Okay, let's just slow down a bit here. I never said that planning/outlining is wrong, and I really resent the implication that I should listen to outliners because they apparently know better than I do. Planning doesn't work for me (and many others). Not planning doesn't work for you (and many others). That doesn't mean that either group is wrong and should do what the other group does. I've seen these discussions get nasty on other forums and see no reason why it should here. If you have a problem with someone's post, report it. And hopefully we can leave the attitude outside.
I can't see how there's any attitude in what I wrote there. I was actually aiming for a humorous tone. I apologise if it came across that way.
I think its pointless to argue about it. Many 'outliners' that I know, eventually toss the outline. The 'by the seat of their pants' writers that I know, eventually form a structure. I don't see why it matters that one method be labeled superior to the other. In the end, its the author's job to weed out the crap from the backbone of the story. Whichever method allows for the author to accomplish that, is the correct method for him or her. I think word count is over rated. Story is over when the storyis over, not because you hit 'X' amount of words. That's why we have shorts, novellas, novels, and volumes. If you are under a deadline, then word count may be of issue for you, but otherwise this is supposed to be an enjoyable process.
@MVP I would disagree on two counts; first that word count isn't important. 99% of people who start a novel don't finish it and part of the reason for this is they don't set themselves achievable goals and stick to them. If you don't work to wordcount targets, great, but in my opinion it's not good advice to be offering others; it's a road that ends in a canyon filled with unfinished manuscripts. While I agree that it's not everything (axing a hundred pages of shit is a creative act), it's really the only way writers have of measuring progress. And it's that feeling of progress that motivates most writers to finish long projects. Secondly, while I would say that writing can be enjoyable, when you're a pro, its enjoyability becomes a very fluid factor. It's work, and like any other job, you grind at it until the work is done. Of course we do it because it's the career we've chosen for ourselves, but I'm personally not a fan of the romanticised view; nine times out of ten it's anything but 'fun'. But that's not to say it isn't fulfilling. Ask a brain surgeon if he's having fun. Ask him if his job is enjoyable. First thing he or she is likely to say is, "No, it's stressful, anxious, I never get any sleep and people die on my table every month." But it is fulfilling? Yes, yes, yes. Writing, for me, is about meeting deadlines and tearing my hair out in the process. Like any profession, those on the outside look in and say, 'Hey, working in that there chocolate factory looks awesome!' but of course, the workers are all sick of chocolate. They deal with it every day. This is my own experience, having been a professional writer and editor for the last five years. Yours, and anyone else's reading this, may differ. If you're still enjoying it when you have 20,000 words to write and edit in the next 48 hours, then my hat comes off to you.
I spend more time planning a story than I do writing it; it's only because I plan everything out in advance that I can write quickly. For a 185,000 word story I had a 36,000 word outline. I'd had the plot/characters in mind for months before I even began planning it on paper. As a result the first draft is relatively coherent, consistent and of a much better standard than it would have been if I had just jumped in and started writing without direction.
Spontaneity is pretty essential to creativity, I feel. However a story needs direction too. So you're kind of screwed either way, I feel.
My objective wasn't to be helpful. I was merely telling the truth (or so I thought). It's not my fault creativity and organisation work in conflict with each other. You have the universe to blame for that, geez.
They don't. They absolutely positively don't. Ask yourself if the act of creating a complete character, the places they inhabit, their outer conflicts, their goals, the metaphors of their inner conflicts, ask yourself if that's more or less creative if it's prepared in advance. It's exactly the same. Are Monet, or Renoir less creative because they pencilled in a rough outline before splurging indelible paint all over the canvas? No, they were just being sensible. Paint's expensive and so is a professional writer's time. Outlines change as you go along; they reform as needed, for character and story. Some think that if you outline, you're on this unswerving course. Not true. All that happens is that when the course does change, it's less likely you'll have to throw away a hundred pages. We do them because it gives us a road map. You don't set off for work in the morning and just head in any random direction you please, you plan a route. Does that make the surprising things that may happen along the way any less surprising? Nope, but we'll be in a far better state of preparedness to deal with it.
You can't say that sentence, "99%...them", in your paragraph without cited sources. I didn't tell others not to use word count, I said I felt it was over rated, and a story is done when the story is done. You can't know how many words are going to make up your WIP in fiction, even if you are writing for a specific genre. If its too long, it just becomes book 2, 3 and so on. The OP asked if we plan our WIP from start to finish, not how word count is the know all end all. The analogy of the surgeon makes no sense. And for the journalism tangent, I guess I just don't care.
