# Writing Techniques



## Justin Rocket (Dec 1, 2013)

Which complete writing method have you used and what has been your experience with them?

By "complete writing method", I mean "branded writing method which covers all steps of writing" (examples are Marshall Plan, Dramatica,  Snowflake, etc.)?


----------



## iAaron (Jan 12, 2014)

Honestly, I dont use any particular method. If I feel that I need to organize it such as with the snowflake plan then the story I am writing will not flow like a normal day of life. I like what Stephen King says about writing...


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 12, 2014)

iAaron said:


> Honestly, I dont use any particular method. If I feel that I need to organize it such as with the snowflake plan then the story I am writing will not flow like a normal day of life. I like what Stephen King says about writing...



Most of us aren't Stephen King.  I compare him to Bruce Lee.  Bruce Lee talked to great length about being without form.  A bunch of people took what Bruce Lee taught as an excuse to throw punches that would break their wrists.  They lacked the deep background in the martial arts to recognize that Lee was talking about what the Japanese call 'Mukei', *not* telling people that anything goes.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 12, 2014)

I used Blake Snyder's beat-sheet when plotting my current novel. Blake's method can be learned by reading the introductory book: _Save the Cat!, _and the more in-depth: _Save the Cat Strikes Back!_ 

For the writing of actual scenes, I use Dwight Swain's (_Techniques of the Selling Writer)_ breakdown of a scene's construction (Goal, Conflict, Disaster), which is explained in better detail in Jack Bickham's book: _Scene and Structure_.

I also use Swain's Motivation-Reaction Units as a guide when composing my individual paragraphs of prose. 

Yes.. it's a mouthful, an eyeful, and a handful, especially for those who like to write with a more free, "goes as you feel" style of writing. My approach is certainly not for everyone.. But, you asked. So, I let the can of worms come out!


----------



## D4MD (Jan 12, 2014)

man, I'm such a noob...never heard of any of those methods before.:hopelessness: I just let my fingers take the lead usually. And sometimes, when writing a very detailed action scene I write from the bottom up.

 I've heard of Jack Bickham's Scene and structure though but I've never been able to find a copy.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 12, 2014)

D4MD said:


> man, I'm such a noob...never heard of any of those methods before.:hopelessness: I just let my fingers take the lead usually. And sometimes, when writing a very detailed action scene I write from the bottom up.
> 
> I've heard of Jack Bickham's Scene and structure though but I've never been able to find a copy.



These methods are like tools.  You should use a hammer when you need a hammer.  Try them out and use what works for you.  People usually do their best work when they have the right tools for the job.

By the way, the Bickham book is available at Open Library.  https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3287957W/Scene_and_structure


----------



## D4MD (Jan 12, 2014)

hey thanks!...checking Bickham's now.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 13, 2014)

With the way I write, a strict methodology would kill the drafting period. However, I am partial to exploring Swain's principles when I get down to some serious editing. But other than that: for me writing is like growing a tree, and you can't buy a tree flat-pack from Ikea and assemble it yourself; you have to give it time, attention and the freedom to move. It has to be a natural, organic process. I'm writing about natural, organic people, after all.


----------



## Sam (Jan 13, 2014)

My writing technique? Ass on seat, fingers on keyboard, and everything else is white noise. Can you imagine Shakespeare running around looking for his copy of the Marshall plan? Me neither.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Sam said:


> My writing technique? Ass on seat, fingers on keyboard, and everything else is white noise. Can you imagine Shakespeare running around looking for his copy of the Marshall plan? Me neither.



Can you imagine how much more Shakespeare could have accomplished with a laptop, a pen that wouldn't smudge, indoor plumbing, etc.?  By analogy, Aristotle didn't have the Hubble telescope or even a microscope. 

Can you imagine modern scientists asserting that they don't need these things because Aristotle didn't have them?

Never hesitate to use a tool which makes your work easier.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 13, 2014)

> Can you imagine how much more Shakespeare could have accomplished with a laptop, a pen that wouldn't smudge, indoor plumbing, etc.?



You mean how much less, right?

Easy writing makes for hard reading; tools should be used to improve the quality of your work, not to make the passing-of-the-kidney-stone moments disappear (because they won't). Shakespeare's work was great in part _due _to the limitations of his time, not despite them. Art can, and frequently does, thrive from limitation. Why else would writers advise that you still write by hand?


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Never used a writing method. Don't intend to.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 13, 2014)

Computers vs quills seems to me off the point some? I find in Shakespeare a great deal of generic structure, borrowed plotting and routine fleshing out. He has genius for language, but his basic structure and organization have only minor variations from work to work. Seems to me a lot of novelists use the same kind of structure elements from book to book. What's so wrong with writing them out and giving them names?


