My immediate counter is I don't think pantsers are pure fly by the seat of their pants. I mean, I relate it to cooking. A pantser is someone who knows he is hungry but doesn't know what he wants to eat. That doesn't mean he starts frying up chicken, and cooking noodles and hopes they will both be useful in the end. I see a plotter as more the person that knows he wants a sandwich before he even gets to the kitchen. The pantser just isn't sure yet. An example. I was writing a book. I knew tha the first pinch point needed the MC home. But I didn't know how she was getting home until I got that chapter. I think that is a pantser moment. Originally, I was like, simple, phone call. DONE, but when I sat writing, I decided to go a different route and created a new character to help with that route. This is a character that did not exist when that outline began but became an intrigal part to it the moment she existed. I don't think plotters like that. But then again, no one is 100% pantser or plotter. I mean, imagine a 100% plotter cooking. "The water will take 2 minutes and 13 seconds to boil at which point it will take me 13 second to apply the butter" lol. It doesn't happen. I guess you could argue that it can, sounds weird though. The reverse can happen too, but heck. Could you imagine, no direction cooking? Just random ingrediants and to see if it works? Eek! The idea of naming these is not that they are sides of a fence that you are either in or not. It is how much do you use each of these and which is more natural to you. Does that make sense?
I know. I wasn't disagreeing with you. My point was that this isn't a panster issue, and it IS possible to write a properly structured novel without deliberately planning the different... points, or whatever you call them.
I didn't read the entire thread. I just responded to the opening topic. Also, in either case. I think it is a fair position, if it is what bayview is saying. It is like introvert and extrovert. No one is purely 100% one. People are partially both.
You can pants a short story without going back and editing. Never tried it with a novel-length work. May be some people who could so it. Not me.
Sure you can, no point even reading it back to yourself. Though composing Elf Chronicles to Jupiter @ 200 000 words, one must first prepare, scrawl under duvet, lip curled, manic, notebook crammed 'and then, and then.' Then cats cradle, crack go the fingers, type 'chapter one' at your desk site And then, more disappointment, truly ugly prose, a meal for one, monsieur, forever.
I doubt that authors from the past, who wrote stories we still read today, had this to-do list in front of them before they began to write. It's perfectly possible to write good stories without it. 'Pivot points' come naturally to good storytellers. Good storytellers are probably people who read. A lot. They get a feel for how a story ebbs and flows.
She. And I don't think it's so much "what I am" as "what I do"... but, yeah, I don't look for any of those elements when I'm writing OR editing. I've honestly not heard of most of them. And I think you KNOW these elements aren't universally used/considered/regarded-as-important, or you wouldn't have bothered defining them in your first post. So really, the particular structure you're clinging to isn't the point, because you know that lots of people, pantsers and plotters alike, write without reference to that list of elements. And you don't really seem to be asking a question, either, not really, since you're not believing/trying to understand my answer. What you seem to be doing in this thread is saying "there is only one way to write (if one intends to make a living from writing) and it is MY way". I just did my taxes for last year. Depending on how one defines "a living", I've been making a living for a couple years now, writing part-time. I do it by telling a story that feels right, not by following a theory. If the theory works for you, go for it. But it simply isn't the only way.
I'm a gardener. You'd be surprised how much pantsing goes on! You can follow the rule book to a T, and it just doesn't work sometimes. You can try something totally off the wall and it does. There's that old gardener's green thumb notion. Green thumbers go by instinct, not rules. Experience helps, but sometimes beginners have great luck at it. Life doesn't play by rules most of the time.
Mea culpa I don't think they are universally known. That's not the same as universally used. As I said, some authors may be using them instinctively because they subconsciously learned them from reading a ton of novels with good plot structure. Also, I know the points can be called different things. Some people, for example, call the midpoint the "second plot point" and what I've called the "second plot point" they call "the third plot point." And at this point, I feel like you are trying to impugn my character.
Instead of abusing the man, why not test theory, I have a first draft in progress: Out swimming on a lovely summer's day, when a fisherman's hook[1] got stuck up my nose, wedged right up, between these eyes at high tension[2], then the fisherman reeled his line, towed me towards the shore, I suppose it was where he waited[3]. Not accepting no fisherman's abusive behaviour, I swam other ways. But then - a second fishing hook got me, man caught by twine, hooked between the buttocks and spine, yes. I thought this situation might be the ending of me, again - a man fried up, chips, battered,[6] but then I found a rock, hung, clung, remained on my rock till nightfall, when all of the fishermen went home, and so, after repair work with tweezers, the hand lotion, so did I go home. ..get off the web, Mat, go watch telly.
So you've adapted your stance from the first post, where you said "if you ignore _all_ of it, you don't have a story" and have answered your own question about how pantsers write! Excellent! All done?
Now you're not making sense and, again, you seem to want to get into an argument about _me_ rather than the topic of the thread. That's petty.
What doesn't make sense? And I'm not being petty - I genuinely think you've answered your own question. How do pantsers hit pivot points? Assuming we do (which I can neither confirm nor deny, because I don't pay attention to the elements you're discussing) then we do it instinctively/subconsciously. We ignore your list, and still (possibly) hit your points. So if we're not all done - what is it you still don't understand?
Several pantsers in this thread have said that rather than do it instinctively they do it during the editing process.
Okay. So... that's yet another way that some people write. Some people don't use your points at all, some people apparently use them later (or, possibly, use some OTHER structure later) in the process, some people start with them right up front - all good, right?
Arguing over whether that plot structure has to be used seems rather pointless, since it can be shown empirically that not all authors use it, and not all books employ it. That's not really a pantser v. planner issue, it's more a question of the theory of story and a mistaken belief that one structure is the only structure.
Sorry if I wasn't clear but that's not what I meant to say. I do not go back and try to transpose my writing onto an outside structure, even one that may seem to fit; I just go back, read through and think 'It's taking us too long to get to the next intense part' or 'we need some time to reflect'. Pacing is just something that I know when I see it and when I go back I'm certainly not seeking to make what I have fit anything else. You can totally do it, but you need a pretty steely certainty in yourself as you go. If you're someone who can just write and write with no second guesses about your writing and never runs into problems with ideas or direction then you can get through a novel just fine. However, naturally there will be a lot of editing to do from that kind of writing. That's ok if you're me (and slightly crazy) because I do have the kind of borderline worrying faith in my writing to always be able to write infinite content around a subject until I get it where I want it. But if you're not me and you want your final thing to bare a strong resemblence to the original then yeah you probably want something a bit more planned.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part? Again, different writers have different processes. I don't do a lot of editing, generally - I do SOME, sure, but rarely anything structural. I don't disagree with anyone who DOES pants and then edit a lot, and I really have no idea what proportions of writers follow any specific routine. But there are definitely SOME of us (at least one!) who don't outline AND don't edit intensively.
@BayView I agree. And I wonder whether the search for "one true way" is peculiar to beginning writers or if it pops up in other creative endeavors.