"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 recently saw this quote in Iain's thread. It's a quote I've seen and heard a lot of. But I still don't know what the hell it means. Can anyone help expound on it? My confusion is that I don't know to what degrees these rules should be taken into account, and what contexts make them appropriate, or even favorable, to break. Certainly these aren't rigid rules of short story writing?
My comment on that quote would be, "No." Followed by, "Really no." I can totally believe that Kurt Vonnegut, whose quote it is, somehow successfully used it to guide his writing. But for me? Nooooo. And, no, these are absolutely not rigid rules of short story writing. I am not a short story writer, and I don't care, I still declare that they are not.
I think there's something to be said for not manufacturing tension (and I know how that sounds, given that fiction is all manufactured, but bear with me). For example, you shouldn't fail to mention a critical aspect of your world just for cheap tension that your plot hinges on - the human villain stabs the alien protag in the chest to kill them in the climax, but surprise! These aliens don't keep their vital organs in their chests, so it's fine. The tension wouldn't have been there if you'd just mentioned a basic worldbuilding fact. Or, an easier one - contrived reasons to keep characters from sharing knowledge / just talking about something that would be easily solvable. That's the use I'd extract from this, anyway. Quite likely it's not what was intended. Because personally, I think suspense is a vital part of fiction, and knowing how it's going to end sucks most of the enjoyment out of a thing for me, and front-loading all of the information just sounds objectively incorrect. Opinions! But you should get the framework you're dealing with into the reader's head asap, I think. Like, I write sci-fi, mostly, and fantasy to varying degrees, so I do want to be sure that my reader understands what kinds of worlds they're getting into pretty quickly so I can get on with playing in that world. That doesn't mean there's not gonna be suspense or that they can call all of my shots before I make'em. If roaches eat the end of the book, you buy another book, dammit. And do something about this roaches, maybe. I don't know, it's been my feeling that you always have to take writing advice with a grain of salt, especially when it comes in terms of absolutes. Never do this, always do that - eh. I agree that there are no real rigid rules to storytelling.
Seems to me that if you give all the info right away, where's the suspense, plot development, character arcs, etc.? Why should a reader keep reading after that kind of data dump? Follow your instincts!
Well that was much simpler than I anticipated. I suppose I was struggling with the fact that Kurt Vonnegut said it, yet the advice seemed...off. Like it was advocating for info-dumping and redundant endings. Could help explain why my short storying hasn't been as good as I want it to be. I've been trying to follow this advice! Anyway, thank you all for the responses and insight. Clearly my salt grains have not been big enough.
To me that sounds like: "Info dump with twenty thousand words then write a two thousand word story." I would burn a book that did that.
Possibly what he meant (exaggeration for the sake of humour is sometimes a writerly thing) is he thinks a writer should orient readers at the start of a story, so they don't wonder what the heck is going on? Presumably the suspense should come from wondering what happens next, not trying to figure out what is going on now. If that's what he meant, I endorse it. Of course I'm not in favour of dull info-dumps. However, information doesn't have to be presented in a dull way. Work on making it lively AND memorable, and you'll start your story off on a strong footing. I think there is a tendency these days to want to dive right into the middle of a story, in the belief that it's more 'exciting.' It's only exciting if the reader knows what's going on and cares what's going on. That takes a bit of work to set up.
I've heard the advice a lot that you should start as close to the end of the story as possible, which I suppose counts as the middle. That's from Vonnegut too, though I've heard it more from others. In medias res, is commonly how I hear it expressed. The folks on Writing Excuses seem particularly fond of it. It's something I've applied for a while, thinking it the best way to start a story in general. I agree about it taking work to set up a story so that the reader cares from the get-go. I'm honestly still not sure how to do that beyond creating intrigue. Intrigue as opposed to genuine concern or investment, that is. I feel like, in my experience, care can only come after intrigue. But I may be way off. Any thoughts on how to orient a reader without info-dumping, while creating a story worth caring about? It's a big question, I know. I've heard the advice that a story needs to start in a large frame of context, then zoom in on the specifics, as opposed to movies which can get away with an opening scene starting on something small and zooming out to reveal the world.
I'm wondering too how much of the quote is Vonnegut's trademark sardonic sense of humor. He, uh, wasn't the most amicable guy to ever give an interview. But then again his books didn't really follow what we would now call a traditional narrative. He didn't use many plot twists, reveals, cliffhangers, misdirection, or "I wonder what's going to happen next things." So maybe he really did have an issue with the idea of suspense. I like the first part of the quote, which is usually how I see it quoted: This part to me says its good to give enough information quickly so the rest of the story can do its thing without needing constant explanation. The second part though: is pretty lame, which is probably why most people only quote the first part. Sounds a bit like Vonnegut being a dick, but who knows?
As far as orienting the reader goes, I'd say the only things that are important are who the POV character is and where the scene is currently taking place. Honestly, I can't think of anything else that's 100% necessary. Maybe I'm just an extreme minimalist regarding description and explanation. Maybe I have too much trust in the author. But I don't care if I don't know what's going on. The reason I don't care is because I assume I'm not supposed to know. I also assume that if I keep reading, it'll make sense. Not everything needs to be explained. Not everything needs concrete answers or reasons. Some things just are. A lot of things can be inferred. As long as the pieces are there, the text doesn't have to do the work of putting them together for me. That's half the fun of reading a story, for me anyway.
I suspect that had this quote come from a forum member, they'd have been laughed off the board by now. It seems like ridiculous advice if you ask me, and however it's suggested we interpret his philosophy, "Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves [...]" is pretty hard to misinterpret. I'd have to delve deeper into this because I find it hard to believe an author as established as he would give advice like this.