----------



## Leyline (Jan 13, 2014)

ppsage said:


> Computers vs quills seems to me off the point some? I find in Shakespeare a great deal of generic structure, borrowed plotting and routine fleshing out. He has genius for language, but his basic structure and organization have only minor variations from work to work. *Seems to me a lot of novelists use the same kind of structure elements from book to book. What's so wrong with writing them out and giving them names?*



Nothing, of course. If it works for a writer, use it and go in peace. 

But I'm uninterested in any of them, just as I'm uninterested in 'how-to-write' books, critiques that quote from 'how-to-write' books and most other forms of received wisdom that attempt to tell me anything at all about how to organize my own thoughts. Because, in the end, I write first and foremost because I like writing. And what I like about it is sitting down and making stuff up, knowing that I'm the fundamental god of this tiny universe. 

That's what works for me. I shall use it, and go in peace.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Cadence said:


> You mean how much less, right?
> 
> Easy writing makes for hard reading;



Easy writing makes revisions and editing easier, which makes them more likely, which makes for easier reading.  I don't know how you figured the opposite.



> tools should be used to improve the quality of your work, not to make the passing-of-the-kidney-stone moments disappear (because they won't).



This seems like a non sequitor.  No one asserted that tools make the passing-of-the-kidney-stone moments disappear.  Tools can make those moments easier.



> Shakespeare's work was great in part _due _to the limitations of his time, not despite them.


 
You have no proof of that.



> Art can, and frequently does, thrive from limitation. Why else would writers advise that you still write by hand?



The reason I write by hand isn't because of limitation, but because of the freedom of doing so.  But tools, such as laptops, provide even more options (including the option to use them when appropriate, including when editing).


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Cadence said:


> You mean how much less, right?
> 
> Easy writing makes for hard reading;



Easy writing makes revisions and editing easier, which makes them more likely, which makes for easier reading.  I don't know how you figured the opposite.



> tools should be used to improve the quality of your work, not to make the passing-of-the-kidney-stone moments disappear (because they won't).



This seems like a non sequitor.  No one asserted that tools make the passing-of-the-kidney-stone moments disappear.  Tools can make those moments easier.



> Shakespeare's work was great in part _due _to the limitations of his time, not despite them.


 
You have no proof of that.



> Art can, and frequently does, thrive from limitation. Why else would writers advise that you still write by hand?



The reason I write by hand isn't because of limitation, but because of the freedom of doing so.  But tools, such as laptops, provide even more options (including the option to use them when appropriate, including when editing).


----------



## Jeko (Jan 14, 2014)

> I don't know how you figured the opposite.



It's a quote from Ernest Hemingway, a writer who I respect and am mentored by through reading his work.

My question is, why spend years writing your book if a robot could write it for you, programmed with your thoughts? Why do you have to slave over the paper or in front of the screen?

Of course, we can use robots to our advantage, if artist-robots were ever invented. But the artists wouldn't be the ones lying back while the robot does the work; they would be the ones using the robot for a greater artistic purpose.

Hence, 'tools' don't exist to make things easier. Not in art. Tools exist to be _used_, to open up avenues of artistry, yet lazy writers will just apply them to their work and think that that's how you use them. Artists will _use _them, as Shakespeare manipulated the forms of comedy and tragedy. So nothing becomes easier - you simply unlock potential, as you do by ignoring them as well. Every tools exists to both be _used _or be ignored by those who choose to use or ignore them, having every right to do so.

It combines with King's view that you should never come lightly to the page; if writing was easy, or capable of being made easy, everyone would do it, and we'd get a million tonnes of crap on our shelves (or a million tonnes more than we have already). Art is not suffering, but it's not all all-expenses-paid-cruise either. You _can't _make it easier, because that ease is relative to potential, and the more potential you unlock, the more you should seize. Else, you're not going as far as you can - you're lying back. Maybe you'd let the robot do it for you.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Cadence said:


> My question is, why spend years writing your book if a robot could write it for you, programmed with your thoughts? Why do you have to slave over the paper or in front of the screen?



This is a total non-sequitur.  



> Hence, 'tools' don't exist to make things easier. Not in art.



So, your contention is that, since none of the tools mentioned go so far as to do the entire job for the author, that tools don't exist?  That's like saying that since no tools go so far as to build a house, that no tools exist which make carpentry easier.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 14, 2014)

So you wouldn't let the robot do it for you?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Cadence said:


> So you wouldn't let the robot do it for you?



I write to stay sane.  It gives me a way to release my frustration at the world.  Letting a robot do it for me wouldn't be helpful.
However, sometimes using a tool can help get the creativity flowing or help manage the drudge work or help in some other way.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 14, 2014)

> I write to stay sane. It gives me a way to release my frustration at the world. Letting a robot do it for me wouldn't be helpful.
> However, sometimes using a tool can help get the creativity flowing or help manage the drudge work or help in some other way.



