# A happy medium between Pants and Plans



## David Gordon Burke (Dec 31, 2015)

I have always found myself in the planners camp.  I often use Freemind to map out my plots before I begin writing.
This, along with a surge of self doubt has led me to a period of not writing.
So I started writing long hand in a notebook.  Completely free form with no plan at all.  As they say, flying by the seat of my pants.  
I came up with a story that will soon be ready for editing.  Cool.  
I also started writing another story for which I had a full plot laid out.  Again, long hand in a notebook.  But after plotting out the whole story I then ignored the plan and relied on my memory of what I had.  I can refer to the plan after I get the first draft to see how well it worked and if there are any changes to be made.  
I found in both cases that by writing with a pen I got past the incesant stop / start of trying to get just the right words.

So to summarize, I have now found myself a strong believer in both camps.  From now on I will implement either or strategy for all my writing.
1.  Plan it out but then totally ignore the plan as I am writing.
2.  Plan nothing.  Then set up an editing guide / plan for the rewriting process.  

But the innovation may be in the idea of creating a new plan AFTER the first draft is written.
An editing guide if you will.  

I don't know if this strategy might be of some help or might spark innovation in your writing but there it is ... this is how I am working these days and it has freed me of the limitations of having a plan while still giving me a framework to make sure I get the story told the way I want it told and a check list of changes for the editing process.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Bishop (Dec 31, 2015)

I tend to have more of a mix as well. Mine comes in the form of pre-planning snippets of scenes that I want to work toward within my own narrative, like a particular climactic moment, which then in turn steers some of my pants writing toward that direction. For the most part, though, I start with nothing and go where the words take me.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 31, 2015)

I believe that most planners do some level of pantsing as they write.  I know I do.


----------



## Sam (Dec 31, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> I believe that most planners do some level of pantsing as they write.  I know I do.



That's not much better than saying that most pantsers do some planning. 

Some do, some don't, and each to their own.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 31, 2015)

So long as the pants come off at some stage.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 31, 2015)

Whatever works for you. As long as you're seeing positive results, it's all good!

Some people go to the grocery store and buy things as they see them. Others make a list of things they need before heading out the door.

See? Even when shopping for food, there are pantsers and planners.


----------



## aurora borealis (Dec 31, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> See? Even when shopping for food, there are pantsers and planners.



There are pantsers and planners for everything. My school had two ultimate Frisbee teams. One used tactics and planned what they wanted to do. The other (the one I was on) did no planning and improvised for everything. 

We came in first in the league. 

For my writing, I have a general ending in mind (e.g. antagonist defeats protagonist) but the middle and the climax are pantsed. I'm trying to start planning more. We'll see how that goes...


----------



## Gofa (Dec 31, 2015)

There are two types of people in the world. Those that divide the world up into two types and those that dont 
pantsers plan they just dont over subscribe and commit to paper. Next time you get out of bed have no plan. Just randomly chose directions. It will take a while to get out of the room and down to the kitchen. Heading for the door was a plan just not written down on the side board for when you next awoke


----------



## Jeko (Dec 31, 2015)

I hate the two terms. They polarise writers away from creatively approaching their creativity.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Dec 31, 2015)

I burn the story in my head without writing a word. Then I write the first word and let the story write itself with my fingers.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 1, 2016)

Okay, hands up how many of us keep notebooks?

And how many have had a look through recently?

How many ideas require a fixed ending and how many are in the 'surprise me' camp?

And how often is the same story/theme/character reprised with slight differences?

All I'm doing is poking the creative muscle, wondering what will happen next.

Happy new year!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 1, 2016)

I like a happy medium ( Doris Stokes was a particular favourite   ). Seriously, there seems to be a place for both approaches, the trick is to pick the appropriate one for the circumstance. Sure I keep a notebook, Bazz, most of the time it gets entries that are some random idea, unrelated to anything I am writing, but that has occurred to me and I don't want to forget it, mostly writing it down is in itself enough to make me remember. Every so often though, if you read through the notebooks, you would find three or four pages closely written with some plot idea that has occurred to me. The planning actually happens in my head, writing it down stops me forgetting it. The fact that that seems to be true even for things like shopping lists makes me think that the real difference is in how good our memories are. That, of course, is also a variable, some things are more memorable than others, and they are not always the more important. The fact that even planners must make initial decisions in their heads means that in some sense we all fly by the seat of our pants; that we edit, write half a dozen words to remind us of our direction, or even work things out in our head, means we all bring some sort of order to things.

