# Plotting vs Pantsing



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 4, 2019)

Okay, this is prolly the most over-discussed topic in writing forums, but what the hell eh?


Lotsa writers are always asking the question "Are you a plotter* or a panster** when you write?" 

See, there's an erroneous belief that as a writer you are one or the other. But the truth is, it's really about the book. Some books you can pantster, and some books MUST be plotted. If you are writing your 99th romance for Harlequin, you can prolly pants that one. But if you are writing an encyclopedia*** then you are definitely gonna need to plot that baby. Y'see what I mean?

So the next logical question would be: Is one better than the other?
Are there benefits to doing it one way vs another? 
Do they tell the story differently?
Will Rachel ever get back together with Ross?












*Plotter is when you *plot* out the story/characters/scenes in advance and write to that framework. 

**Pantsing is...well it's writing by the seat of your *pants*. Just writing a story as it comes to you (you have a very rough outline in your head, but not a lotta plotting.)

***Encyclopedia: A big book full of knowledge, common in the pre-net era. Usually came in a set of 20-24 books, ordered in alphabetical sequence. Last known sighting of a full set of encyclopedias was in 2013, somewhere in the Tunguska Basin.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 4, 2019)

There's actually a reason that I brought up this topic. 
It just so happens that I am conducting a highly scientific test on plotting versus pantsing.
Highly scientific!


Actually, I was alternating back and forth every day between 2 new books and I suddenly realized that I was plotting one, and pantsing the other. Twas entirely unintentional. 
Here's a peek at both of those (I really just brought up this topic so I could talk about my books.) :icon_joker:


----------



## Cephus (Jun 4, 2019)

I 100% plot all of the time.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Jun 4, 2019)

Your image is broken, Mr. Rotten. 

I'm trying to incorporate planning more. I've pantsed A LOT, but I feel there is merit to plotting things out as well. I know that many acclaimed works of fiction that I admire have followed the plotting method.

I'm also wondering what you, or anyone else, think about pantsing the first draft and then using THAT as your outline and rewriting an entirely new draft (2nd draft) as the next version of your story. I wonder if that would work. Hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 4, 2019)

Yeah I agree with this.

I also think it's probably dependent on how you work and your life circumstances. If you're fortunate enough to be in a situation where you can work long hours on a book and really immerse yourself in the world and can finish a first draft in a week or two on a roll, 'pantsing' is probably fairly easy. But if you're kind of writing 100 words a day on lunch breaks over the course of two years, its going to be harder to just roll with.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 4, 2019)

I've done both over the years. For me, I have an image of how I wanna tell the story (which POV/voice) and if it is gonna be a plotter or a pantster.
Typically my major books are plotters, and the between books are pantsters.
See, I'm usually all worn out from the big books (plotters) so I just wanna take a break and write something fun, so I write a between book (pantster.) 

Calizona was actually a hybrid book. I started off pantsing an idea I had been fermenting for 2 years. But quickly I saw that I really needed to do some serious plotting.
Like, I sat down and created floorplans for the entire bunker (60,000 square feet of bomb shelter). I had to create a timeline (that was literally 7 pages taped end to end) and even kept a big posterboard with the family trees.
The entire series was 150% plotter. The successive books, since they had to fit into the footprint of the first book, had to be plotted to the Nth degree before I wrote a damned thing.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 4, 2019)

Bard_Daniel said:


> I'm also wondering what you, or anyone else, think about pantsing the first draft and then using THAT as your outline and rewriting an entirely new draft (2nd draft) as the next version of your story. I wonder if that would work. Hmmmmmmmm.





I'd say that sounded like a terrible idea, but I have actually done it twice...not meaning to.
Yep, 2 of the books I wrote* were rewritten from the ground up. The first version was just not...right. And the changes would have been huge, like converting a vette into a minivan, so I just wrote them over again based on the first draft's template.











*Here are links to the two books that I wrote twice.
I actually used CreateSpace to print out copies of the originals, just so I can have them side by side on the shelf with the published versions.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 5, 2019)

I'm usually a mix of both. I am primarily a pantser, but also have a pretty solid idea of the general story arc. Once I have that in place, I may do a lot more plotting during the editing phase. I primarily do this for pacing, deeper character development, or if I want to add additional scenes.


----------



## 50shadesofdoubt (Jun 5, 2019)

Panster all the way as I never know where my mind will take me. My latest? Started out as a feel-good romance, but morphed into a suspense when a psychotic stalker entered the picture. From there, that complication gave me fuel to weave a side story of deceit that is catalyst to cement the trust that true love demands. To be honest, I would have never been able to plot the twist this novel. I'm sure many are hardwired to follow processes, but I'm not one of them. LOL


----------



## ironpony (Jun 6, 2019)

I'd say so far it's a combination for me.  You want to know your ending in advance usually, and sections of the story you will have to plot to get to that ending, and some sections you can pants.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jun 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Will Rachel ever get back together with Ross?



Yah,_ baby!_ Rachel _thinks_ she will get back with Ross, until Ming the Merciless spacejacks her cargo ship--and the rest is future-history! 


(Sorry, got overly carried away there...)





Ralph Rotten said:


> Encyclopedia: A big book full of knowledge, common in the pre-net era. Usually came in a set of 20-24 books, ordered in alphabetical sequence. Last known sighting of a full set of encyclopedias was in 2013, somewhere in the Tunguska Basin.



I think we used to call that a saga... check! Got one. Did not plot. Terrible mess. 

(Need I say anything more?)

Seriously, though, pantsing as a term is so... department-storish. ("The fitting room is over there-!") We used to call it organic writing. So, anyone know when the usage changed?


----------



## Cephus (Jun 6, 2019)

I think my question, and I looked around a little and couldn't find anything, is how many professional, successful writers are pantsers vs. plotters. Neither of them really matter unless you finish books.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 6, 2019)

I have an answer for that cephus. The answer is they are both, according to Jurgen Wolf: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1857885783/?tag=writingforu06-20

The book above has quotes from writers on their writing process.
I think I read that information in that book. So j k rowling is a plotter for instance. There are both plotters and pansters and those who do both. I want to be both of these types (panster and plotter). Pansting is the only way I can force myself to finish writing a story.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 6, 2019)

I think _pantsing_ came from the idiom, "by the seat of the pants," meaning that it's done without forethought, making it up as we go along.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 6, 2019)

Amnesiac is correct. Pantsters write by the seat of their pants, just writing from a story in their head, and often do not have the whole story even worked out yet.
I don't know how the Ming story ends*. 