In saying that spontaneity is essential to creativity (maybe to some people but not to everyone, which makes it a matter of preference and not a universal truth) and the statement that the OP is "screwed either way", since we just found out that planning works fine to some people and not planning works for others, so how could the OP be that? Plus, I was not trying to be helpful to alyosha. I've replied to the OP earlier in the thread.
I think we all need to drop some assumptions that seem to keep appearing. Pantsing doesn't have to mean meandering for page after page and then editing the crap out of the book at the end. It can, as it does in my case, mean that each step taken determines the next option. That means that there aren't huge plot holes because I'm working off what has already occurred in the story, not randomly making things up as I go along. And working with an outline does not mean that every tiny step is pre-ordained by the writer. It's an outline - not necessarily a step-by-step set of set-in-stone instructions. Why can't people just say how they work and why it works for them without judging how others do it? Especially since so many seem to have little idea how the 'other method' actually works.
I work by creating a character, a setting, and a situation that requires the character to act. That's pretty much it. Then I start writing a first draft. I do a lot of editing and rewriting in my first draft, because I like my prose to read well. When I'm done with the first draft, I treat it as my outline, my "plan", if you will. Huge parts of it may have to go, but what remains is more or less the final text. I'll probably have to add new material to complete the work, but that's the way it goes for me. I read an interview with a famous writer once - I can't remember who, but he was famous - and he said "Your first draft is for finding out what your book is about." That makes sense to me. Writing, for me and for many others, is an exploration of ourselves. We don't know what we'll find when we start out. We see what we end up with after our first drafts, and we find our gold there. In our second drafts, we delete what isn't the gold and polish what is. Then we're done.
Well, for anything longer than a short story, there is some planning involved. Has to be. I like brainstorming, jotting down ideas... but I don't spent ages writing outlines or useless character profiles. I'd rather start writing.
I think some of these different ways of working might simply be down to genre, specifically the amount of stuff one has happening in one's own book in that genre. I write sci-fi. Which means that, for me, I have to invent new technologies, make them work in the story, with setting, action and character. But more than that, the book I'm working on right now has six viewpoint characters, their individual stories separate, then crossing, then becoming one glorious whole. That takes planning, not least of all because the five protags who die along the way end up living inside the head of the one that survives. One protag, one plot line, pantsing might be fine for my story. But for me, it's far too complex to wing it. I tried that and it didn't work for me; there was just too much complexity. Now, I'm a planner and can't go back. I wouldn't want to, it was hell. I'd find myself working out how technologies could be applied more effectively or how a different character background could add a gut-punch to a particular moment and I'd have to go back and rewrite a ton of previous chapters to get the effect I knew I needed. Subjective, but that's all we have, right?
If I know who and what starts the fireworks, I'm ready to go. So I guess my planning involves thinking of a character and what might be fun to subject him to. Or vice versa ... Then, as you say, I make notes as I think of things, some of which I might actually use at some point.
I was thinking sci-fi or fantasy would be something that would need a lot of planning - at least, based on what I've read about it - world-building and all that. Quite a bit different from working in the 'real world'. Different POV characters can still work pantsing, but I definitely wouldn't want to try and keep track of the technologies or societies etc. Probably why I enjoy reading it but would never dream of trying to write it (well, I did once and gave it up ).
shadowwalker: completely agree on letting everyone do what's right for them. this topic ALWAYS turns into a debate on which method is "right" or "wrong"...
TRue, true, but I spend far too long planning. I get so into everything, designing the world, the characters, the back stories, the culture, everything. I love that part. The trick will be somehow doing that simultaneously with writing the story itself!
Hi, i have my story planned out, well short stories actually, and once they combine into 1, everything becomes clear, the only problem is dat my friend tells me combining short stories into 1 is really hard, so does anyone know how 2 plan dis in a way the reader won't be able 2 get confused, please?
Count me in, I do it from the concept, how the story flow and what would be the perfect way to end it also the perfect cover design that will fit in. If I didn’t go on planning stage then expect it’ll be a mess.
Having a plan should in no way detract from the story. I mean, if you feel you have to force your characters to go along with it, wouldn't that be a sign of poor planning? A story inappropriate for the character? IMO proper planning should eliminate discrepancies before you put them to page. And if you realize the idea doesn't have much merit, scrap the outline, not a half written book. As far as I know, Star Wars was written more or less as an exercise in creating the heroes journey, substitute names with roles (hero, mentor...) and there you go, a plan with huge success... Maybe not quite that simple, but examining the story before it's actually written makes a lot of sense to me. It is also a lot more flexible that way. Creating alternate endings, swapping scenes, as easy as rearranging some note cards... Now if your writing is all about the beauty in the words, and the story is only the excuse to write them down, then by all means, just go and 'paint'...