Ah, I see. You use the tools for your benefit, not the readers'.

Sorry; I didn't catch on to that fast enough.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Ah, I see. You use the tools for your benefit, not the readers'.
> 
> Sorry; I didn't catch on to that fast enough.



As an electric hammer helps a carpenter, but also helps the carpenter's customers (since they benefit from gains in the carpenter's productivity), these tools help both the author and his customers.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 14, 2014)

electric hammer?! lol   J.R .... I get the meaning though. My writing pens all went in the trash a couple years ago.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Kevin said:


> electric hammer?! lol   J.R .... I get the meaning though. My writing pens all went in the trash a couple years ago.



https://www.google.com/search?q=ele...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jan 14, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> https://www.google.com/search?q=ele...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8



As long as the nail's within 60 cm of a power socket, you're good to go!


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Staff Deployment said:


> As long as the nail's within 60 cm of a power socket, you're good to go!



damn metric system!  Carpenters with power tools use common!


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 15, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Which complete writing method have you used and what has been your experience with them?
> 
> By "complete writing method", I mean "branded writing method which covers all steps of writing" (examples are Marshall Plan, Dramatica,  Snowflake, etc.)?



HAH!!! That would be a most excellent question. I am not a scholar of writing so I probably have not used any of them in my work. I write what I like to read. That's the only "method" I need to know about.


----------



## Sam (Jan 15, 2014)

If people spent less time talking about how to write, and more time actually writing, they'd have all the answers they need.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

Sam said:


> If people spent less time talking about how to write, and more time actually writing, they'd have all the answers they need.



I think I just plagiarised you unintentionally in another thread...

And I hear your exasperation!


----------



## Kevin (Jan 15, 2014)

> https://www.google.com/search?q=elec...sm=91&ie=UTF-8 Carpenters with power tools use common!


 heh those are not carpenter's tools, but for the average reader I suppose that's good enough-  _http.link to mybrain35yrs+inconst _ I guess that is why they call it fiction.



> Marshall plan


- George or Mathers? Though the former was highly successful, the latter allows for more rhyme and free association.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 15, 2014)

> As an electric hammer helps a carpenter, but also helps the carpenter's customers (since they benefit from gains in the carpenter's productivity), these tools help both the author and his customers.



You know how I view writing as a race run with two legs, creativity and craftsmanship? 

I can see where the parallel applies to the latter, but isn't creativity a much more complex thing? Psychological study suggests that with a more complex task, motivations change, and so does the mental process. Hence why I don't use certain tools - an electric hammer might help me do my carpentry (craftsmanship), but what if I want to also do sculpture (creativity)? I suddenly have to change my tools, and the process is disjointed. So I pick the tools that are most adaptable for my work and, as I said before, seek to do more than just increase productivity with them. 

If you drew a graph, you'd see that ease of creation leads to an increase in productivity, but ease of creation also leads to increased potential for artistry. So while it may become easier to do what you were doing before, you're now able to do something _more_, and as an artist you should take that opportunity.

Hence why I don't think art gets any easier. Crafting a story, maybe - that's the woodwork. But the creativity that's just as necessary? That's always going to be a weird thing to handle.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 15, 2014)

What techniques do you use, Justin? :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jan 15, 2014)

A meal you can get out of a can will fill your belly (get the job done), but it won't be memorable. The same goes for 'canned' writing programs. While there are undoubtedly some helpful tips in all of these methods, just as there are good tips to be had from writing books and magazines, they are first and foremost money making schemes no different from diet programs, investment programs, and other self-help programs. I've been writing, and studying writing, for more than 40 years and I've never once heard a successful writer attribute his/her success to a method, or tool. It's called *creative* writing for a reason.


----------



## Sam (Jan 15, 2014)

The problem, as I see it, is that people think such techniques and methods are shortcuts to becoming great writers. Few people want to put in the work in the modern age. It's all about "how fast can I get there?".


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

I use these forums to find out where I am going wrong rather than how to do it right. - Since November 1st, I've written 130,000 words, and started a dozen threads when I've had a specific issue, or simply when I was looking for reassurance. At other times, I'd come and dip into an existing thread and eavesdrop on advice.

My concern is that others are reading the Driver's Handbook from cover to cover without getting behind the wheel of a car. - I implore anyone who is procrastinating or dribbling too few words to use their time haemorrhaging prose from their creative arteries until they feel too dizzy to continue. - I think they may find the handbook makes a lot more sense after that.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 15, 2014)

Yeah, there's no substitute for putting in the hard work. 

