Is it essential to spell out “what the story’s about”, before it can be written?

So which would you say is the more important skill to practice, being able to qualify those moments when they come so that you can recreate them, or being able find them out?

 

If I'm understanding your question, I put most value on artists being able to find out about their inspirations rather than artists learning how to reproduce inspirations. Not to zen out on everybody, but knowing yourself is always a positive step towards having a clearer coherent expression of that self (when writing substantial material is often about self expression).

When something works it works. When something doesn't work, people are tripping over each other to offer up advice on why not. If your writing is working to your satisfaction, you are succeeding. But if you writing isn't working it's good to have as many tools as possible to compensate for the fallout, with this being one tool among many. If HorusEye sets out to write a novel he is satisfied with, and does so, you wouldn't catch me trying to tell him he did anything "wrong" no matter how he went about it. If HorusEye sets out to write a novel that gives people a sunnier outlook on life, and does so, you wouldn't catch me trying to tell him he did anything "wrong" no matter how he went about it. If HorusEye sets out to write a novel that publishers want to push and readers want to buy, and does so... And on and on. Unfortunately most writers don't manage all those things without some hiccups along the way. I tell people what I've typed here in anticipation of those momentary dips n' downfalls, so I am not in any way arrogant enough to tell someone who is succeeding that they are going about it incorrectly. I'm just being cautious.

Although I sincerely doubt writers can achieve any of the aforementioned goals without wanting "to do something with their scenes and their greater work as a whole", because any success story tends to "have some degree of artistic and creative competence to it once the shock and awe of creation wears off."

 

ManhattanMss:

I tried to be careful with my wording because I knew to expect a reply like yours[So, shall I take that to mean that you wanted to avoid any discussion or debate on the issue?]. Here was what I specifically said a writer should be expected to do when writing a book: ...every writer should want to do something with their scenes and their greater work as a whole....The process should always have some degree of artistic and creative competence to it once the shock and awe of creation wears off. [This presumes that there is something like a "shock of creation." I don't even know what that would be like, personally, although I don't doubt it applies to your own experience and to your conviction about how you create something and leads to your assumption that everyone else's process is similar.]The reason I only went that far is because yes, different writers require different degrees of control or immersion in their work. Some writers plan out chapters, some plan out scenes, some even plan out pages. Some writers merely go into their story wanting to explore a theme. Some writers go into their story wanting to explore a life situation, or maybe even a particular personality[And some writers involve themselves in the process of writing because the process itself is the reason they write.]. They all fit with my expectation of artists. [That's fine for you to be satisfied with your "expectation of artists." But, aside from "expecting" the artist to be speaking to me through his work, I don't have any expectations of "artists" at all. In fact, it's the artists who are able to surprise me with outcomes that are uniquely novel, who produce work I find especially stunning and meaningful.]

I encourage myself and others to have a goal that they can pursue and also objectively study. Now, it's fun and modern to admit that all art is subjective, but that's misleadingly true[What does it mean to be "misleadingly true"?]. Artists don't enter their fields assuming that whatever is whatever and so doing whatever they care will give them equal chance[I don't know anyone I'd consider an artist who expects to have an "equal" chance. Most artists I know fully understand that the artistic playing field is anything but "equal."]. Artists have more than just hope to decide whether or not their works will affect people. If we had nothing to objectively grade, expect, or study, art wouldn't be a field, it would be a faith[And perhaps, for some, it is exactly a faith, where for others it may be purely a professional "field." I suspect for the ones I'd think of as best, it's a serendipitous combination. I note there are many "professional" writers who aren't very good and many phenomenal artists who aren't household names, nor do they care that they're not. And speaking of "faith," I also note that many men of faith are professional ministers and that there are some men of faith who are not professionals but whose faith is more stunning than others who are. I don't see any reason to believe that either is a prerequisite for the other.]. By that logic [That may be true, but that isn't my logic, nor is it logic that I believe drives most great fiction writers I've read.]there are some expectations we ought to have of fellow writers. That exceptions to the rule claim to write successfully without any goal shouldn't be encouraged as legitimate practices any more than lottos should be encouraged as legitimate ways of earning a living[Don't be silly. A goal is arguably essential if your objective as a writer is to make money (even secondarily, in which case it's a secondary goal). But there are plenty of writers whose primary objective is to give voice to fictional stories that reflect something important to them, and some of those writers make money doing so.]. In the same way that musicians can be objective about instrumental skills in spite of the fact that some audiences might like listening to poorly tweaked, strained guitar strings- writers have a few nearly-unequivocal standards to turn to.
Having an expectation of your work is one of them.[That's simply not true. Does every poet have an expectation of his poetry? Aside from being meaningful to himself and perhaps holding out some hope that someone who reads it or hears it will be affected by the sentiment that drove him to write it, in the first place?]