I have written both ways, and I gotta say, pantsing feels free and fun, but has a higher probability of being painted into a corner. Pantsing can often translate that sense of freedom to the writing. However, pantsing often introduces components that feel...pantsed and made-up. Simple, character-driven stories are best for pantsing. _* You would not pants Catch 22*_.

Plotting is really great for big complicated stories. I can totally imagine the lengths that Rowling went thru to plot for Potter. She had big maps of the family trees, maps of Hogwords, dozens of students, and a staff of 15. Oh yeah, there is also 30 bad guys, He Who Shall not Be names, Harry & his entourage, and giants. Yeah, that series was always gonna be plotted.

The benefits of plotting is that you have less chance of writing yourself into an impossible corner. The chapter development tends to be more complex than a pantsed book. But they run the risk of becoming an bottomless hole. I have seen writers spend years orbiting a black hole they called a plot.  









*But I sure as hell know how Blue Collar astronaut ends. Because that's a plotted book.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 6, 2019)

I've found that pantsing works well for short stories with an "A to B" plot and uncomplicated characters. I agree that once a work gets larger, with more complex characters and a more involved plot, even if the outline is very rudimentary, it simply must be there. It can be as involved or basic as the writer wants/needs, but a bigger story requires a bigger "backbone," and that is the skeleton -- the outline.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 6, 2019)

Agreed.
Pantsed stories are fluffier. They tend to be fun stories (for me anyhow.

Plotted stories are denser, they pace differently, they are serious books.

Here is some of the kind of fluff that I add in a pantsing story (because writing a pantster book is freer an dfunner, remember.) 
But in a plotting story I am focused more on telling the story and illustrating the hero, benchmarks, arc, and a thousand details.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 6, 2019)

Did anyone see the Beatles reference?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jun 6, 2019)

For the three going on four fanfictions I've written in the past 3 years I've always pants them. Not to say that the plots weren't complex they somewhat are but I feel that for my first pieceof original fiction it would be best to have an outline. Especially with all of the complex government stuff involved along with all of the research on the occult that I've had to do. I can't afford to pants this one.


----------



## Cephus (Jun 6, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> I have an answer for that cephus. The answer is they are both, according to Jurgen Wolf: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1857885783/?tag=writingforu06-20
> 
> The book above has quotes from writers on their writing process.
> I think I read that information in that book. So j k rowling is a plotter for instance. There are both plotters and pansters and those who do both. I want to be both of these types (panster and plotter). Pansting is the only way I can force myself to finish writing a story.



That doesn't answer which is more successful though, but those statistics may not exist.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Amnesiac is correct. Pantsters write by the seat of their pants, just writing from a story in their head, and often do not have the whole story even worked out yet.
> I don't know how the Ming story ends*.
> 
> 
> ...



Ralph is broadly correct. The only thing I would disagree with is that it's not just about size and complexity of plot (although that's definitely part of it) but also about how comfortable the writer is with their story.

For example, the first novel I wrote was over two hundred thousand words long, encompassed three different historical periods, had at least 20 recurrent characters and was generally intended as a sort of magnum opus. And I didn't plot it. Not because I didn't find it complicated or challenging but because I was super comfortable with the story. I had been working on various parts of it _mentally _for years. It was one of those stories that just sprang from the fingertips. It was a story that came from the heart as much as it did the head and I knew everything there was to know. And I did finish it. Still a good story plotwise, but needs a massive overhaul in terms of style simply down to my incompetence, which maybe I'll get to someday.

Contrast this with the novel I am working on now, which is one that is much newer in every respect. It has only a handful of characters and mostly takes place within a single building. I also expect it to come in well under 100,000 words. Rather simple, except that it's not, because I literally thought of the idea a few months ago, have been working on it very intermittently as I am bogged down in short-story submissions, and for that reason I feel a need to sketch an outline of it, if for no other reason than I don't want to, in some fatigued state, drop in a continuity error or forget what color my MC's eyes are.

So yeah, planning is a good idea, IMO, if one intends on writing productively - and by productively I mean constantly, with no months or years off for navel-gazing and avoidance in between. If one is constantly dealing in 'new ideas' due to that productivity, pantsing is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 7, 2019)

I think both ways have pro's and cons.
Here is a good example of a con for pantsing.
I have cleared out everything in the 2B written list, and I am at this blinking cursor.
I have no idea where Dave is going.
Really, none at all. He's got a ship with a full galley and 5 days to see the galaxy...


But that's how pantsing goes. Lemme give you an example:
This guy Dave, he was *supposed* to be a plot-device, but somehow became the central character (WTF??). Now he may even have super powers, and his parents were both supers, and his boss is secretely his sister who faked her own death by absorbing the essence of the 4 hot chicks in her class....  Some klazy chit comes out of pantsing books.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 7, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I think both ways have pro's and cons.
> Here is a good example of a con for pantsing.
> I have cleared out everything in the 2B written list, and I am at this blinking cursor.
> I have no idea where Dave is going.
> ...



Oh god, I can't do 'fingering'.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Oh god, I can't do 'fingering'.



You can, with a little practice.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Oh god, I can't do 'fingering'.



Fingering?
The potential definitions for that term are broad enough that you should probably explain.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 10, 2019)

It is inappropriate for one staff member to crap in another staff member's thread.
Sooo, we were talking about the benefits of pantsing versus plotting, and I was just pointing out how with pantsing you can easily write yourself into a corner because you are making things up on the fly.
If I had been plotting that book I would have known where it was going, even had the end largely worked out.
I just thought of the ending for this book two days ago, and I was 150 pages deep already.
Funnier yet, the ending has changed three times since then. No wait, it's 4 endings.
That's pantsing for you.
You literally just make shit up...and sometimes people pay you to do it.











PS: How did I get out of that spot I was in before? Where I had no idea what to do next in the book? 
Simple.
I just asked myself; What would Dave do?


----------



## Cephus (Jun 11, 2019)

We all make shit up, that's what writing is. Some of us just do all of the making up at the beginning of the process and front-load the creativity so that when we sit down to write, we know where we're headed and are just filling in the blanks.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 11, 2019)

I've written two novels with no plan. Never got lost once. Never wrote myself into a corner. If planning works for you, that's great. It's the 'best' way for you. For me, and many others, writing organically works just as well.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 11, 2019)

Does this meanI have to wear my pants on my head?  


> Originally Posted by *Ralph Rotten*
> 
> 
> Amnesiac is correct. Pantsters write by the seat of their pants, just writing from a story in their head, and often do not have the whole story even worked out yet.