To be clear, I don't believe there is any decent 'stream of conciousness' writing, there is so much that is crap and those who write decently and claim it have been shown to be telling untruths on too many occasions. There are a few, such as AA Fair/ Errol Stanley Gardener, Enid Blyton, or Alexander McCall Smith, who produce such a volume of work they can't think things over carefully or edit, but I think of them as easily read rather than well written.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

I don't know of any writers who don't plan, unless your definition of planning is constrained to a formula; I still don't know why writers and their advisers insist on treating planning and drafting as non-overlapping magisteria. Planning happens at every single stage of the process, both micro and macro, from getting characters in and out of a scene, to contemplating the possible destination of a plot and its subplots. The techniques of writing require rigorous planning at every level, and I don't know any serious writers who would say otherwise.

I think the discussion a writer wants to have with himself is the one of when to jump in and write the first sentence and how unbroken the process of drafting has to be once that commitment is made. Personally, I begin drafting once I feel my ideas have achieved enough mass, and there's no checklist for that. A story presents itself to me if given enough time, and I can see the end from the beginning. I get a feel for the themes I'll be repeating throughout the novel at that point. Once I know that, there's no reason not to begin writing the manuscript, but I have the freedom to stop at any point and go back to my ideas file if I run into difficulties or feel the waters are too shallow at any given point. More than often it's just a case of giving it room to breathe, and running the ideas through my head for days until I light upon what I really want the writing there to do.

The more deeply you think about what you're putting on the page, the more difficult you'll find it to build up a head of steam that takes you through to the end of the draft. Most writing is scratching around for a metaphor or a precise insight or rewriting dialogue over and over until you find words that come close to what your character would say in a given situation. You'll never find the perfect words of course, because your characters should be like us, not unfailingly predictable.


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I don't know of any writers who don't plan, unless your definition of planning is constrained to a formula; I still don't know why writers and their advisers insist on treating planning and drafting as non-overlapping magisteria. Planning happens at every single stage of the process, both micro and macro, from getting characters in and out of a scene, to contemplating the possible destination of a plot and its subplots. The techniques of writing require rigorous planning at every level, and I don't know any serious writers who would say otherwise.



Bollocks. 

It's no better than saying that people who pants aren't aware that they secretly plan. 

I do not plan, and if you're trying to tell me that working out in my head how my character is going to get out of a problem is planning, then you are not only reaching but stretching as well. 

I am a serious writer. I don't plan. And I really wish people would stop trying to convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to my own processes.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 1, 2016)

> To be clear, I don't believe there is any decent 'stream of conciousness' writing



Virginia Woolf and James Joyce would disagree. In fact pretty much all the modernists would.

'Stream of consciousness' is not how the author writes the story, but how the character writes it into the narrative. This can be achieved both by immersing yourself in their head, writing instinctively and reactively, and by plotting out their consciousness and where it goes.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

Sam said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> *It's no better than saying that people who pants aren't aware that they secretly plan. *
> 
> ...



The problem is this stupid _faduage _that has replaced sophisticated discussion of what the writing process actually consists of. I don't know where it comes from, and I wish it were not, but now that writers identify themselves as pantsers or planners, there's no hope of ever moving the conversation on. Nobody is able to clearly articulate just what this divide is between "planners" and "pantsers". It's nothing but confusing and clumsy language that serves absolutely no use. It tells me nothing about somebody's writing process if they tell me they're a strong believer in "pantsing" or "planning". Just what on earth do they mean?


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 1, 2016)

Hi Patrick,
the perennial discussion between writers about planning or pantsing is just another form of procrastination. Fun and in the end meaningless...Except it does make me think about the process of writing. 

Each of us work in our own way, wonders to behold. 

Good luck
BC


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

bazz cargo said:


> Hi Patrick,
> the perennial discussion between writers about planning or pantsing is just another form of procrastination. Fun and in the end meaningless...*Except it does make me think about the process of writing*.
> 
> Each of us work in our own way, wonders to behold.
> ...



And that's the key thing. It seems to me there's little to no discussion of pantsing or planning among the contemporary writers I have respect for, but there's plenty on the actual techniques of storytelling and writing at the level of the sentence.


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2016)

Patrick said:


> The problem is this stupid _faduage _that has replaced sophisticated discussion of what the writing process actually consists of. I don't know where it comes from, and I wish it were not, but now that writers identify themselves as pantsers or planners, there's no hope of ever moving the conversation on. Nobody is able to clearly articulate just what this divide is between "planners" and "pantsers". It's nothing but confusing and clumsy language that serves absolutely no use. It tells me nothing about somebody's writing process if they tell me they're a strong believer in "pantsing" or "planning". Just what on earth do they mean?



