Seat-Of-Your-Pants vs Outlining

The whole point of the word "pantser" is to ellicit exactly the kind of wonder you just showed- it is little more than an ego trip. Either you brainstorm onto an outline, or you brainstorm directly onto the page. Either case requires intense amounts of editing and rewriting. There really isn't much difference, which is why it's so difficult to claim superiority for either of them.

Trust me, I've seen this sort of thread appear over and over again, and it's always the same. The "outliners" express shock and awe, and sometimes derision, at the "pantsers," and the "pantsers" throw their arms smugly in the air and say 'well it's not my fault you can't do what I can.'"

Edited to add: and it appears we also have the "gardener," if neither "outliner" or "pantsers" sound good enough to suit ones ego.

 

Short stories don't necessarily require a lot of revision. Some do, and sometimes the words flow more or less right the first time. But my longer works always require planning and revision, whereas pantsing can work for the shorter pieces.

 

I'm sure I'm way late on this, but a lot of people exist on a spectrum between the two paradigms. That, and discovery writers tend not to understand outliners and vice versa - two massively different thought processes for two very different types of people.

The big key is that a lot of discovery writers DO start with a basic idea of where I want to go. There's a bit of a story in mind but no outline. I actually started out thinking I was more of an outliner because I had a pretty developed plot in mind, but a year into the project I've realized that I'm much more of a discovery writer than I thought, because I can't build a firm outline and really I just write toward pre-established target points that fit roughly within a three act structure. I'm not a pure discovery writer in that sense, but the idea of a fully fleshed out outline seems both overly tedious and like it would take the fun out of experiencing my characters' progress with them.

That said, even the most seat-of-the-pantsy discovery writer has to know and think about story structure - for two reasons. One you need a basic sense of what you're writing toward on the front end. Second, discovery writers need to be as exacting as outliners when it comes to making sure their story works - the DIFFERENCE is that an outliner does all of that work on the front end with a scene list that they later fill in. Discovery writers can't do that because their process relies on experiencing the story themselves in real time. HOWEVER, the discovery writer has to do all of the structure work on the back end DURING REVISION. A discovery written first draft is going to look like garbage structurally - and the writer then has to go back and prune it, take out what doesn't work, move scenes around, add scenes where something isn't properly developed, etc.

I've also heard this rendered as 'Architects' vs. 'Gardeners' - the architect draws up careful plans in advance and then builds to specification. The Gardener has to let the plant grow organically, THEN he prunes it into shape...just letting stuff grow wild doesn't work at all.

And yes, when you experience the story in real time, your characters do occasionally "rebel" or take you in directions you hadn't planned. Because once you get to a certain point, they've done things that cause them to look different in your mind, and when you get to a planned decision point, you can't envision them reacting how you'd originally planned. That, and side characters assert themselves more prominently than you planned, planned major characters might take smaller roles. It happens - and instead of seeing it as a problem most discovery writers will see this as a good thing because it's more organic. That, or if you writer yourself into a corner, there's always the "delete" button.

 

Does everything really have to be edited? There must be some good quality of "just letting stuff grow wild". There must be some stylistic or artistic concepts that would call for an actual lack of editing, or at least a minimalist approach to editing.

 

How "by the seats of your pants" is it, really? They don't have that pivotal scene, key piece of imagery or moment to build toward?

 

I'm not an absolutist but most people say that editing is crucial because you have to go back, look at it, and say "does this work". Actually most people would say editing is more crucial for discovery writers than it is for outliners. It might look okay coming of the first time, but the "craft" of writing (as opposed to just the "art") is the ability to polish the prose and the story.

 

That's going to depend on the writer. I think in most cases they WILL have something to build toward - that or maybe a character they really want to explore.

 

I sold a story that was pantsed and hardly edited. The first market I sent it to, it was rejected. The editor said he liked it but didn't like the ending. I rewrote the last paragraph or so and sent it out to another market. It sold. Most of it was a first draft and I wrote it in about four hours. The muse struck. On the other hand, I have stories I've spent a lot more time and multiple rounds of revision on that I'm not happy with, so go figure.

 

Yeah. One short story I am working on now I pantsed the first draft (which I was tolerably happy with). I had a vague idea of the opening scene and the ending with no real idea how I was going to get from point A to B. So, yes, in that case I had some notion of what I wanted to move toward.

 

I definitely would not argue the importance of editing. However, I do think there can be exceptions where it would be beautiful stylistically to leave a story unedited.

