard, very hard, to be sadistic to characters.

Goodgulf

I don't believe in rules, and so will likely break most of them, just to see if I can arrive at a good story anyway. Some, of these, are more goals than rules, which I can subscribe to (#1 and #7).