But, I use certain "techniques" or formulas, as some call them, and my production hovers around 5,000 words a day. I have novella in the submission process and I'm working on a novel right now.

I don't think learning certain things about writing necessarily hampers creativity. For instance, if you're writing a television script, you'll need to learn the ingredients and construction of the four-act structure (maybe even six act, if the show you're working for has certain act-break requirements). Or, if you're a novelist who finds yourself always giving up on your stories from a lack of planning, experimenting with certain plotting techniques might help.

Architects go to school to learn the different techniques that go into designing buildings. I often view story crafting as a similar venture. There's a wealth of knowledge out there when it comes to creative writing, and certain techniques and approaches can make for stronger writing. Others, arguably, can make for worse writing, though, so discretion is advised.

You don't need to study martial arts in order to be a good fighter. A guy can fight on the streets all his life and be a tough as nails master at hand-to-hand combat. Similar to "just writing" and honing your craft on your own.

Similarly, a mixed martial artist who spends years working out at a gym and training in Jiu Jitsu and Muy Thai is going to be a skilled master at hand-to-hand combat as well. Similar to a writer who studies and employs techniques.

Each approach has its benefits. Personally, I like the latter. There are master writers who like the former (Stephen King is always touted as an example of the "just write" philosophy). I don't think either route is necessarily better, nor worse.


----------



## Sinderion (Jan 15, 2014)

I use a lot of techniques.  The best expression of which are in the book _Story Engineering _by Larry Brooks. I also love _Revision and Self Editing for Publication_ and _Plot and Structure_ by James Scott Bell.  Very clear, non-over dramatized explanations of what to write and where, which is probably exactly what people usually need.  The magic is that the form doesn't take away anything from your creativity if your primary purpose is reader enjoyment.

I still need to do some work on Scene structure.  I may look up some of the things I've seen listed here.

As for using a formula or whatever, I don't care.  I don't give a rip about art or my special something creativity whatever.  Worrying about your creativity being tainted by structure and formula is just placing artificial limits on yourself. If your intention is to just make good stories people will enjoy reading like mine is, you're hurting yourself not opening up, at least for a bit, to a more proven process.  The best artists generally master the most basic parts of their craft before branching out.  

Personally I've always had an overflowing imagination and creativity that never seems to run dry so I just want to be able to harness it into some good, compelling stories.  Getting a handle on what works best where in your story depending on it's size is just a no brainer in my opinion as a very visual/structurally oriented person.  I'm on VA disability and have the time to do it, so I'm finally taking the time to get good at it if I possibly can


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> Yeah, there's no substitute for putting in the hard work.
> 
> But, I use certain "techniques" or formulas, as some call them, and my production hovers around 5,000 words a day. I have novella in the submission process and I'm working on a novel right now.
> 
> ...




Your threads are amongst those that I eavesdrop on most often. 

I knew you were prolific, but I've no idea how you manage to average 5,000 words per day... I didn't think anyone did that. It must be finger stutter! 

My point was based around placing the emphasis on learning how to write without putting it into daily practice, and I worry that there are those that end up an hour or more a day on here, arguing an obscure point rather than churning out a few hundred more words. -It is too easy to be distracted from writing, and I know because I've done it. - Words unwritten can never be read, and everyone here as far as I can tell is mortal. - There could be a few best selling authors here who never got round to writing their books, and those unwritten stories will die with them.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Your threads are amongst those that I eavesdrop on most often.
> 
> I knew you were prolific, but I've no idea how you manage to average 5,000 words per day... I didn't think anyone did that. It must be finger stutter!
> 
> My point was based around placing the emphasis on learning how to write without putting it into daily practice, and I worry that there are those that end up an hour or more a day on here, arguing an obscure point rather than churning out a few hundred more words. -It is too easy to be distracted from writing, and I know because I've done it. - Words unwritten can never be read, and everyone here as far as I can tell is mortal. - There could be a few best selling authors here who never got round to writing their books, and those unwritten stories will die with them.



5,000 words/day is my daily goal, too.  I didn't think it was that remarkable, but I couldn't do it when I started (learning various tools helped and I do write several hours per day).


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Sinderion said:


> I use a lot of techniques.  The best expression of which are in the book _Story Engineering _by Larry Brooks. I also love _Revision and Self Editing for Publication_ and _Plot and Structure_ by James Scott Bell.




I'd just recently heard of Brooks' work (I'd been studying up on Save the Cat and came across a Beat Sheet that included that and Brooks'.  I've not heard of Bell's stuff until now.  Can you tell me more about both of them?