Generally speaking I have some of what I plan survive the writing process but have to pantster my way between them. Funny how better ideas turn up during the sweat and blood wrestling.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 12, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I've written two novels with no plan. Never got lost once. Never wrote myself into a corner. If planning works for you, that's great. It's the 'best' way for you. For me, and many others, writing organically works just as well.




Ahhhhh, one of the intentions of this thread is to dispel that silly myth that a writer is either plotter or pantster.
Everyone pants their first 2 books, it doesn't mean it's the way to do it every time.
It just means it worked that time.

How long were these books?


----------



## Terry D (Jun 14, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Ahhhhh, one of the intentions of this thread is to dispel that silly myth that a writer is either plotter or pantster.
> Everyone pants their first 2 books, it doesn't mean it's the way to do it every time.
> It just means it worked that time.
> 
> How long were these books?



Well, actually, these were the third and fourth books I'd started. The first two were heavily planned and died about 30,000 words into each because writing to the plan became boring. The two I completed, were 118,000 words and 206,000 words respectively. I never suggested that writers were one thing, or the other, only that either way can work equally well. That point is not in dispute. You can find successful writers on either side of the line.

I only posted my comment (I really don't give a rat's ass what anyone else does) because of someone's comment about writing oneself "into a corner", or "getting lost". The comment made such results seem inevitable and they are not. What's wrong with the writing leading you to places you didn't foresee? I write myself into those places all the time and then I write my way out of them. The benefit of that is, if I didn't see it coming, the reader won't either. Let's just say I enjoy going off-road. I find lots of neat things there.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 14, 2019)

How about this for an idea? Nobody gets to argue in favor of being either a “plotter” or a “pantser” until they actually use one or the other or both to complete a novel that is readable.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Jun 14, 2019)

I think I'm a little bit of both. I go hell's bells when the story is hot in my head, but I take profuse (quick) notes on the way. I couldn't plan out a story because the story usually doesn't want to adhere to my guidelines. It seems it has a mind of its own. I can change, detour or red herring at the strangest of places. It's a gut or intuition feel that runs my engine most of the time. I have great respect for plotters, because they usually know exactly where they're going.


----------



## dahand (Jun 17, 2019)

I'm a pantser first, but once I have the characters down, I start plotting more, just to flesh out the different arcs.  I rarely know the ending until it happens, though.  The good thing is with Scrivener, I can do this easily.  When my OCD kicks in, I can plot away in the binder and make the character connections, then when I'm ready to compose, I click back to the editor and type away, forgetting the plotting notes I just made.  LOL


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 17, 2019)

dahand said:


> I'm a pantser first, but once I have the characters down, I start plotting more, just to flesh out the different arcs.  I rarely know the ending until it happens, though.  The good thing is with Scrivener, I can do this easily.  When my OCD kicks in, I can plot away in the binder and make the character connections, then when I'm ready to compose, I click back to the editor and type away, forgetting the plotting notes I just made.  LOL





See, this is a hybrid format here. I kind of do this too. Once I get to pantsing, I start a 2B list of the scenes I wanna write (that come to me faster than I can type). So even though I am pantsing the book, 3/4 of it is written by pulling items from the 2B list.
So it has elements of plotting, as well as elements of pantsing.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jun 19, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> How about this for an idea? Nobody gets to argue in favor of being either a “plotter” or a “pantser” until they actually use one or the other or both to complete a novel that is readable.



Okay, so here's a question. I'm rewriting a very messy draft I wrote a very long time ago. No plotting. Just sat down one day & started writing. It's awful. (IMO, it's not readable, but I do tend to be hard on what I write, so that's debatable.) What is it called when I go through and rewrite it, keeping everything that works well? Editing is too nice a term. Does it transition into a plotted story, or is there a better word? (Or, do I simply call it a rewrite?)


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jun 20, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Some of us just do all of the making up at the beginning of the process and front-load the creativity so that when we sit down to write, we know where we're headed and are just filling in the blanks.



This is probably why I'll always lean more towards the pantsing side (except with comics. Kind of have to plan those out). I don't like the feeling of just filling in the blanks. Yes, I have to have some idea where the story is going, but if I know the exact beats I'm not going to enjoy the actual writing much. Even when writing research papers I don't plan; I absorb all the information mentally, "pants" a first draft, and then reorganize, edit, and cite. 



Megan Pearson said:


> Editing is too nice a term. Does it transition into a plotted story, or is there a better word? (Or, do I simply call it a rewrite?)



There's a soft line between a full-on rewrite and just revision. I'd call it a rewrite if you're rewriting all or most of the main scenes; I'd call it revision if you're rewriting only some of them or just re-ordering and tweaking.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 20, 2019)

Megan Pearson said:


> Okay, so here's a question. I'm rewriting a very messy draft I wrote a very long time ago. No plotting. Just sat down one day & started writing. It's awful. (IMO, it's not readable, but I do tend to be hard on what I write, so that's debatable.) What is it called when I go through and rewrite it, keeping everything that works well? Editing is too nice a term. Does it transition into a plotted story, or is there a better word? (Or, do I simply call it a rewrite?)



It doesn't matter what it's called if it works for you.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 20, 2019)

Sometimes, if I'm not sure where to go in a particular section of the story, I'll take some time to plan it out. Other times, I'll just dive in and see where it takes me. A lot depends on mood.

I try to think of both plotting and pantsing as just tools in the box. If the goal is to get that page/scene/chapter written, then I try to use whatever tools I have on hand to do it.

IMO, if you swear allegiance to any particular approach, you're just limiting yourself by removing creative options.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 20, 2019)

Megan Pearson said:


> Okay, so here's a question. I'm rewriting a very messy draft I wrote a very long time ago. No plotting. Just sat down one day & started writing. It's awful. (IMO, it's not readable, but I do tend to be hard on what I write, so that's debatable.) What is it called when I go through and rewrite it, keeping everything that works well? Editing is too nice a term. Does it transition into a plotted story, or is there a better word? (Or, do I simply call it a rewrite?)




Actually that raises an interesting question: what would you call that rewrite.
I had a similar case. I wrote a book called Jackie Sparks. Pantsed that book 
Twas good, but I felt it was underwhelming, so I rewrote it (again pantsing it) with additional cast members and billed it as The Day Gravity Became Irrelevant.

So the first book was truly pantsed, but the second book was pantsed using the first book as a template.
So was the second book still truly pantsed?