Why do you want to move the conversation on? Who cares how someone else does something, what their processes are, or if they call themselves a bonker instead a planner? 

It doesn't matter how I write, nor does it matter what my writing process consists of, because none of it makes a damn bit of difference, nor does it mean anything, to anyone except _me. 
_
The conversation doesn't need to be moved on. By trying to move it on, you're tacitly expressing that their definition of their own process(es) is wrong by default, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for a conversation to begin with. 

The problem isn't the terminology; the problem is the people who keep insisting that they know better than the writer when the writer claims to be a pantser or a planner. 

It's dismissive and frankly insulting, and I've seen it on numerous occasions.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

Sam said:


> Why do you want to move the conversation on? Who cares how someone else does something, what their processes are, or if they call themselves a bonker instead a planner?
> 
> It doesn't matter how I write, nor does it matter what my writing process consists of, because none of it makes a damn bit of difference, nor does it mean anything, to anyone except _me.
> _
> ...



This is denying the need for a writer to learn anything from literature, which is of course absurd; it's also denying the need for this thread to exist, because the response from other writers should be, "who cares? Just write the way you want to write." Of course, writing is a craft, and there's no skill in the art if there's no consideration of technique.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 1, 2016)

I have been a member here for a while now and I still can't understand why this subject winds up being so contentious. 

Why is it that the folks who plan (for the most part, but not all of them) want to insist that EVERYONE plans out their story even if they aren't conscious of it? Why do they generally feel that "good writing" can't be done without plotting things out?

Is it just because simply cannot understand the concept of allowing the characters to write the story? Can they not grasp the notion that a story is a living entity with ideas of its own? Or that our characters are real people who are able to make their own decisions and we are just the folks who happen to write them down? 

Or is it nothing more than a case of "My way is better than yours, so therefore you do it my way without knowing it?"


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2016)

Patrick said:


> This is denying the need for a writer to learn anything from literature, which is of course absurd; it's also denying the need for this thread to exist, because the response from other writers should be, "who cares? Just write the way you want to write." Of course, writing is a craft, and there's no skill in the art if there's no consideration of technique.



You're talking about technique, Patrick. I'm talking about process. 

You don't walk up to a southpaw and say, "Hi, you should lead with your right. You'll be a much better fighter for it." 

There is no wrong way to put words on a page. The words may be wrong, they may even be boring, but the act of transferring thoughts from your head to a page cannot be wrong. That's got nothing to do with technique and everything to do with what how an individual works. 

Some people need to read sheet music; other people can just sit down and play by ear. Are you telling me either of those are wrong?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jan 1, 2016)

Okay, I'm someone who thinks of a loose outline and then I let my imagination take over to the point that what I write ends up totally different from the original intent. That works for me, but for someone else it may not.

So I guess I'll just state the obvious as it has been quoted many times here.

Just write (unless you're talking about rocket science in which case- just write, anyway).


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I have been a member here for a while now and I still can't understand why this subject winds up being so contentious.
> 
> Why is it that the folks who plan (for the most part, but not all of them) want to insist that EVERYONE plans out their story even if they aren't conscious of it? *Why do they generally feel that "good writing" can't be done without plotting things out?*
> 
> ...



You've smuggled plotting in in place of planning. Even still, all writers plot their stories out during the writing process or there would be no plot at the end of the thing they're calling a story. Some people write chapter-by-chapter outlines before they write the draft, other writers just get on with the draft and work things out from scene to scene rather than imposing a detailed outline on the story from the start. Some plot purely with plot arcs, and so on. They're all just ways of approaching the same thing, which is to put an object into the world that wasn't there before, and every single writer in the history of planet earth has had to at least consider the conventions of narrative, either to conform or to break them, in order to write a story.

Writers write books, not characters. A character cannot write him or herself into existence. You, the writer, do this, and you use every bit of skill, emotion and insight to bring them to life on the page. A character who is "real" in your head is not for anybody else, and you have to translate that character onto the page for others to enjoy. And the reader will have their own version of that character after reading them. 

You've had to muddy the waters to preserve this artifact of stupidity among writers.


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You've smuggled plotting in in place of planning. Even still, all writers plot their stories out during the writing process or there would be no plot at the end of the thing they're calling a story. Some people write chapter-by-chapter outlines before they write the draft, other writers just get on with the draft and work things out from scene to scene rather than imposing a detailed outline on the story from the start. Some plot purely with plot arcs, and so on. They're all just ways of approaching the same thing, which is to put an object into the world that wasn't there before, and every single writer in the history of planet earth has had to at least consider the conventions of narrative, either to conform or to break them, in order to write a story.
> 
> Writers write books, not characters. A character cannot write him or herself into existence. You, the writer, do this, and you use every bit of skill, emotion and insight to bring them to life on the page. A character who is "real" in your head is not for anybody else, and you have to translate that character onto the page for others to enjoy. And the reader will have their own version of that character after reading them.
> 
> You've had to muddy the waters to preserve this artifact of stupidity among writers.



