Many threads start something like this: "I have a problem in plot/character development/this scene... I must infodump first so that you can understand this problem..." And that is exactly where the problem is! Dynamics of the story is subordinate to big pile of substances. You have substance. "What there is." You have dynamics. "What happens and how." You have structures. "How different things are connected to each others. How different chains of happenings are connected to each others. How different happenings are connected to some substance or other..." If you pack your bag too full of things before you start to walk, your packing slows your pace. And if you start to wonder "how should I walk" you might get good answers. "You need practice." "Use this technic." "Get a car!" "Use escalators.” But maybe you should ask yourself: "What did I do before I stuck? How did that influence? Did I pack my bag too heavy with things that are cool but unnecessary just now?" Try putting your dynamics before your substance and see what happens. If it does not help, try something else and tell me that I am an wrong. If it does help, tell me it did help.
That's an interesting approach. Think about how you got to where you are 'stuck.' I like that. I think some people find it helpful just to brainstorm. I know I don't want to brainstorm with others, because I not only want my story to be my own and nobody else's, but I also want to get into the habit of solving my own problems. I've discovered that when I hit a plot snag, I need to stop, go away, think about it UNTIL a solution occurs to me. I can't put a time frame on that process, but I do consider it brainstorming with myself.
In my understandingg that is more natural and usefull approach than "how do I go forward from this point". I drive my car to ditch. I tow it back to the road before I drive forward. I don't have my money & wallet in the cash register in the supermarket. I don't try to get forward with my bags. I leave the baggage, go to my car or home, take my wallet and money, go back and pay. Then and only then I can go forward. If the roots of your problem are not in the earlier phases of your working, then you don't have any kind of problem. You have just many alternatives and that is good thing, not a problem. And if have a problem and you refuse to go back where it is rooted, I is like if you married your baggage. "If I go back, I must divorce my baggage. I can't do it. I love my baggage! It is part of what I am!"
Well... Thank you! I just tried to use easy way to explain it. Important thing is: is it true & does it help?
People use to advance from some level towards details, smaller picture. That means that problems start here and become visible later, in that smaller picture where they are more detailed. If you go forward - to even more detailed level - it is very hard to deal with these problems. They are rooted in bigger picture. And there will be inconsistency between these "sollutions" and some other things. This is basic dynamics that follow all tendencies to go to one direction and only/mainly to one direction. To avoid this you must learn a tendency to level jump between different levels of scale, abstraction and individual vs common. If you can't or won't do this level jumping, you will create problems that are hard to handle to you but easy to some level jumpers. So... The real problem is in "how to handle and improve my inner workflow". This problem becomes visible where your type of workflow rises problems that are typical to it. If you solve these individual problems, you haven't solved anything. It just means that your problem-factory started again and is working hard. Most common sollution is other people with different attitude. Boards, beta readers, books about writing... Often that means repeating and repeating same workflow problems, then correcting the consequences.... Double work. Triple work... But if you self reflect your logic and thinking, you start to find out that "this type of thinking leads to those paths but I need to walk also those other paths". Then you start to know what new tools you need, when and how to practice them... And if you spend 2 months to this, you maybe write better book 2-6 months faster and far less rewriting. And the less you have problems that are connected to workflow, the more you can focus on story, creativity, doing "same but different".
You can do that if you want to have more and deeper problems. "Your problem is not deep enough. Let's make it more complex, wider and harder to solve!"
Well I meant that I’ll let you know if it worked. But actually I like exploring the complexities of logical issues. They get more complicated before they become clearer, but that’s part of the fun of figuring them out.
They may not seem that deep to you, but that can be deceiving in the looks. Of course being a pantser comes with snags, compared to my outlining brothers and sisters. They have all the framework to know where/when/how the story should be going and why. But I wonder if they hit road blocks and speed bumps, like those of us that just make it up as we go along?