And I think you both^ probably agree with me. "Having an expectation of your work" isn't necessarily having stacks of blueprints or rigorous preliminary work. [I have nothing against having an expectation of your work. But having an expectation of your work could be as personal as simply hoping to gain something from the process itself.]

HorusEye:

I have before experienced creativity materialize out of thin air. I agree with you in the sense that I believe a lot substantial, meaningful writing is self-exploration. It's almost meditative, and you're going to channel areas of you that aren't conscious of themselves. [When I think of creativity, I don't think of either self-exploration or a meditative state, though another writer very well might. My own creativity arises out of the process itself. So, when I hear other writers--great ones and lesser ones--talk about that experience, I know that what they speak of is valid.]
But they don't come out of thin air[You just stated that you "have before experienced creativity ... out of thin air.], and they can be identified, qualified. Doing so helps people be prolific, which is why I try to encourage others to try it out[I've never thought of "prolific" as having anything at all to do with determining the greatness of art. I think being prolific is merely a biproduct of how much time an artist can afford to immerse him(her)self in the process.]. It's been my experience that writers get in trouble when they start slowing down and losing focus["Planning" and having "expectations" may be helpful to you and to other writers, as well. But that has nothing at all to do with whether writing unfolds from within oneself or whether, instead, the writer must be "objective" or "cold and calculating," as you've described.], and often this happens because "inspiration" doesn't come. Yet inspiration is always there. It's not a swooping bird. Your only say in the matter is whether you're comfortable allowing it to appear on the whims of your undetermined subconscious, or whether you want to find it out and qualify it so you can utilize it on your terms [I think it's either presumptuous or naive to imagine that all writers of note discover and use inspiration in the manner in which it seems to work for you. I have no doubt you understand your own process, but your understanding of your own process does not mean you understand mine, nor that of every great writer. And my opinion is you'd be selling art very short if you disallow the potential to use various means to approach and deliver it.]. But I might be going ot..?

 

You don't actually seem to be refuting me. I think you've pegged the wrong idea and mostly gone about correcting what isn't there to correct. If the process of writing is someone's only clear, coherent inspiration, they still have a clear, coherent inspiration. I insisted that people needed a goal for themselves. You responded, in essence, "But what if a writer's only goal is some goal?" In defense of my critique that art isn't wholly subjective, I pointed out that not everyone has an equal chance at success, which they would if the entirety of art was subjective. You replied, "I don't know anyone I'd consider an artist who expects to have an "equal" chance. Most artists I know fully understand that the artistic playing field is anything but "equal."
These repetitions make up the majority of your reply. I doubt we disagree as much as you think we do.

I'm encouraging people to suss out a reason for themselves because once a reason is discovered there arises an area of study they can turn to if they ever need the help. As I've said above, identifying your intentions is important not only for the clearness of your work, but also so that you have an idea of how to pick yourself up if you ever fall off the proverbial horse with writer's block or other problems.