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 20, 2019)

Yes, I would consider it pantsed in the same way that legs, in a pair of jeans, are pantsed.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jun 21, 2019)

I have to admit that i'm a bit of both. I start out panting the whole thing in my head and then just go for it on the page. When i get further into the list of scenes that play out in my head I tend to start planning (mostly on the fly planning to be honest) out the rest of the story as I go from scene to scene.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Jun 21, 2019)

Honestly, I haven't really thought about it. Most of the time, I go with my imagination. I let the story play out for me mentally, it's just a matter of fine tuning it. If I do any plotting, it's mental. I have an idea of what happens in what order. Is this still considered plotting, since I don't actually write it down?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jun 21, 2019)

MzSnowleopard said:


> Honestly, I haven't really thought about it. Most of the time, I go with my imagination. I let the story play out for me mentally, it's just a matter of fine tuning it. If I do any plotting, it's mental. I have an idea of what happens in what order. Is this still considered plotting, since I don't actually write it down?



If it requires conscious thought on your part to write i would say that yes that make's you a planner or in your case a partial planner which is great in a way because you aren't set in stone and rigid. Your idea can flow from scene to scene and change as you see fit in order to fix the story as any issues arrive.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 22, 2019)

Plotting is a lot of work.
Pantsing is fun and light.

I've tried to pants books that I shoulda plotted, and they were *miserable *things.
You know, those stories where you can spot the cheap plot devices being installed in preparation for a not-so-surprising ending? Yep, that's how they look.
Paid for it in the editing...had to become a plotter to edit because half the book's problem was errors in names and details integral to the story.
In one chapter I'd call a guy Joshua, then James in the next. Or I'd have inconsistencies from the massive cuts....
A big project can get away from you quickly.

So now I take time to think about which way I wanna write that next book. It's like a carpenter _guestimating* _how much lumber is needed for a porch.
Some stories I look at and say "That thang needs to be researched and plotted!"
Others, I just write 'em.













*Guestimating; also known as SWAG, or Scientific Wild Ass Guess.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Jun 24, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> If it requires conscious thought on your part to write i would say that yes that make's you a planner or in your case a partial planner which is great in a way because you aren't set in stone and rigid. Your idea can flow from scene to scene and change as you see fit in order to fix the story as any issues arrive.



And this is my own problem- I don't like rigidness, it makes me feel boxed in. And yet being fluid is a problem as well. In one of my stories the killer keeps shifting between 2 characters. This holds up the story. have them working together? Sure, that's a great idea. This opens a new can of worms. LOL


----------



## Rojack79 (Jun 24, 2019)

MzSnowleopard said:


> And this is my own problem- I don't like rigidness, it makes me feel boxed in. And yet being fluid is a problem as well. In one of my stories the killer keeps shifting between 2 characters. This holds up the story. have them working together? Sure, that's a great idea. This opens a new can of worms. LOL



What kind of killer is this individual? Does them working together with someone fit in there MO?


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Jun 26, 2019)

I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll send it to you in a PM.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 27, 2019)

MzSnowleopard said:


> I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll send it to you in a PM.




Just start a new thread, or talk about in the *What have you written today thread*.
Sounds like it could be an interesting discussion.


----------



## Periander (Jun 27, 2019)

Oh, I'm definitely a pantserer.  I personally despise outlines because they feel artificial to me.  Not existing in the moment.  I usually have the next couple scenes "glimpsed" in my mind, but I don't want to know exactly what's going to happen.

I subscribe to the philosophy that if I want the reader to experience a feeling of surprise or discovery, I need to experience it, too.  A reader doesn't always know what's coming, so why should I?  When I'm not quite sure about what is hiding around the narrative corner, everything feels fresh and I begin to sense a particular bond with my readers that wasn't there before.  It's magical.  If some element in the plot doesn't work, I can always go back and fix it later.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jun 28, 2019)

Periander said:


> Oh, I'm definitely a pantserer.  I personally despise outlines because they feel artificial to me.  Not existing in the moment.  I usually have the next couple scenes "glimpsed" in my mind, but I don't want to know exactly what's going to happen.
> 
> I subscribe to the philosophy that if I want the reader to experience a feeling of surprise or discovery, I need to experience it, too.  A reader doesn't always know what's coming, so why should I?  When I'm not quite sure about what is hiding around the narrative corner, everything feels fresh and I begin to sense a particular bond with my readers that wasn't there before.  It's magical.  If some element in the plot doesn't work, I can always go back and fix it later.



This I can totally understand. I have to admit that i constantly find myself surprised by the characters and there actions within the story itself especially if I don't have anything really planned out and then out of nowhere they throw a curveball my way.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 28, 2019)

In past discussion of this subject some plotters have remarked that pure pantsing is probably a myth and that we must all plan really. I consider myself to be a pantser but can accept that point of view because my ability to string a story together from the very first time that I wrote fiction was most likely strongly supported by the experience that I'd gained as a software developer.

Creating a fictional work can be thought of as having three key stages, i.e. conceiving the story structure, adding consistent details and actually putting it into words convincingly. Of course these three stages may be repeated at lower levels because adding details may require further conception and so on. How a writer perceives their own working method may simply depend on which part of the task they find the hardest. I regarded writing my novel as pantsing because the story itself materialised quite unbidden in my mind, my unconscious mind tackled the planning as meticulously as it did when designing a complex software system, so I was unaware of it happening, and I just wrote the thing as best as I could, having never studied the techniques of writing. It was simply the fact that my brain unconsciously did all the planning to maintain the structure, continuity and connectivity that other novice writers may struggle with that created the illusion of pure pantsing.

It is in a way like going on a touring holiday. Which part is the hardest, choosing the area to tour, planning the detailed route and places to visit or actually driving the car? A pure pantser would probably get lost, run out of fuel in a remote location or get pulled over for not knowing how to drive correctly. That doesn't mean that a pure planner would have a better time than a pragmatic pantser though because the pure planner might not know when to make a leap of faith. Last year my angel and I were due to drive around Ireland on a tour planned for us by a holiday planning company. We were not particularly happy about one hotel that we would be staying at as it was by a harbour in a popular holiday town that we would rather have avoided and there wasn't any private parking available, so we would have to find somewhere on a nearby street to leave our car. We decided that the overall package looked good apart from that, so didn't make an issue of it. However, barely two weeks before we started the holiday I contacted the holiday planner to ask whether he could find us an alternate to that particular hotel and apologised for leaving the request so late. Soon after he offered us the best room in a castle right on the waterfront on the edge of a delightful quiet village and a short walk from one of the most renowned eateries in Ireland. When I asked him about the cost he said that it was the same as for the original hotel! It was a totally pants thing for me to do to mention our misgivings at such a late date but it paid off. In fact maybe it was because I left it so late that that castle's proprietors were willing to let their best room at any price. It might seem that we were just lucky, but something similar happened earlier this year when we quite accidentally got the ideal holiday transportation that we would have chosen but couldn't plan. Also, the way that things are currently going it is likely that our second holiday later this year will also be better than we expected. 