I do all of that *in my head.*

Still want to tell me I'm a planner? Because it doesn't hold water.

I've written novels with no idea how they were going to end . . . until I got to the point where I needed to write _the ending. _


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

Sam said:


> I do all of that *in my head.*
> 
> Still want to tell me I'm a planner? Because it doesn't hold water.
> 
> I've written novels with no idea how they were going to end . . . until I got to the point where I needed to write _the ending. _



Of course you do, because all writers do, which is my point. I don't care about the labels, Sam. If I wanted to know how you go about writing a novel, I'd ask you what things you take into consideration before,while and after you write, because writers spend most of their time thinking, and all of that thought is planning. What if I have an idea later on in the writing process, while I am pantsing my pants off, that one character has gleaned information from overhearing a prior conversation that will help them navigate the next chapter, but when I initially wrote the prior scene, they were off somewhere else doing something that's also essential to the story? Now I have to plan/scheme/design a way to reconcile the ideas which have occurred to me quite apart from any prior planning/plotting.

There's no way anybody is a writer without performing such exhausting mental gymnastics, and those are just the most basic things a writer has to do.


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2016)

It's not planning in the strictest sense of the word, Patrick. 

When writers talk about planning, they're talking about rigorous chapter outlines, copious notes, character bios, and detailed breakdowns of an entire written piece. That's what planning means. 

I don't do that. Can you understand that?


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

Sam said:


> It's not planning in the strictest sense of the word, Patrick.
> 
> When writers talk about planning, they're talking about rigorous chapter outlines, copious notes, character bios, and detailed breakdowns of an entire written piece. That's what planning means.
> 
> I don't do that. Can you understand that?



As I said in my first contribution to this thread: all writers plan unless your definition of planning is constrained to a formula. Writers should have some understanding of language to avoid the catastrophe that is the idea of "planning" versus "pantsing". Whether you write down any of the things listed there is totally irrelevant. Many of these things get written down purely because the writer doesn't want to forget them once a large number of ideas accumulate in their head, and even before that point. The process of writing is not confined to the moment you push down on a key or write a letter onto a page. it's a cerebral process, and what's the point of bogging a conversation about that process down with arbitrary categories? 

The funny thing is, I am probably what you would call a "pantser", but I promise you there's a veritable tonne of planning that goes into all of my writing, and because I do so much thinking, I simply have to write the stuff down in an ideas file (quite often in the middle of writing the draft), though it's in complete disarray with no discernible attempted order due to how disorganised I am.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 1, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You've smuggled plotting in in place of planning. Even still, all writers plot their stories out during the writing process or there would be no plot at the end of the thing they're calling a story. Some people write chapter-by-chapter outlines before they write the draft, other writers just get on with the draft and work things out from scene to scene rather than imposing a detailed outline on the story from the start. Some plot purely with plot arcs, and so on. They're all just ways of approaching the same thing, which is to put an object into the world that wasn't there before, and every single writer in the history of planet earth has had to at least consider the conventions of narrative, either to conform or to break them, in order to write a story.
> 
> Writers write books, not characters. A character cannot write him or herself into existence. You, the writer, do this, and you use every bit of skill, emotion and insight to bring them to life on the page. A character who is "real" in your head is not for anybody else, and you have to translate that character onto the page for others to enjoy. And the reader will have their own version of that character after reading them.
> 
> You've had to muddy the waters to preserve this artifact of stupidity among writers.



Artifact of stupidity....interesting.

Well...imagine that, I used the wrong word. I guess that's what I get for not planning my response properly. Is that a better use of the word? 

I am the first to admit that I am one of the least skilled writers here. 

But, here is what I "plan" when I write. I plan to sit down at the computer. I plan to start up Open Office and find my document for Side Worlds. I plan to put my fingers on the keys. 

Anything that happens after that gets dictated by the characters and how they choose to deal with what happens. Whether or not you can grasp the way my mind works during the writing process is not even remotely relevant to me. Whether you choose to accept that, for me, people CAN actually just randomly show up and write themselves into the story doesn't matter.