Forgive me for comparing rap to writing, but I just want to make a point.

In rap, a rap artist can perform a freestyle, which is coming up with rap verses on the spot; spitting rhymes without ever having rehearsed them, with or without a beat.

In fiction writing, I suppose a writer could perform a similar feat if they were to freestyle a story, and purposely leave it unedited.

I think it could be cool if you're trying to go for a raw, or gritty type of story. What do you guys think?

 

I think you could probably say that for short pieces - which I think someone already said - and especially for poetry (which goes to your rap example).

I'm a novelist so in that field I think lack of editing would probably be a death knell - inasmuch as we have to be really, really conscious of not losing the reader's interest, building dramatic tension, etc. etc.

 

I think some writers can certainly do it @Ares Desideratus . The idea that all writers write the same way, or that if I can't do something no one can, is baffling.

 

This for me would depend entirely on the author and subject. I think the writer would have to be very clear-minded on the subject and very honest with his/her emotions to pull it off. Otherwise I think it could turn out rambling and pretentious.
I think a lot of writers want to be raw but there's that need to impress people, or to pull something off that gets in the way.

 

Interesting to see everyone's process. For me, i actually write similar to how i draw and paint (i do lots of photo real work) where i start with a rough outline and then pack in more and more detail as i move through the process until i have a fully formed picture.

For writing specifically I jot down a bullet point style rough outline that lays out my stories overarching structure. I do this primarily to make sure that i have everything planned in a way that makes sense and has a strong pace and flow to it. Each bullet point is 1-2 sentences.

If i dont do this early in the process i tend to find that i will eventually create a "its my baby" of a chapter that makes no real sense in context, but turns into something that i love as a stand alone scene. As any writer knows, these are super hard to cut out of your story once its written (even though you need to cut it)...so id rather just never write it. If i cant fit it in during the outline stage, its 100% not going to fit in the finished manuscript.

Once i have my outline in a position where i think the story structure is solid, and the pacing for my plot reveals and twists all make sense, then i begin to pack in the details. Since i have a pretty solid outline i can jump around pretty much at will without worrying about creating a scene that doesn't fit with the story.

I also tend to be able to avoid writers block this way, because i dont need to write chapter 4 after chapter 3. I can write the first chapter then the second to last chapter, then the love scene. I normally always have 1 or two parts of my story that im super pumped to be writing. This style allows me to write them when inspiration strikes, while still knowing what happens before and after each scene.

Anyway, thats what works for me. Results may vary. Consult you physician before implementing a new writing regiment.

 

Isn't it said that Jack Kerouac wrote the story "On the Road" over the course of 2 weeks on a single roll of paper so he didn't need waste time changing type writer paper. Then he took that roll unedited to his publisher who ended up publishing it as is.

It may just be one of those writing legends, but it always seemed like an amazing accomplishment if he actually pulled it off.

 

It's kind of what happened. He did tape his paper together into a long roll so he wouldn't have to keep changing the sheets. However, he wrote On The Road in 1951, and it didn't get published till 1957 ...and then only after it had been heavily cut and edited. Apparently it was considered way WAY too explicit and risky by the publishing houses, as they were worried about lawsuits, etc. It was rejected by many publishers, until Viking Press took it on. They gutted it before agreeing to publish it—even changing the names of the characters, etc.

 

I've sold several novels that were 'pantsed' and then only given a basic polish. If you have a basic structure in mind you can write to that structure as you go. Like, okay, I've established the inciting incident, had a dramatic scene, now I need to slow down a little and make sure the characters connect. And then once I've written that scene I can say, okay, they're getting along too well, I need to introduce another element of conflict, or whatever.

Other books I've torn apart and glued back together several times.

I haven't noticed a difference in readers reactions to books written in different ways.

 

Pretty sure I started that one. (And I am a firm believer in completing a rough sketch before worrying about quality.)

"architect" suits my ego. I think I will call myself a plot architect from now on.

 

I hate to undermine your joy in insulting us, but who has said that "pantser" is superior? We've declined to agree that, yes, oh, dear, we are inferior, and everything we've written has been a confetti-mishmash of incoherent nonsense. In fact, we've said that it is, in fact, not that. Is that really an ego trip?

"You're an idiot!"
"I am not!"
"Egomaniac!"

No. Doesn't make sense.