Effective pantsing is simply one of the skills desired in writing and the one that just can't be explained or taught. Maybe it is just a gift of the gods. In a way it could be seen as the underlying theme of my solitary novel and the projected trilogy that it was part of, which latter I gave the title _The Hermes Culture. _Among many other roles Hermes was the messenger of the gods, so maybe the patron of pantsers. Personally I can only echo Philip Henslowe's sentiments in _Shakespeare in Love, _that we cannot ever plan for everything because some fortunate consequences of our efforts remain a mystery.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 28, 2019)

A twitter friend of mine (who is an excellent cover designer) posted this nugget. It's a guideline to help pantsters outline on the fly.
Seemed interesting so I thought I'd throw it into the singularity.
Source: *​*@creativindie
.


----------



## Bmad (Jul 1, 2019)

The only difference I see between the two is how well your ass is covered when people review your work. 

Generally have some solid idea of where you're going. I do enjoy a smooth ride but sometimes that ride with the crazy uncle is also interesting, assuming you don't need many stitches afterwords.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 1, 2019)

Bmad said:


> The only difference I see between the two is how well your ass is covered when people review your work.
> 
> Generally have some solid idea of where you're going. I do enjoy a smooth ride but sometimes that ride with the crazy uncle is also interesting, assuming you don't need many stitches afterwords.



LOL! Crazy uncle... >-> outline involving Loki... well they're going to need more than stitches when this is over.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jul 1, 2019)

I plot 90% of the time, but then that 10% pops up occasionally, and turns me into a pantser for a short period of time. One of my latest WIPs falls into that category as well.

-JJB


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Jul 1, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Just start a new thread, or talk about in the *What have you written today thread*.
> Sounds like it could be an interesting discussion.



I don't want to give up too much at the moment. Which is the other issue. I'm not ready to commit to who the killer is, just yet. 
The time will come, when I've started posting content of the story, then I'll be ready for open discussion.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 1, 2019)

MzSnowleopard said:


> I don't want to give up too much at the moment. Which is the other issue. I'm not ready to commit to who the killer is, just yet.
> The time will come, when I've started posting content of the story, then I'll be ready for open discussion.



Can't wait!


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Jul 1, 2019)

when I've started posting = should read ...  when I'll start posting


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 23, 2019)

There are three types of writers:

1. Those who plot their books.
2. Those who discover their plot along the way.
3. Those who know what will happen, but their book is a bit feral still, needs a bath, has bitten, and will bite again. 

irate2:


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> There are three types of writers:
> 
> 1. Those who plot their books.
> 2. Those who discover their plot along the way.
> ...



Biggie size #3 with a Coke and extra napkins in case it bites again_

These stories make for long, agonizing nights. _:drinkcoffee:


----------



## Sam (Jul 24, 2019)

The idea that pantsers will paint themselves into a corner, or require much more editing with first drafts, is so incorrect as to be laughable. I am a pantser, so perhaps that makes me biased, but I just don't get the contention and/or vitriol that pansters receive whenever one of these threads rears its ugly head. I've been writing since 1997; I'm set to finish my fifteenth novel sometime in the fall; and I would estimate that I've penned approximately four to five million words of prose, academia, and non-fiction in that time. In point of fact, I have pantsed _everything _I've ever done. That includes all material written throughout undergrad, Master's, and post-grad degrees. 

Twenty-two years and not once have I so much as scribbled an idea down on a piece of paper. Not once in the fourteen novels that came before the one I'm currently writing have I ever painted myself into a corner. I don't even know what that means. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. My novels follow a contiguous sequence of events that occur across a period of days, weeks, or months. My characters get themselves into all kinds of chaos and mayhem. Some survive, some don't, depending on what the story calls for. To me, "painting oneself into a corner" implies getting your novel to a place where you can conceive of no possible way to overcome an obstacle you've created. And if you can do that pantsing, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it when you plan either. 

Do I encounter problems and issues when I pants? Of course I do, but I'd encounter the same problems if I'd planned instead. That's just the pains of writing a novel. The truth of it is, it doesn't matter what side of the divide you fall on. If you tell an inexperienced and under-skilled writer to plan, a skilled writer who pantses is still going to create the better piece of work. So, please, let's stop lauding either planning or pantsing as being the most important thing a writer can concentrate on.  

Do you want to get better at writing? Write more. Want to get better at writing novels? Write more novels. I've spent over half of my life working sedulously to get to the level of skill I currently possess* -- and I'm still learning. Plan, pants, do whatever works for you and makes you comfortable. Then, put the work in. Nothing -- _absolutely nothing _-- will serve you more in the long run than working on your craft. 

*And it's disconcerting to think that anyone believes that twenty years of writing skill goes down the toilet if I decide to pants rather than plan. I don't somehow become a worse or better writer overnight by choosing to either plan or pants; that notion is quite daft.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2019)

^ Someone left the door open again. I feel a fresh breeze...


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

I got more writing done when I was pantsing, actually--but part of the issue was that while I finished the work, more often, the quality wasn't always that great. Of course, some of that was because I was 17-21 when I was doing that. After that, the stories improved but were #3's. I'd try to plot things so I wouldn't wind up with 200,000 word meandering epic sagas with no clear climax or story arcs. I also stopped finishing work as predictably because I was more likely to get stuck in corners, so to speak. Characters would develop in ways I hadn't foreseen and come to different conclusions than I'd wanted them too. Planned arcs would take longer in practice than theory--or not as long as I needed them too. I'd come to the conclusion that something I'd needed to happen for the plot to work just couldn't work in writing the way I'd planned for it too. Sudden continuity errors would show up, negating years of work sometimes. 

Pantsing is sooo much easier for me, and the stories aren't necessarily any worse off for it. Better to have a needlessly long story that eventually gets finished. It can always be edited later, but it's gotta get finished first. 