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Your threads are amongst those that I eavesdrop on most often.
> 
> I knew you were prolific, but I've no idea how you manage to average 5,000 words per day... I didn't think anyone did that. It must be finger stutter!
> 
> My point was based around placing the emphasis on learning how to write without putting it into daily practice, and I worry that there are those that end up an hour or more a day on here, arguing an obscure point rather than churning out a few hundred more words. -It is too easy to be distracted from writing, and I know because I've done it. - Words unwritten can never be read, and everyone here as far as I can tell is mortal. - There could be a few best selling authors here who never got round to writing their books, and those unwritten stories will die with them.



You can do 5,000 if you really wanted to. The more you free yourself from the ideal of "perfection", the more the words flow out. I think, for me, my word count went up from 1,000-2000 words a day to around 5,000 words a day after I:

1) Stopped trying to get the words perfect. I save that, nowadays, for the revision stage.

2) Planned out each scene for five to ten minutes before writing it. This way I know how the scene ends before I write the first word, so I'm essentially just writing "toward" an ending.

3) Breaking things into manageable chunks.. My scenes are around 2,000 words each, so I write around 2 (sometimes 3) scenes a day. Two short scenes feels much easier to write than one longer scene. It's kind of a trick of the mind that works for me. The more scenes I complete, the more a sense of accomplishment I have, and that energy helps me keep going. When I was working with longer scenes, I would languish and labor and lose interest, because I wasn't feeling "rewarded" often enough (if that makes sense).

There's an author who wrote an article about how she went from 2k to 10k a day, you might like some of it if you haven't read it before: http://thisblogisaploy.blogspot.ca/2011/06/how-i-went-from-writing-2000-words-day.html

I agree with you on your overall point, Gav. It's really easy to get stuck in a rut by learning too much and not applying enough. Like wheels spinning on ice.  In the end, writing is the best thing to do, however you do it.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

Trust me when I say, I couldn't do 5,000 per day. - Alongside all my other duties, 2,000 or so is the best I can manage, and I'd considered that made me prolific. 

- My routine is a comfortable one, and it involves re-reading and editing the previous day's words before writing on. - I do need to do that as (1) I am old and (2) I don't plot. 

What you're saying, is you write a novel every ten days, and I'd not realised anyone could do that other than Michael Moorcock! - You are writing 1.8 million words a year!! - How many of those can you keep? How often do you churn out a completed work?

After four and a bit years, I've discovered how to write reasonably well and I am working at the edge of my ability, both time and health-wise. I'll conclude and edit my current novel and see how that works out before I'd even consider changing anything drastic.

I don't think I've read any of your work, yet I see you've a star as a published writer, and have won awards on here too.

I can't remember seeing anything posted by Justin Rocket either. - There must be huge piles of stuff by both of you kicking around!


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> You can do 5,000 if you really wanted to. The more you free yourself from the ideal of "perfection", the more the words flow out. I think, for me, my word count went up from 1,000-2000 words a day to around 5,000 words a day after I:
> 
> 1) Stopped trying to get the words perfect. I save that, nowadays, for the revision stage.
> 
> ...



Those three points you wrote are something I learned to do as well.  Writing the first rough draft is -hard- and it becomes harder if the author tries to make it perfect.  Writing a later draft is easy and isn't that much harder if the author tries to make it perfect.
But, there are certain 'tent poles' in a scene which are hard to move around in a later draft.  Identifying what those tent poles are before the first draft is written is essential.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Trust me when I say, I couldn't do 5,000 per day. - Alongside all my other duties, 2,000 or so is the best I can manage, and I'd considered that made me prolific.
> 
> - My routine is a comfortable one, and it involves re-reading and editing the previous day's words before writing on. - I do need to do that as (1) I am old and (2) I don't plot.
> 
> ...



The average Young Adult novel is 70,000 words.   50,000 words is rather short for a novel.  Also, I'm -not- saying that those 5,000 words/day are perfect or that they all go into the novel.  I write sa lot that no one else ever sees, but I write that to help me understand a character and how that character interacts with other characters.

Also, keep in mind that I am disabled.  I can't work.  So, the burden of the 40+ hr work day is not a burden I have.  On the flip side, I often have to write while flat in my bed.


----------



## Sam (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Trust me when I say, I couldn't do 5,000 per day. - Alongside all my other duties, 2,000 or so is the best I can manage, and I'd considered that made me prolific.
> 
> - My routine is a comfortable one, and it involves re-reading and editing the previous day's words before writing on. - I do need to do that as (1) I am old and (2) I don't plot.
> 
> ...



All novels aren't 50,000 words. I've never penned one below 100,000.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Cadence said:


> You know how I view writing as a race run with two legs, creativity and craftsmanship?
> 
> I can see where the parallel applies to the latter, but isn't creativity a much more complex thing? Psychological study suggests that with a more complex task, motivations change, and so does the mental process. Hence why I don't use certain tools - an electric hammer might help me do my carpentry (craftsmanship), but what if I want to also do sculpture (creativity)? I suddenly have to change my tools, and the process is disjointed. So I pick the tools that are most adaptable for my work and, as I said before, seek to do more than just increase productivity with them.
> 
> ...



