Teach me how to Vonnie

So, as we know, Vonnie has his eight writing rules. I agree with some, and I disagree with some. If I were writing a novel and someone wanted to "teach me how to Vonnie" and they reccommended that I use Vonnie's rules of writing, I would follow most of them. In this post, I will also speak of some authors who do and don't know how to Vonnie. I dislike Vonnie's writing style, but his rules do offer some good ideas.

Note: For those who don't know, "Teach me how to Vonnie" is a play on a song and dance move called "Teach me how to Douggie". When I say for example, "Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie", I mean that Steinbeck knew how to follow Vonnie's rule.

1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
I'll give Vonnie this one. I absolutely DETEST boring books where nothing happens. Thomas Hardy, the writer of Mayor of Casterbridge, and William Shakespeare, the writer of a whole slew of awful works, are notable wasters of my time. I wanna write a story where stuff HAPPENS, and where much of that stuff is INTERESTING or entertaining, where I don't spend pages and pages describing the most insignificant things like Hardy does, or where I don't spend pages and pages detailing things like moronic characters prancing around in the bush naked like Shakespeare does. We're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes, even when it comes to stories. Mayor of Casterbridge, Much Ado about Nothing, and Midsummer Night Dream all had awful and slow storylines. I want to create something with a heck of a lot more cowbell. And I definitely respect that books have to have slower or boring parts, but when the WHOLE book is slow and boring, that's not cool. If Vonnie were here today, I betcha he would agree with me. In Slaughterhouse-5, HE knew how to make stuff happen!
Rule #1: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Shakespeare, Hardy, Orwell, Chandler

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, could have definitely benefited from this rule, because all of his characters sucked in my opinion. It's always nice to have a relatable character that you can feel for and that you can hope for. If I were to write a novel or a short story, I would definitely use some of these root-able characters. As a reader, I have encountered characters who go through similar experiences that I do and who have similar ideas as I do. I also can appreciate and follow this rule because characters are the only reason why I read books; I didn't know books could have themes or ideas until the very end of grade 9, and even so, I can never see them, understand them, or agree with them, and I read too slowly and infrequently to understand any plots, so I GOTTA make some fun characters that deserve to be rooted for! As for Vonnie, I guess Billy was a root-able character for the times in the book where he looked just so pathetic, like his funny boots and his ripped coat and his 'muff'.
Rule #2: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Hardy, Chandler

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
Every character SHOULD want something. Nuff said, amigos. It makes dem characters more real if they want something.
Rule #3: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Steinbeck, Shakespeare
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Chandler, Hardy

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.
Nope, nope, and nope. I'm not jiggy with this one. What about setting and other little sentences to make the book more realistic? Vonnie himself breaks this rule nicely in Slaughterhouse-5. I clearly remember a few sentences at the end of a paragraph about a bottle of pop on the windowsill, and he spend two or three sentences describing it. Not champagne who was dead (so it goes) but a bottle of pop who did nothing for character or action. It was a nice homey setting sentence. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley must have thought like I did here. Huxley didn't know how to Vonnie. There are other ways to make a fun story and show your style than just making every single thing totally related to character and action. Example, I would argue that Vonnie's catchy little "So it goes" does not forward either action or character.
Rule#4: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Chandler, Lee
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Vonnie, Hardy, Vonnie

5. Start as close to the end as possible.
Naw. I always like to know lots of character backstory, and I always like to watch plot(s) unfold slowly and carefully. I like plots and characters that make you wonder, and I think you need a nice long story to do this. (By long, I mean it has enough meat and potatoes in it, and is lengthy enough to enjoy carefully placed twists, deviations, etc). This is a difficult idea for me to explain, my apologies. As for good ol' Vonnie, he started so close to the end that he actually started AT the end itself! It's good to see he knows how to Vonnie and he knows how to follow his own rule.
RULE #5: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Orwell, Hardy