I don't think any of the methods are bad, per se. It's about what works best for the author and the work. All of them take a lot of skill and discipline. Good writing is good writing, whether it's planned or not.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jul 25, 2019)

To no-one in particular: is "pantsing" a writing method that has become more widespread since the advent of the word processor (which makes text far easier to alter and move around)?

I ask this because I often pants shorter pieces, but find it better to carry out limited planning with longer ones.  However, I couldn't imagine me writing a longer piece without planning if I were using a typewriter.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 25, 2019)

Phil Istine said:


> To no-one in particular: is "pantsing" a writing method that has become more widespread since the advent of the word processor (which makes text far easier to alter and move around)?
> 
> I ask this because I often pants shorter pieces, but find it better to carry out limited planning with longer ones.  However, I couldn't imagine me writing a longer piece without planning if I were using a typewriter.



Sounds about right


----------



## JustRob (Jul 25, 2019)

Phil Istine said:


> To no-one in particular: is "pantsing" a writing method that has become more widespread since the advent of the word processor (which makes text far easier to alter and move around)?
> 
> I ask this because I often pants shorter pieces, but find it better to carry out limited planning with longer ones.  However, I couldn't imagine me writing a longer piece without planning if I were using a typewriter.



As no-one in particular, my relatively limited experience of pantsing is that the text comes to mind with very little need for subsequent editing. Certainly it occurs in entire pages, which can be moved around in relation to each other regardless of whether they are virtual or physical. In my case the consistency of the details, chronology and plot elements probably arises from my past career designing computer software, which involved creating and keeping complex logical structures within my head long before they were committed to formal specification and coding.

The benefit of using a word processor is that it makes correction of my appalling typing far easier but then, with my text already so clearly in my mind, in the absence of that option I would probably hand write my work. For comparison, back in the days when we wrote our computer code on forms to be punched onto cards I wrote mine with a fountain pen to ensure that the girls who operated the card punching machines could read it clearly. Writing in pencil with parts rubbed out and corrected increased the possibility of errors. I had a reputation for writing code that would work faultlessly without any need for revision and those early computers were utterly ruthless critics of bad code of course.

Maybe I am not a typical writer though. I hesitate to compare my primitive efforts to those of Mozart, but I understand that his original scores showed few if any signs of having been corrected. Once the thoughts are in one's mind transcription to another medium is just a technical process regardless of how it is achieved. I can hardly brag about the ability when I don't even understand how it happens myself.

I have likened pantser writing to reporting scenes as a first hand witness; the experience is just that clear. In contrast I can't imagine how planners can force such experiences to occur in their minds, which is why I could never be a career writer working to a defined plan or schedule. I admire those who are able to produce worthwhile results that way. I doubt that I ever could.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 23, 2019)

Some articles that I read today suggested to me a startling extra dimension in the plotting versus pantsing debate. The first was about retropsychokinesis (aka retro PK), the alleged ability to influence events that happened in the past. The other was about precognition, the ability to sense events that will happen in the future. Far from being fantasy, convincing experiments and spontaneous examples of these phenomena are documented in detail in the annals of the Society for Psychical Research, which is a long-standing organisation that studies psychical matters without any prejudice. 

When I joined WF I thought that I might be quite unusual in having apparently written a novel that was inspired by events in my future life, but after researching the phenomenon for several years I am maybe a little disappointed to discover that such incidents aren't at all unusual. In fact the question isn't so much how many people there are around who can do such things as how aware everybody is that they are doing them all the time. Perhaps I was unusual only in that I bothered to analyse my own experiences to find out how extensive the effect was.

Past discussion of the merits of pantsing has tended to stall because nobody can really say what is involved whereas planned writing has, or ought to have, a well defined structure that can be discussed. However, if one, as I feel one must, takes into account factors like retro PK and precognition then the merits of the two approaches become more balanced. 

Planned writing is based on what has worked in the past and therefore presumably will work well in the future, but that doesn't provide any guide on how to introduce innovation into one's writing. Opening one's mind to write freely in the pantsing style should, if the psychical research is right, guide one towards innovations that are likely to be successful because future readers are already judging them. Not only will one unconsciously be gaining inspiration from knowledge that one will gain in the future, as I did by joining WF to learn about writing several years _after_ writing my novel, but according to retro PK research everyone who will read one's work in the future will retroactively be  influencing what one writes. It is of course difficult for a novice writer to distinguish their own overconfidence about the assumed amazing quality of their writing from genuine reactions of future readers unbelievably flowing back in time, but my interpretation of retro PK applied in the field of literature implies that this latter effect actually happens.

Another article that I read described how many highly successful writers of both prose and poetry in the past have described how they seemed to be driven by some muse to produce their masterpieces, which they felt they were simply writing from dictation rather than composing themselves. This muse could well simply be the collective influence of those future minds. Maybe my own novel wasn't a masterpiece but while writing it I certainly explained in an email to a friend that I seemed simply to be acting as a scribe for some errant muse that had mistaken me for a writer when I was nothing of the sort. That message is still in my email archive. The list of creative people just mentioned in the article who reported such experiences is impressive as shown below.

Robert Burns, Shelley, Wordsworth, Goethe, Eliot, both Chopin and his lover, a French lady who wrote as George Sand, Kipling, Thackeray, R L Stevenson, Socrates, Mozart, Bertrand Russell and Lord Kelvin. 

However, William McGonagall, potentially the worst poet ever, also claimed to write under "divine inspiration" so that puts my novel in perspective, I suspect. Yes, sometimes it is just delusion and overconfidence, but if there's even a percentage of truth in the idea of critique flowing back from future readers even as one writes then it must be worth including an element of pantsing in one's work and "use the force Luke".


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 23, 2019)

Ah yes good old precognition. It's a sucky ability to have. All of my visions came to me in my sleep so sorting out the dream from the vision was tedious at best and even when I got good at it it was still not really possible to tell just when the events in the vision would take place. Once had a vision that didn't happen until years later. Another time I had one that happened the next day.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 23, 2019)

Sam said:


> Not once in the fourteen novels that came before the one I'm currently writing have I ever painted myself into a corner. I don't even know what that means. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.




You've never heard the phrase "paint yourself into a corner" ?
It is a common saying in the US, not just a writing phrase.

While I share your insistence that pantsing is not inferior to plotting, your own testimony indicates that you are not qualified to make that assessment.
After all, you yourself said that you had never, not in 22 years, ever plotted a book.
How can you know one is _better/worse/equal-to_ the other if you have only ever done one? ;-)


Painting yourself into a corner doesn't always mean that you are stuck.
Sometimes it means that you realized you took a wrong turn and now the story is not where you wanted it to be...and undoing it requires cutting out a lot of material.
And you are right; *all things being equal*, pansting would incur no more chance of this than plotting.