I could see the quote as being his reaction to more "modern" genre stories that he found to be gimmicky. Or stories that threatened him by somehow taking away from his own work. He was a legendary curmudgeon. He had a connection to my home state (summer home in Newport, I think) and I've spoken to a few people who knew him a little bit. They all said the same thing: grumpy, old, gaping asshole. That might have nothing to do with anything, but I've always taken everything he said with a grain of salt. Meaning that it wasn't necessarily his intention to inform and enlighten the people around him. But really I have no clue.
I find the best (WAY the best) way to kill all the birds with one stone is to filter ALL the information you're giving out at the start through the eyes of your POV character. How does what is happening (or has happened in the past) impact on this character? Make it personal, even if it's very political. Think back to the start of the book (NOT the movie) Lord of the Rings. It started with preparations for a birthday party. A 111th birthday party. Now we all understand birthday parties so that was an excellent place to begin. And we quickly find out what Bilbo thinks about all the preparations, his neighbours and relations, etc. And before we know it, we're sucked into The Shire and getting to know these guys quite intimately. We meet nephew Frodo, and then the kindly old Wizard Gandalf appears (again, if we've already read The Hobbit.) And there are fireworks, and a party.... All the 'lore' which Tolkien constructed for Middle Earth didn't appear in the story at all till much further along. Not even just after the party, when Bilbo leaves ...and Frodo discovers he's gone. Even then, we don't learn much. Gandalf just tells Frodo to keep the ring safe and secret and not to use it ...and then Gandalf heads off on an apparently urgent journey. It's not till he returns, some time later, that he finally tells Frodo the story of the Ring, and ties it into the wider world. And yet, at no time during that story's start, did most of us long to be anywhere else, doing anything else. And by the time all the worldbuilding 'lore' hit us, we were ready for it. And the narrator didn't dump it on us either. Gandalf told the story in a most suspenseful manner. That, to me, is expert info-dumping. By the time that part was over, and Frodo and Sam were told they would need to be ready to leave the Shire when Gandalf returned for them again, I don't think anybody wanted to quit.
I have a lot of information in my current WIP draft that I'm pretty sure I make too explicit too quickly. I have a scene at the end of Act 2 where it's made explicit that my narrator's and main character's best friend (beyond each other) is America's most wanted serial killer, and I think that scene would work really well as the first time that it's made explicit. But as it stands, the first time it's made explicit is in chapter 3. I think I'm going to cut that part so the scene right before Act 3 can be the big reveal instead.
There's a little truth to it, but saying 'give them everything' is so sweeping. I hate the empty stage. It makes me think of those artsy plays where there's only one actor and the only prop is a chair. You might as well be listening to the radio. So I try to start with setting, just a sketch so that the MC exists in a place and time that are real. That's the when/where. You don't want elements popping up out of trapdoors into the setting (well, not always), so you lead into them a little so that they feel like they live there. That's the who/what, and it's where I'd quit listening to this 'tell them everything' advice. The resolutions are nice to state outright, but not always. Funnily, like this advice says, the reader should be able finish them. This is the why/how. Sometimes you give the reader a lot of one and not much of the other. Other times you spell both out. Depends . . . like everything in writing. So I'd do something like this: When/Where (Setting) Immediately Who/What (Character) As MC perceives it Why/How (Plot) Eventually . . . maybe I really consider Setting to be less important than Character/Plot, but it's almost as if you need to get it out of the way, or at least underway, so that you can get to important stuff. And then which really comes next, Plot or Character? Depends on the genre, and in the end, the scene has more to say about it than the story. I've heard it said that if your setting and characters are believable, the reader will accept any plot. So I think you need to detail the setting and characters, but sometimes motivations are hiding between the words. I'm not talking about 'the lady or the tiger?' or 'omg! the mc was really a dog' and other such contrivances, but rather the subtext and unstated desires. If the reader can feel them on their own, then the story isn't just trapped on paper.
Well that changes things a little. I hadn't picked up on the fact he was referring to short story writing.
I don't think these are quite the same thing. "Start as close to the end as possible" is maybe the one piece of famous general writing advice that I have really taken to heart (probably because for me, specifically, as someone who tends to waffle and isn't good at figuring out where to start, it was quite valuable), but I know I don't apply them the same way. To me, "as close to the end as possible" means just before or at the inciting incident, but not necessarily mid-scene. In medias res is mid-scene, in the middle of things, but not necessarily in the middle of the scene as close to the end as possible. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but it seems like a worthwhile distinction.
Not pedantic at all. It's an incredibly important distinction that I think a lot of newer writers miss. There's a difference between starting with world-building and starting with scene-setting.
How does it change things? I did mention short stories in the OP. Nah, not pedantic. It is a good distinction that I didn't grasp before you explained it, so thank you for that.
It changes things for the reason I stated, namely that I hadn't picked up on the fact. I didn't say it was never mentioned. And just to be perfectly fair you didn't strictly state the quote referred to short story writing.
I think that Kurt was referring to this: if it is important to the story that a character is of Asian descent, the reader shouldn't have to wait until paragraph 40 to find that out. And yes, he was referring to short stories and not novels, because compression is an important factor. As for knowing how the story turns out, that's part of the fun, isn't it? One of the things I like about some of the Coen brothers' movies is how a plot often twists in an unexpected way, but that way turns out to be almost inevitable when you see the whole picture. In another genre, Leo Kottke's guitar work does much the same thing: there's a foundation, and then he throws something in and you're wondering "Where in hell did that come from?" and then you see how it fits, and then he throws in something else ... If you have a chance to see him in concert, do so. He's a master storyteller, and his stories have much the same element. While trying to follow the plot of them, I often found myself wondering what he'd been smoking. But then something comes along that ties everything up nicely.