 

More like,

"Hi. I'm a [insert weird term here that makes you sound crazy and on the edge, like 'pantser'] and nobody understands me. ."
"Hi. I'm a [insert fancy term here that makes you sound like you designed the Matrix, such as 'architect'] and my extreme mathematical brain cannot comprehend you pantsers."
*"Heh, don't belittle me just because you can't do what I can!"


*Someone on this thread actually said this (more or less) .

 

Well, I can only tell you all how I write. I have a circumstance or character come to mind, and I sit down at the keyboard. I have no goal in mind, other than to eventually write "The End". I don't know what the next scene will be until I've written this one. I make this scene the very best I can, because I have no intention of changing it once the story's done (I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually had to do that). When I finish a chapter, it goes to my betas, and gets "fixed" based on their comments. In the meantime, I've started on the next chapter/scene, and only change that based on any of the aforementioned fixes on the previous one; nothing happens that doesn't make sense considering what's already happened. Rinse and repeat until the last chapter is done. Then I polish and it's all done. Fini. Over with. I have found the story, gotten to know the characters, and discovered an ending I'm more than happy with - all just as though I were reading it for the first time.

So no, I don't have an end goal when I start; no, I don't think further ahead than the section I'm writing; and no, I don't have to go back and 'prune' anything. And yet, I keep being told I can't do it that way.

 

That's interesting. I just was reading yesterday about Game of Thrones, the TV show ...and that this latest series has already started to outstrip his books. In other words, if he doesn't get his spade and garden fork working double-time, the TV series will start writing for him. The series is wildly popular, and isn't going to close down simply because he hasn't finished his story. A very weird scenario indeed. It may end up that Martin finishes his series by writing what happens in the TV show.

Although I'm a pantser myself, he is an example of the dangers of taking the 'gardening' approach to writing. Like a real garden, it can get away from you if it's not tended regularly and often. But I think Martin has allowed his saga to turn into a monster that probably looms over his bed every night making threatening noises. His output has slowed to a crawl, which indicates to me that he's either lost interest or lost the plot altogether. GOT is making him tons of money, but from an artistic standpoint it may have been a HUGE mistake to option the TV show before the series was finished.

That's what JK Rowling did with the Harry Potter series, but I think she was a lot more focused than Martin is, and she wrote more quickly, so she WAS able to stay ahead of the filmed versions. But I think he's kind of slid into hopeless territory, and the weeds have taken over! I suspect that the ending of GOT will be written by the TV series writers, not Martin. He'll be playing catch-up from now on.

George RR Martin might be a cautionary tale about the dangers of having fame and fortune arrive at your doorstep before you're ready to deal with it. Probably more than the dangers of 'pantsing' itself. (A term I really enjoy using!)

The biggest mistake ANY author can make, no matter what method they use to write, is being in such a big rush to get published that they put half-baked work out there for consumption. You send bad stuff to agents, they will reject it and you won't be able to approach them again with the same story. You self-publish online for sale on Kindle, and, if your sample is clunky, people are either not going to buy it, or—worse yet—will give you bad reviews. It pays to take time to make sure your work is edited properly. Once you've posted a mistake-ridden or amateurish effort out there for public consumption, you can't really take it back. And that's you, making a bad first impression. Or no first impression. Or selling something (like a fantasy series) that's not finished yet, and getting caught and overtaken by the TV series based on it.

 

Same here. All the "initial sketch" thing, editing, rewriting, re-rewriting stuff seems unnecessary and way too complicated to me (with no intention to insult anyone). When I started writing my first novel, it went like this: I decided to get back to writing after many years and then I saw a certain image of a cliff and a tree (on a perfume bottle! ) and that was my beginning scene. The name of my main character simply popped out while I actually saw him in that scenery. I had no idea who he was or what's gonna happen next, but my imagination was going wild and my fingers literary had to fly over a keyboard in order to catch everything. So I started writing from that point without knowing anything about the plot. I wrote the entire book one line at the time, with almost no editing at all. I never rewrote anything. It took me couple of years, yes; but I was writing slowly and with paying great attention to each word. Of course, every time I'd start to work on a new page I would read the last couple of pages and do some minor editing (grammar, sentence structure, but never the actual story development). It was all in my head all along. And all that time I had one big scene which I knew will happen at some point, and the story was moving towards it, and when I got close to an end, it was a serious trouble for me because I had to figure out the ending in order to continue writing.
It is a bit different now with my WIP. I have couple of main scenes in my head and I'm vaguely aware of what the quest and the resolution will be, but I still write one line at the time and slowly getting to know my characters and their stories. But this one is different and it requires a lot of research, so it's possible it'll take some editing and rewriting. It depends on a story, I guess, but I suppose I'm definitely a "pantser", or whatever you'd like to call that.