There's a difference between "I'm sensing there's some sort of problem in the four chapters around the time the house burns down" and "John's fight with Cathy after they lose their house might be out of character given that he's got an enneagram type 3 and she's got an enneagram type of 4".  The second one uses a tool to help identify and specify the problem so that the author can spend more time coming up with a creative solution.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

LOL thank you, I'd an inkling that novel lengths varied, but it's good to see it confirmed...The ten days was for dramatic effect.  - In theory, you could knock out a novel every eight days. As I remember, Michael Moorcock could write a novel in two weeks and, as a teenager, I seemed to consider them readable. 

I've only concluded three novels, none technically proficient, and they were between 120,000 and 170,000 words. The novel I'll finish in a few weeks is an hour short of 130,000 at present.

When calculating how many words I write, I work on how many I am left with, after shaming the dross from the page. - It'd not be a lot higher, even if included, and maybe handwritten notes could add ten per cent.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 15, 2014)

Sam said:


> All novels aren't 50,000 words. I've never penned one below 100,000.



Mine is currently at 80K and I have a bit to go yet. At least another 20K as far as I could hazard a guess.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> LOL thank you, I'd an inkling that novel lengths varied, but it's good to see it confirmed...The ten days was for dramatic effect.  - In theory, you could knock out a novel every eight days. As I remember, Michael Moorcock could write a novel in two weeks and, as a teenager, I seemed to consider them readable.



Two weeks is pretty darn fast.

Three days is even faster! :grief: http://www.3daynovel.com


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

LOL! That is insane. I'll give it a miss! :beaten:


----------



## bookmasta (Jan 15, 2014)

It varies. For my book series, I essentially went with it without much planning. In one of my latest manuscripts I knew it was going to be a long read and it turned out to be, about 640 pages. I outlined that one in a journal scene by scene. I'm nearly done with the first draft of my current manuscript, around 95,000 words. I didn't plan anything. I went with it. But my next project has to do with government corruption and espionage. Naturally, there are things that need to be researched, planned, and fact checked. So I made an in-depth outline with a character list and things to research. I have yet to read any books on writing. Unless its about grammar, don't plan to.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 15, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> There's a difference between "I'm sensing there's some sort of problem in the four chapters around the time the house burns down" and "John's fight with Cathy after they lose their house might be out of character given that he's got an enneagram type 3 and she's got an enneagram type of 4".  The second one uses a tool to help identify and specify the problem so that the author can spend more time coming up with a creative solution.



Good characters can't be pigeon-holed like that, unless you are writing for the Stepford Writers group. Real people often react out-of-character--particularly in stressful situations--and our characters should too. If you want to use a tool to get to know your character, fine, but to base his actions in the story on that tool is absurd, IMO.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Real people often react out-of-character--particularly in stressful situations



Characters in stories aren't real people.  Dramatic characters shouldn't act as real characters, but should act with verisimilitude and, as we know, truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

One of the most powerful facets of any character, is when they act out of character... Charity from the antagonist, a hissy fit from the mild-mannered protagonist... They make for awesome prose, if written with skill.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 15, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Characters in stories aren't real people.


 
Of course not.



> Dramatic characters shouldn't act as real characters, but should act with verisimilitude


 
That's a contradiction (and an incorrect use of the word verisimilitude, but I get your drift). Fictional characters should show the same propensity for acting contrary as do real people, if they do not then all you have created are 2-dimensional, pre-programmed robots who are slaves to their Meyers-Briggs personality types. How boring.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Fictional characters should show the same propensity for acting contrary as do real people, if they do not then all you have created are 2-dimensional, pre-programmed robots who are slaves to their Meyers-Briggs personality types. How boring.



Characters are like the "angel" and "devil" which perch on the shoulders of the person whose mind is pondering the thematic question.  At no time does the angel become the devil or vice versa.  

Now, the main character and the impact character can both grow (and change).  Further, the main character and the impact character of a substory can both grow (and change) within that substory.  But, such change is not as spontaneous or arbitrary as in real life.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> One of the most powerful facets of any character, is when they act out of character... Charity from the antagonist, a hissy fit from the mild-mannered protagonist... They make for awesome prose, if written with skill.



It is powerful, but it is not as arbitrary and spontaneous as in real life.  If it were, it would come across as a Deus Ex Machina.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 15, 2014)

> There's a difference between "I'm sensing there's some sort of problem in the four chapters around the time the house burns down" and "John's fight with Cathy after they lose their house might be out of character given that he's got an enneagram type 3 and she's got an enneagram type of 4". The second one uses a tool to help identify and specify the problem so that the author can spend more time coming up with a creative solution.



