There is an inherent tradeoff involved in the whole planning thing. The more meticulously you plan, the more "locked in" you tend to get to that plan, so that the ideas that occur to you as you write - nuances in your characters that emerge and can affect your story, or new plot ideas that emerge that affect your characters - are more difficult to assimilate into your story. My experience has been that while this kind of meticulous planning may make it easier to complete a story, it can impair the quality of that story. In another recent thread, I described a presentation given by mystery writer Jane Cleland at a writer's conference I attended last year, which advocated a strict outline with subplots introduced at specific mandatory page counts. As I listened to her describe this (she even had a worksheet format for doing so), I felt slightly claustrophobic. Ms. Cleland was followed on the program by Steven James, whose book Story Trumps Structure I have also recommended in another recent thread. The first thing he said upon taking the podium was, "Well, Jane, I know you've had a lot of success with your writing, but I can't understand how anyone could possibly write that way." I immediately felt the air come back into the room, and I saw a lot of folks around me nodding in agreement. I don't recommend embarking on writing without some kind of plan in mind. You need to have some idea of where you're starting, what the major transformations are going to be to your character, and what the final outcome is going to be. You need to have a firm grasp on your setting, on the environment in which your characters are going to face whatever crises you put them in. When I wrote the historical I'm currently pitching, I made sure I wrote out a timeline of what actually happened in the place I was writing about over the full time-frame of the novel (500 years). I then worked backwards in time sketching in the main characters from each time period, both to plan the development of the story and to assure I had no anachronisms. I went so far as to budget certain wordcounts for each chapter. But much of my planning of chapters and wordcounts went out the window as I wrote and later as I revised. One "major character" proved not to be necessary at all. A minor character evolved into someone more meaningful to the story. This was partly due to my emerging experience in writing a multi-generational novel combined with preparing a work for potential commercial publication. My major takeaway from all this was that while planning is necessary, it also needs to be flexible so as not to constrict the writing. In the presentation I mentioned, Steven James was asked if failing to adequately outline could result in "writing oneself into a corner" - a concern I'd often had myself (though I did not ask the question). I found his answer fascinating: "I often write myself into corners, because some of my best writing comes from writing my way out of them." He proceeded to give some examples from some thrillers that he's written. I hope this helps.
Not if you remind yourself that your outline is an option that you're only going with until you come up with a better one
Plan, shplan. I make little notes in a notebook, in a direction at times. But it is mostly just research notes and important factoids related to the story. Also some of the major secondary character names, cause some I have a hard time remembering exactly how I spelled them.
Yup! "Don't outline" and "Don't change the outline" aren't the binary options that a lot of people think they are
I always think about an idea, or a concept, and just keep it in the corner of my mind. I literally start writing just with the concept, and improvise with the story. That's about it
I consider the outline to be the zero draft. Like the 1st draft, it's taking the reader to a place that the writer wants to go. It's a guarantee of at least an initial great ending. If details come along in the 1st draft that create a better story, then the outline is amended ahead of the 1st draft to help guide it there. It's not like it comes down from Mt. Sinai. It's not a decree of what must be done. I suppose like any draft, it's tossed aside once the next draft is wrapped up. It just has to guide the 1st draft in the same way that the 1st draft guides the 2nd. It can't contain all the details. The only draft that can possibly do that is the final draft. For me, skipping the outline would be like skipping the 1st draft and going right to the 2nd. "I always start with the second draft that way all the line editing is taken care of!"
I usually have a general and vague plan of the opening, the end, the important plot points and the important intentions. I want to start this journey with a destination in mind, and it's always good to mark off the landmarks you wish to see before you end it all. Then, as I write more, that plan expands as my intentions become set in cement.
Similarly. But one of my best works yet I started on a whim, then thought "this is pretty great, I've got to take this someplace", then started crafting a story.