 

To everyone who has a posted here, thank you. It was not my intention to incite this kind of fervor nor was I expecting this kind of response. It just shows how passionate we all are about writing. I wonder what The Inklings would say about our modern electronic discussions. I'd also like to apologize to those who feel attacked by pitting one creative paradigm against another. I'm not a competitive or confrontational person by nature and do not work at asserting any authority of skill and ability over others. In my original post:

I never said that my creative paradigm was superior, simply that it was not preferable or recommended by a large sector of the literary community (books on writing, workshops, speakers etc.). Since Free-writing isn't a method I've considered using I wanted explanations from those who use Free-writing as their creative paradigm, not arguments for legitimacy. There are lots of things in this world I don't understand and I've been accused of being obtuse more than once, which I don't take offense to; my personality and disposition can sometimes be grating, and perhaps I looking for detailed, and explicit information came off as irksome, even dickish. I don't do well with idioms or metaphors and I don't like being bullshitted, so I ask a lot of pesky, meticulous questions and I'm sorry for rubbing anyone the wrong way.

The fact is I was taught at a very young age in order to write a proper paper, whether it was fiction or essay, one must use an outline. You had to have a theme, an introduction, body, and conclusion. You needed main ideas for every paragraph and supporting details. You might've even needed examples to illustrate the supporting details. I've used this method for everything I wrote from 5th grade through senior year of high school. When I was in college studying screenwriting I was shown, through Joseph Campbell, George Lucas, David Trottier's Screenwriter's Bible and Syd Fields' The Screenwriter's Workbook, a more in-depth look at Aristotelian Tragedy and the Three-Act Structure common in Western Literature. All of this further cemented in my mind "the importance of plot to the narrative framework upon which all drama hangs" (Ronald B. Tobias, 20 Master Plots and How to Build Them). Screenwriting requires more rigid structuring because it is eventually translated to film, must be interpreted by everyone involved, and somebody has to pay for it all.

I really wanted to write a novel. I wanted to use literary devices unavailable to screenwriters. I've got this great idea for a story, a great plot, great characters, plot devices and a MacGuffin. I know where my story starts, its inciting incident, first act break, the turning point, second act break, the climax, and how its going to end. Outlining (mapping as I call it) provides me the excitement of figuring the best way to put these concepts together much like an Architect. But like an architect, and not a Structural Engineer, I'm interested the artistic and aesthetic appeal of my work first. I don't work out the math and physics to support the structure because I'm confident the foundations are strong enough to start with. But no, I don't write the story line-by-line beforehand. I don't write out dialogue, unless it's a really great line. Besides, an outline is typically all action and written in 3rd person past-tense regardless. I allow for spontaneity. I can't suppress my creative impulses. I just save them for the right time and place, which doesn't nullify the need for editing, rewriting, and polishing. But at the end of the day, I have a story I WANT to tell and if I don't tell THAT STORY, I'll have failed. I'll have let myself down and the people the story is intended for.

The entire purpose for posing this question and starting this thread is because; while I want to tell this story, I'm excited by the story, and I've got it mapped out, I'm stuck. I can't figure out how to organically get from A to B to C and so on to the end. There's no reason for this story to occur. I can't find reasons why any of my characters should even get out of bed in the morning. In essence, I can't for the life of me find a NEED to tell this story. My want to tell this story is trumped by factors working against every aspect of the story. The logician in me presents a very compelling argument for why this story shouldn't happen and it saddens me a bit that even with all the hard work, my desires are redundant.

I just wanted to know if Free-Writing or a "Seat-of-Your-Pants" method might jog me from my funk. I was in no way trying to glorify my creative paradigm over another. Since I'd never used this method prolifically I wanted to know the mindset and thinking of those who use this method to approach the blank page. What I've gathered, at least, is Free-Writers are much more confident in their ideas, their abilities, and the quality of their prose. They're both zealous and fearless. They might even have some swagger. Many of these traits are ones I lack and desire. Insecurities persist within me and perhaps mapping provides a small amount of validation to my creative chaos. I think what it boils down to, from writer to writer, is believing in ourselves. If we believe in our ideas, we won't be let down.