The trouble is, I have no idea what's being said in the second one, and the further I get from having a personal relationship with my characters and events, the further I get from understanding and being able to interface with my work.

You could give an example of a writer who has used all these tools and has been successful - I'd like to read their work and see how it fits in to the vast spectrum of written artistry.



> Dramatic characters shouldn't act as real characters



When did this become advisable? You seem to advocate it at every turn; I'd like to know the source.



> Characters are like the "angel" and "devil" which perch on the shoulders of the person whose mind is pondering the thematic question. At no time does the angel become the devil or vice versa.



I think you've gone too deep into the philosophy of your craft and forgotten what you're actually writing about.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 15, 2014)

Justin Rocket, I really have to read some of your prose. Can you post a link to something you've done on here?

This was the one 'serious' piece I put on here, which has non-conforming antagonist, or is that protagonist... 

http://www.writingforums.com/thread...-520-words-mixed-genre-fantasy)-Mild-language


----------



## Sam (Jan 15, 2014)

This thread has reminded me why I avoid Writing Discussion.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I think you've gone too deep into the philosophy of your craft and forgotten what you're actually writing about.



Since the core of my argument is "use whatever tools and techniques work for you and since you don't know which tools and techniques will work if you haven't studied them, then always study" and the core of your argument seems to be "don't use any tools or techniques because it somehow unspecified will cheapen your work, just free write your way all the way through", I think you're the one who has gone too deep into the philosophy of your craft and forgotten what you're actually writing about.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 15, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Justin Rocket, I really have to read some of your prose. Can you post a link to something you've done on here?
> 
> This was the one 'serious' piece I put on here, which has non-conforming antagonist, or is that protagonist...
> 
> http://www.writingforums.com/thread...-520-words-mixed-genre-fantasy)-Mild-language



I don't post work on here unless it is a rough draft that I need another pair of eyes to look at.  But, here
http://www.writingforums.com/threads/143974-The-Long-Winter-scenes-2-and-3-1139-words?highlight=Luke
Keep in mind that this is not a finished draft.  If you'd like to see something I consider more refined, I can provide it for you, but its not posted here.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Real people often react out-of-character--particularly in stressful situations--and our characters should too.



Tell that to Clive Cussler with the Dirk Pitt character. Pitt reacts predictably every single time. Yet people don't seem to have an issue with the "real" or unreal component of the character.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 16, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't post work on here unless it is a rough draft that I need another pair of eyes to look at.  But, here
> http://www.writingforums.com/threads/143974-The-Long-Winter-scenes-2-and-3-1139-words?highlight=Luke
> Keep in mind that this is not a finished draft.  If you'd like to see something I consider more refined, I can provide it for you, but its not posted here.



I wanted to see how you handled characters and dialogue, so thank you for the link. It was very helpful!


----------



## Jeko (Jan 16, 2014)

> Since the core of my argument is "use whatever tools and techniques work for you and since you don't know which tools and techniques will work if you haven't studied them, then always study" and the core of your argument seems to be "don't use any tools or techniques because it somehow unspecified will cheapen your work, just free write your way all the way through", I think you're the one who has gone too deep into the philosophy of your craft and forgotten what you're actually writing about.



I write about people, JR. I know what I'm writing about. And we both know that I never said that you should never use any 'tools' or 'techniques', and that I never advocated free writing for a single second in this thread.

You be the carpenter, JR, and I'll be the sculptor. You can sell flat-pack furniture in Ikea; I can try to erect statues to things that matter to me for the enjoyment of those who see them. If that works for you, it also works for me.

PM me if you want to continue this discussion. Else, I'm done here.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 16, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Tell that to Clive Cussler with the Dirk Pitt character. Pitt reacts predictably every single time. Yet people don't seem to have an issue with the "real" or unreal component of the character.



One cardboard character from a genre which relies on the continuity of its main characters (for the greatest part) does not a solid case make.

Also, I never said that every character should act against type. That would be as ludicrous as having every character conform to some textbook pattern.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 16, 2014)

Cadence said:


> You be the carpenter, JR, and I'll be the sculptor. You can sell flat-pack furniture in Ikea; I can try to erect statues to things that matter to me for the enjoyment of those who see them. If that works for you, it also works for me.
> .