One of my biggest inspirations in writing, for example, is the process of it all (that should give you an idea of how mistakenly disagreeable your replies seem). It took me awhile to discover the process was what excited me, but once I did I had this handy cure for most phases of writer's block. All I needed to do was talk to another artistic person about their process, be they painter, director, or writer... All I needed to do was go to a website like this one and browse the creativity on display... Within moments I was energized, ready to go. I've seen similar breakthroughs from other writers and one painter, so I'm hopeful that most people could use self-awareness in an improving way. This is why I'm suggesting that writers can become more prolific by trying to be self-aware of their writing. If you begin a project on intuition and that intuition fails, you're in trouble. But if you begin a project with a goal, even one as vague as I want to write a period piece, then you know what it is about your project that excites you, and can then retreat to that idea in times of trouble.

You lose nothing from studying your own artistic process. I encourage any writer to do this if they aren't succeeding at the level they want to. I'd further "challenge" anyone to find a successful or acclaimed or satisfied writer who has no genuine idea of his process, and just happened onto it by the stumbling graces of the Arbitrary. I firmly believe that writers who have no goal or intention for their work are fluff hobbyists. The unaimed arrow never misses, but that's another way of saying people shouldn't have goals for themselves- clearly not the advice most people follow, because it's absurd. We live our lives with certain goals to steady us. If we want to become professional writers we don't sit down and wait for it to happen by the luck of the universe. Instead we set about objectives and goals and figure out how to make it happen. Why should writing itself be different? If you want a scary story, set about objectives and goals and figure out how to incite fear.

I doubt anyone would disagree with you.
As I've said, if something succeeds it succeeds.

 

I think the beauty of this kind of thing is that there is no hard and fast rule, and you can organise things the way you want to, so long as its something you're comfortable with.

 

I'm sure I misunderstood your original point. I wasn't trying to refute or correct your impressions, but to introduce the possibility that there are other, perfectly valid ways of building a story (which was the topic I thought you were addressing). I understood your original post to be a fairly limited view of what a fiction writer must or ought to do in order to write fictional stories, because it seemed to me to exclude other, perfectly valid possibilities.

Things like the following are probably what threw me: "... everything you're writing is nonsense to begin with, unless you're working with non-fiction ..." "... fiction writing is itself cold and calculating ..." "Ever since I was eighteen years old I rolled my eyes at writers romancing themselves with whimsical biographies about how their stories just come to them and they are simply the medium for some greater force that must be transcribed through their pen. It's nonsense." "Maybe you like to write your stuff from scratch because it's exhilarating to be blind ..."

In any case, it wasn't my intention to do anything other than to speak for the notion that different writers have different ways of going about the various kinds of storytelling that make it into print, which your post seemed to me to exclude.

 

I think the two contrasts are Stephen King and Terry Brooks. Terry Brooks outlines extensively and his novels show it. I love his books but there is a structured feel to it. You can tell it was outlined. Stephen king on the other hand lacks the structure and you can tell because his novels RAMBLE on and on at times. I think sometimes we have to find the middle ground between structure and just jumping in without any idea how its all going to end. I guess its personal preference. I have always been one to try Stephen Kings approach and it hasn't worked out for me. I am going to try a more structured approach since I feel I need the structure.

 

Your story or novel will change even if you do plan it out. My suggestion is to have a general idea. You need to take into consideration various things depending on this general idea. For example, if you plan on a sequel, you need, not necessarily ahead of time, to formulate the events in your story so that it can stand on its own. If this requires you to prepare ahead of time, rather than just write, then it must be done.

There's also another key thing to keep in mind. You're writing a first draft. The final draft should look very different. My first draft of my novel ending up falling short, with a vague plot and other holes. If you just write and it ends up similar to this, that's not an issue. When you re-write it, however, you should have your mind set on the conclusion of your novel and the events that lead to it. Just a suggestion if you can't seem to get a firm grasp of your novel the first time.
Good luck

 

Excellent point(s)!