But in writing all things are *not *equal. Catch 22, War & Peace, and any one of Clancy's books are extremely complex books. They are not the same as Mouse on a Motorcycle, or a Patterson novel, or a Harlequin...
More complex books require a higher degree of planning.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 23, 2019)

Hence my belief that it is the book that determines plotter or pantster.
Not the writer.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 24, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> More complex books require a higher degree of planning.



What struck me most about my novel was that while reading it in the years following writing it I realised just how complex it was and how difficult it would have been to consciously plan out all the connections within it and yet I wrote it quite spontaneously. Given that I hadn't written any fiction before I couldn't even imagine how I would have gone about planning it. My biggest problem has always been choosing where to start telling the story in a linear fashion as it is a complete ball of connections that all follow on from each other. It is said that a story should have a beginning, middle and end, but mine was more like a carousel that the reader could board anywhere. A carousel was actually mentioned in chapter two, which was chronologically the earliest point in the story from the viewpoint of the main character, but he was already on it even then.

Hence I think that your statement simply stems from the preconception that conscious planning _must_ be essential for complexity. I agree that the pantsing alternative seems unbelievable and I certainly couldn't believe it myself, but the evidence was there on my computer, so I couldn't refute it. You are fortunate if your experience bears out your convictions. However, also bear in mind that I didn't even want to write a novel at the time and had no idea how to. I simply wrote down the thoughts in my head to get them out of it so that I could get on with my real life. Much of the story still only exists as a first draft and I am still not a writer as such.



Ralph Rotten said:


> Hence my belief that it is the book that determines plotter or pantster.
> Not the writer.



Yes, it may be the book that determines whether it is written by pantsing or not, but that apparently has very little to do with its complexity. Subsequent events required that mine be written quickly, so planning it wasn't an option, not that I knew that at the time. A writer who has never experienced the muse would find it difficult to understand. I doubt and indeed hope against it ever happening to me so forcefully again. Those who aspire to write might welcome it but I didn't. As other writers have mentioned, it tears at one's emotions and is all-consuming in its demands, not a masterpiece but simply a master.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 24, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Hence my belief that it is the book that determines plotter or pantster.
> Not the writer.



I tend towards agreeing with this. 

I've written some huge books by pantsing. All of my earliest novels were pantsers and worked. There was never any writer's block or threat thereof because I didn't know or care where the characters were going. I could trust them back then. 

But when the plots I wrote became more complicated, and I knew where the story needed to end... then the books became a totally different monster to write. It means writer's block is far more likely (not inevitable, just more likely than 0%) because all of those cogs need to go somewhere. The machine of the story has a purpose; it has to go somewhere and do something besides entertain generally suddenly. That's a lot more stress on the writer automatically.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 24, 2019)

I've done a mixture of Plotting/Pantsing for my two FF novels. I wonder if the length of the novel has any bearing on whether or not to plot or pants? I mean both of my novels were over 75,000 words and i've done pretty well with my pants first plot later mentality.


----------



## Sam (Aug 25, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Hence my belief that it is the book that determines plotter or pantster.
> Not the writer.



No, it's down to me. 

I've been a pantser, as I said earlier in this thread, in every avenue of my life that involves writing. That includes thrillers, dystopian fiction, horror, post-apocalyptic fiction, and academic writing. 

I am a pantser. Nothing will change that.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 25, 2019)

Sam said:


> No, it's down to me.
> 
> I've been a pantser, as I said earlier in this thread, in every avenue of my life that involves writing. That includes thrillers, dystopian fiction, horror, post-apocalyptic fiction, and academic writing.
> 
> I am a pantser. Nothing will change that.



I'd go even further than that and say that I have been a pantser in every avenue of my life, full stop. In other domains it is given other names, such as "lateral thinking", "quantum leap" (that one I hate) or "thinking outside the box" but essentially it is simply non-procedural thinking. It has also been the bane of my life as whenever I provided the solution to a problem people would want to know how I got to it and it always seemed lame just to say that it was just there and equally cruelly superior to say that it was obvious when it clearly wasn't to them. Personally I regard it as holistic thinking, i.e. not focussing on the problem at all but instead allowing everything that one knows to crowd into one's mind so that the solution, if there at all, will make itself known. 

I believe that the main reason why people can't solve their problems is that they look for the solutions in the wrong places, so by looking everywhere at once regardless of how logical that appears perhaps I get to more solutions than others. That's why some of my posts can seem erratic and slightly off topic, much like my writing. Hence my writing also tends to contain analogies and allegories, the devices that my mind evidently uses internally to find its solutions.

As an example of pantser thinking in mathematics, when an online forum of mathematicians realised that a game that they were playing involving integer numbers appeared to be insoluble I rapidly gave them a solution by using trigonometry. Trigonometry very seldom gives integer answers, so was the most unlikely way to solve the puzzle and I was even accused of cheating, although how one can cheat at mathematics apart from multiplying and dividing by zero I don't honestly know. I think they were just annoyed that none of them had looked in what actually turned out to be the right place on that specific occasion. I don't know to what extent doing things the "wrong" way also sometimes works in literature, but if there are any corners left where one may be genuinely original I suspect that it will be a pantser who will find them. Maybe not a full time pantser but a pantser none the less.


----------



## Cephus (Aug 25, 2019)

Sam said:


> No, it's down to me.
> 
> I've been a pantser, as I said earlier in this thread, in every avenue of my life that involves writing. That includes thrillers, dystopian fiction, horror, post-apocalyptic fiction, and academic writing.
> 
> I am a pantser. Nothing will change that.



Whereas I've never written a story, any story, in any genre, without being a plotter. I can't do it. Ever. I am not, nor will I ever pants a thing. I am a plotter. Nothing will change that.


----------



## Sam (Aug 31, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Whereas I've never written a story, any story, in any genre, without being a plotter. I can't do it. Ever. I am not, nor will I ever pants a thing. I am a plotter. Nothing will change that.



And, as I also said earlier in this thread, find out what works for you, the writer, and stick with it.