We both know I never advocated writing stories as "flat-pack furniture in Ikea".  I just believe that, by comparing it to sculpting, trying to sculpt out stone with one's bare hands instead of chisel and hammer is definitely the hard way to go.  To argue that one ends up with a better product if they don't use hammer and chisel is ridiculous.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 16, 2014)

I think everybody probably understands that there are fine furniture craftsmen who are renowned artists and commercial sculpture studios which turn out cast schlock. So the metaphor's not really going anywhere. This might be more a case of paint by the numbers versus finger painting, both with serious drawbacks. Just don't try finger painting by the numbers.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 16, 2014)

Is there a prize for the thread with the most 'off topic' posts, 'out of context' replies and 'uptight attitudes'??? 
And the winner is......

Simply put, like so many threads I have read, it all comes down to the writer.  So whether you use a pencil and the back of some paper grocery bags or this year model lap top with mega RAM etc. it depends on your talent.

That said, any craftman knows that the better his tools, the better the result will be.  Hairstylist, musician, painter, artist, carpenter, tailor....this is a universal rule of thumb for all trades.  The better the tools, the better the result.  

So, a hefty software package that organizes your script / plot / novel??? 
I might give it a try.  I'd decide for myself if it were an advantage or hinderance.  I wouldn't assume it was either.

David Gordon Burke
it's all mute to me.  My 15 year old lap top won't allow for any new program installs.  I'll have to keep working with what I've got.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 16, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> it all comes down to the writer.  So whether you use a pencil and the back of some paper grocery bags or this year model lap top with mega RAM etc. it depends on your talent.



That's what I've been saying!   Any tools which help should be used.   Any tools which don't help should be discarded.   The individual writer is the one who should make that decision.  But, the closed-mindedness of assuming that any tool used will cheapen the end product is philosophical constipation.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 16, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> That's what I've been saying! Any tools which help should be used. Any tools which don't help should be discarded. The individual writer is the one who should make that decision. But, the closed-mindedness of assuming that any tool used will cheapen the end product is philosophical constipation.



I see that some folk might take offense at your usage of the words "SHOULD" and "HELP" It's a bit abrasive.  'Should' is within the eye of the beholder.  All tools that help should be used?  Why?  Who says so?  You?  I don't know you.  How are you credible as a source of what should and shouldn't be?  

How about stating 'today's writer has a lot of different writing aids to choose from and his only limitation in taking advantage of these powerful tools, is his own imagination'  

I mean seriously, No writer with a shred of dignity wants to be seen as a three year old refusing to try sushi.  'I don't like it' 'Have you tried it?' 'No'  This is not the true mark of a writer.  

But in the end, writing is a very personal, even mysterious endeavour.  One might only write while wearing their favorite ball cap, with certain lights on and other off, with the pup curled up around one's feet etc. etc.  Should or shouldn't don't really enter into it.  Results are all that count.  


David Gordon Burke


----------



## Sinderion (Jan 16, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I'd just recently heard of Brooks' work (I'd been studying up on Save the Cat and came across a Beat Sheet that included that and Brooks'.  I've not heard of Bell's stuff until now.  Can you tell me more about both of them?



They're both fairly hardcore craft focused in those books.  That's what I needed at least.  What to write and where to write it kind of stuff to help you unleash your ideas/creativity.  Bell is from writer's digest, so it's technically a writer's digest book ... kind of.

On the off topic thing - My ideal is about 3k words a day, one 'standard' scene in the basic writing structure I'm going by.  I very often don't meet it every day though, I'm still settling that in, and I took a 2 month break a couple months back, so I'm working back up to that /cry.  If I finish it, I just go back and polish it.  I'm that kind of guy, I hate the idea of multiple drafts, and Brook's book very clearly demonstrates it's very possible to publish first drafts if you do it right from the start.   I just don't want to end up like F. Scott Fitzgerald, constantly tweaking and re-tweaking, looking for a perfection that doesn't exist lol.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 16, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Should or shouldn't don't really enter into it.  Results are all that count.



I agree. :encouragement:


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 16, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> 'Should' is within the eye of the beholder.  All tools that help should be used?  Why?  Who says so?  You?  I don't know you.  How are you credible as a source of what should and shouldn't be?



Which is why I wrote


> _The individual writer is the one who should make that decision_


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jan 16, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I never said that every character should act against type. That would be as ludicrous as having every character conform to some textbook pattern.



Oooh I have an anecdote! I started one story where every character's name was a generic stereotypical description like "Evil Wizard". They're literally defined by their outward appearance and assumptions about their personality (most of which would obviously be correct), but it also means that I can use those stereotypes as a launching point for a more developed character; the basics are already out of the way.


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 16, 2014)

All this arguing around in circles is making my head spin.

At this point I think it's best to answer the original question:



Justin Rocket said:


> Which complete writing method have you used and what has been your experience with them?
> 
> By "complete writing method", I mean "branded writing method which covers all steps of writing" (examples are Marshall Plan, Dramatica, Snowflake, etc.)?



And leave discussing the validity of using any branded method (or otherwise) up to another thread.


----------