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 like this one, I really do. As a kinda-writer, it's definitely fun to do terrible things to characters, especially those you don't like. Sadism makes the characters come alive; doing terrible things to them allows them to change, and characters who change are potentially the funnest characters! Huxley was outright abusive to his characters, like John's sticky predicament, Bernard's unpopularity and birth defects, the DHC's secret exposed, Lenina getting turned down violently by John, Linda living on the Reserve...the list goes on and on. Orwell was quite a sadist too, with all the torture Winston endured at the end of the book, and all the health problems and stupid rules Winston had to put up with. Steinbeck made George make a very difficult decision...actually, one could say George had an extremely difficult life in general. And look at Lenny, being mentally challenged and always getting into all sorts of trouble! Now Vonnie? His scenes with crazy Lazarro were DEFINITELY showing his usage of this rule. Also, Billy has had his fair share of hard luck too, with being in a long, bloody, dirty war, and being in a plane crash, and all the time spent in the hospitals, and his conversations with Lazarro and the Professor...that poor guy.
Rule #6: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Orwell, Steinbeck, Hardy, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee

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.
My probably incorrect interpretation of this rule is that an author should know that the whole world isn't going to love their book, and many will hate it and scrutinize it and maybe even try to ban it. It is difficult to judge authors' following of this rule, but my knowledge of some of the authors we study have given me a decent understanding of who knows how to Vonnie for this one. My thoughts? I totally agree. If I were to write a book, I know it would be only for my own amusement, to put a creative spin on my thoughts, fears, ideas, hopes, experiences, and dreams. The one person I would aim to please would be Jay Pencaps. If some other bizarre soul would happen to like my book, then hey, bonus!
RULE #7: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: ???

8a. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. 
As a SUPER literal/linear thinking reader, I NEED as much info as possible ASAP. I sometimes get lost when authors do this...but I usually get hopelessly lost when they don't. Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie here; in Mice and Men, he really told it like it was. Huxley actually knows how to Vonnie with this rule too, because he spent the first few chapters telling his story in such a way that taught the reader all about the world that the characters are living in. Orwell didn't know how to Vonnie with this rule, especially during the middle/end of the novel. I had no idea what was going on at almost any given time. Shakespeare's a big offender of this rule too. The language he uses is just beyond repulsive, and even aside from the stuffy language, I also have absolutely no idea what's going on at any given time, even when normal-talking people explain things to me. Hardy didn't follow this rule either. I didn't know that books could get sooooo boring, drawn out (and bad in general) until I read Mayor of Casterbridge. Chandler's another big offender, but I'll cut him some slack because The Big Sleep was a mystery novel. Now let's talk about Vonnie. I think he gave his reader TOO much information too soon. Like, starting with the end of the book and all that :(. He follows the rule, but not well.
RULE #8A: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Shakespeare, Chandler, Hardy

8b. To heck with suspense.
Nooooooo! I got a fevah, and the only prescription is more suspense! It's fun when books leave you waiting and wondering, it forces you to keep reading past your bedtime :P! Books with suspense make your heart beat faster when you read them because they're so interesting. Books without that suspense like Slaughterhouse-5, Mayor of Casterbridge, Midsummer Night Dream, and Much Ado About Nothing, and books with poorly executed suspense like Big Sleep and Brave New World didn't give me that quickened heartrate, they didn't make me wanna keep reading. When books are 100% predictable, they get boring. Why bother reading a book if you always know exactly what's going to happen next? Vonnie clearly doesn't believe in suspense, as demonstrated with his reference to Edgar Derby's death about a hundred times in the book, even at the very beginning.
RULE #8B: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Chandler, Hardy, Shakespeare, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee

8c. 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.
This is a toughie. I like suspense and unpredictability, but when it comes down to those crucial last few pages and the action is over, I can maybe do without those last few pages. And as soon as I typed that out, red sirens went off in my mind as I immediately thought of Huxley and Orwell. If you even removed the last paragraph of either 1984 or Brave New World, you'd be screwed. The last few pages of Slaughterhouse-5 were nothing new. Vonnie, I believe, followed this rule well because his story kinda never terminates. If you took the last few pages out of that infernal Mayor of Casterbridge, you'd be okay. And Shakespeare? Heh, the characters just all get married at the end anyways, anyone couldda told you that! The end of Mockingbird comes to mind for this one, ahh, the ending is just sooo cute, but I think one could do without it if talking about the overall story.
RULE #8C: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Hardy, Shakespeare, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Huxley