----------



## Trollheart (Aug 31, 2019)

I'm not quite sure to what degree you can "pants" (a phrase I've only heard since joining here I must point out). I mean, I think most people, were they familiar with my writing technique (as I laughingly like to call it) would consider me a pantser - oh wait! Weren't those the tanks Hitler had in the Second World... no? - as I certainly don't write out a sketch of my work beforehand, working out plot, subplot, sub-subplot, twists, revelations, characters, locations and so on. However I guess I do plot it out mostly in my head. Before I sit down to write, I have a general idea of what I'm going to write. Who could not? Can you, honestly, tell me (maybe you can; I'm willing to learn) that there are people who literally sit down, type something like "Opening the door, Rick peeped inwards and said..." without knowing - or having a least a vague idea - where that's going? I don't think I could. I need to know the outline of a story before I begin it, hence the idea is formed in my head (always a good place to form ideas, I feel) and the basic plot and direction of the story worked out there. Only when I have a good sense of where I want to go do I start writing. 

I did, to be fair, start a short story called "Crone" from nothing more than the opening line "Sam saw the witch again on Wednesday. Seemed nobody could, after all, kill her, not that they hadn't tried" and worked on from that. Perhaps the salient point about that is that, halfway through, I realised it was not going where I wanted and now I'm looking at rewriting it. But I can't recall ever plotting anything out on paper to the sort of degree that, I assume, you need to be called a plotter.

So I guess I'm a Nazi armoured vehicle rather than  someone hatching schemes against the government...


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 31, 2019)

You know, I would have considered myself a pantser too until someone suggested to me that I really write in a stream of consciousness. He told me the difference between a pantser and someone who writes in stream of consciousness is that the latter has an idea of what he wants to write but comes up with new ideas as he is writing while the pantser doesn't really have any set idea at all and just writes what comes into his head. I think most of us here who write have a basic plotline, we just might differ on whether we structure the story via notes, etc, or let the thoughts flow as we write. Incidentally, I think the person who may have introduced the term pantsing here was one TS Bowman, who I believe founded the now defunct Colors of Fiction forum. A big influence on me I might add.


----------



## Trollheart (Aug 31, 2019)

mrmustard615 said:


> You know, I would have considered myself a pantser too until someone suggested to me that I really write in a stream of consciousness. He told me the difference between a pantser and someone who writes in stream of consciousness is that the latter has an idea of what he wants to write but comes up with new ideas as he is writing while the pantser doesn't really have any set idea at all and just writes what comes into his head. I think most of us here who write have a basic plotline, we just might differ on whether we structure the story via notes, etc, or let the thoughts flow as we write. Incidentally, I think the person who may have introduced the term pantsing here was one TS Bowman, who I believe founded the now defunct Colors of Fiction forum. A big influence on me I might add.


Hey Stan! Good to see you.
I guess if that's the case then I'm a SoC writer too. Who woulda thunk it, eh? :lol:


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 31, 2019)

Originally Posted by *mrmustard615* 


*You know, I would have considered myself a pantser too until someone suggested to me that I really write in a stream of consciousness. He told me the difference between a pantser and someone who writes in stream of consciousness is that the latter has an idea of what he wants to write but comes up with new ideas as he is writing while the pantser doesn't really have any set idea at all and just writes what comes into his head.*

I think you have that backwards. Pantsters usually have a lot of the story laid out in their head, but encounter surprises along the way.
Stream of Consciousness is really more of a writing exercise where you just start at a point and...write...and write and write.


Personally I think people who are locked into one way or the other are doing themselves a disservice.
If you were a swordsman, would you only learn to fight with one type of weapon?
No, you'd master every type of edged weapon you could lay your hands on.
Would a plumber only learn to use one tool?
Would a surgeon only use a scalpel?


Rob: You may be misunderstanding when I say Complex story. I don't mean that the subject matter is complex.
I am referring to multi-story-line tales. Books that start out at a single point, and branch out in a series of side-stories that all eventually come back together, forming the whole.
These are complex because they are like a game of Jenga. You have to plot out the scenes because every block supports the block atop it.
Forget a scene or an element, and you have a plot-hole, or you lack justification for events.
Complex stories are like a math equation;Solve it in the wrong order and you get the wrong answer.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 1, 2019)

I pantsed my first novel and it was a mess. I had to reorganize it several times and when it was close to being finished, I realized that one of the MCs wasn't interesting enough. Things just kind of worked out for him, but he didn't have any meaningful goals. So I finally shelved it and started on another, which I outlined first. This one is going smoothly, but it's a different experience. I know where I'm going and how to get there. I know all my MCs. It's like stubbing out a story and then filling in the stubs, one by one, until it's finished. I like working like that.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 2, 2019)

Irwin said:


> I pantsed my first novel and it was a mess. I had to reorganize it several times and when it was close to being finished, I realized that one of the MCs wasn't interesting enough. Things just kind of worked out for him, but he didn't have any meaningful goals.



The problem that I see in a story where the main plot revolves around characters achieving goals is that once those goals are met nothing of interest remains. In wine drinking terms the story doesn't have a "long finish", i.e. it doesn't keep on running around the reader's mind when they have finished reading it. 

The original draft of my pantsed novel was effectively in two parts. The first part was the "fairy tale" promised on the frontispiece page during which the band of characters achieved their goal and then apparently lived happily ever after; at least that was what the main character's final encounter implied. However, I then wondered how living happily ever after could actually work, so in the second part I wrote about what really happened next, which was a much more downbeat tale with tear-jerking scenes. At the end of that all the main character was left with was hope of a second chance. Whatever had been achieved in the first part had to be achieved again, but in a different way that avoided the original consequences. 

In effect the apparent goals in the story weren't really the big issues because there was something else on the distant horizon. When I wrote the novel I put the words "(about something else)" after the title even though at the time I didn't have any clear idea of what that was. Had I known just how complex the whole story was I would never have tried to write any of it. Even now I reckon that I am only competent enough to write about seventy percent of it as some sections of it are beyond my imagination and experience. This doesn't mean that the plot doesn't work but simply that I don't know sufficient details of some parts of it and my pantser mind shows no interest in providing those parts because, to me at least, they are uninteresting, being YA stuff. Yes, the story was so long that it ran on into a second generation of characters whose interactions with the first generation made for convolutions in the plot. 

I'm no YA writer, so I can't complete the entire story, which potentially extends to three novels. That is a risk of pantsing, that the story may demand that the writer go beyond their chosen genre, but real life is like that and people who live happily ever after tend to have children who quickly grow up. In wine drinking terms that's a long finish, the aim of a good wine.

To me one of the great failings of _Lord of The Rings_ is that it ends with nothing more to achieve. Despite its length and complexity it is really just one isolated episode in history with no long finish.


----------