Insulting my process by insinuating that it's "stupid" actually does matter. A friend of mine is a planner. Her and I had a few discussions about the fact that I don't plan anything in my stories. I kept trying to explain what I meant, but she couldn't quite understand what I was trying to communicate. So I just kept telling her to just give it a shot. Sit down and just start typing. Let the story tell itself. Well...she decided to give NaNoWriMo a try last year and also decided to give writing my way a shot. And it worked. She didn't plan out anything, made no outline, no character bios. Nothing. She just sat down and let the story flow. She said that, although she will remain a planner, she found my way of writing to be very freeing. She very much enjoyed Pantsing her way through her 50k words.

Why does my process seemingly offend your sensibilities? I'm not telling you that your way is wrong. I'm not telling you that you must write the way I do.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 1, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Artifact of stupidity....interesting.
> 
> Well...imagine that, I used the wrong word. I guess that's what I get for not planning my response properly. Is that a better use of the word?
> 
> ...



I am not offended. There's nothing personal in it, and the stupidity is in the arbitrary assignment of the labels, not your own process, which I don't know. The debate of pantsing vs planning is of no interest to me; it has no practical application. Worse than that, I think it removes the focus from where it should be, which is on the actual writing process.


----------



## Pluralized (Jan 1, 2016)

This whole Pants/Plan thing is analogous (to me) in some ways to our American political system, where you're either 'Red' or 'Blue' and it becomes polarizing and counterproductive. Writers who exclusively 'pants' are going to _generally_ churn out bullshit, and writers who adhere to strictly to the plotting/planning process are _generally_ going to focus too much on that and get bogged down and churn out bullshit. Writers who can get past the whole 'which process should I use' argument are _generally_ going to write stuff. 

Whatever process works for you, do it and get after it while you're still vertical. Shames me to think how many people will go to their grave having written nothing more than argumentative forum posts trying to get everything lined up before they even begin creating stuff.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 2, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I am not offended. There's nothing personal in it, and the stupidity is in the arbitrary assignment of the labels, not your own process, which I don't know. The debate of pantsing vs planning is of no interest to me; it has no practical application. Worse than that, I think it removes the focus from where it should be, which is on the actual writing process.



Last time I checked, those two things are part of the process in one way or another. Whether you choose to accept them both or not, they are the "process" of writing. 

You seem to want to completely discount t one in favor of the other. That's your choice. But don't try to say that one is "part of the process" and insinuate the other isnt.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 2, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Last time I checked, those two things are part of the process in one way or another. *Whether you choose to accept them both or not, they are the "process" of writing.*
> 
> *You seem to want to completely discount t one in favor of the other*. That's your choice. But don't try to say that one is "part of the process" and insinuate the other isnt.



What does that consist of?

I really don't; what I really want to do is cast the editors and writers who use this faduage in their counsel head first into a very cold lake, and right next to a large male swan who's just had an argument with a duck.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 2, 2016)

Everyone's different. 

Some love thinking way ahead and writing toward what they've planned. Some love winging it on the fly, and would hate to know what happens until they've actually written it. Some love something in between. Some do something else entirely.

What works for one writer probably won't work for you (and vice versa). So I say: go with what gives you the best results, and don't worry about what anyone else does. Their process doesn't mean anything to you. The only process that matters is your own. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 2, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> Everyone's different.
> 
> Some love thinking way ahead and writing toward what they've planned. Some love winging it on the fly, and would hate to know what happens until they've actually written it. Some love something in between. Some do something else entirely.
> 
> What works for one writer probably won't work for you (and vice versa). So I say: go with what gives you the best results, and don't worry about what anyone else does. Their process doesn't mean anything to you. The only process that matters is your own. :encouragement:



The problem as I see it is that an awful lot of those who are meticulous and think "way ahead" seem to think that those of us who do not can't possibly write anything worth the ink it would be (or would NEVER be, according to them) printed with. 

It's a stupid attitude to have and one not seen very often coming from those of us who write on the fly.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 2, 2016)

The way I see it: there's no us or them. We're all writers. We're all on the same team. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 2, 2016)

I would tend to agree. Right up until someone tries to invalidate my writing process by dismissing it's existence.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 2, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> *The problem as I see it is that an awful lot of those who are meticulous and think "way ahead" seem to think that those of us who do not can't possibly write anything worth the ink it would be (or would NEVER be, according to them) printed with.*
> 
> It's a stupid attitude to have and one not seen very often coming from those of us who write on the fly.



Who said that? I am not sure why you're so insecure about it. I don't know what your writing process is because you haven't told me. Either way, I wouldn't publicly criticise anybody's process if they weren't in fact looking for critique. My criticism is for the labels and the free choice of writers to apply them to themselves. You can do so, if that's what you want, but I am letting you and others know that in doing so you're not actually telling me anything about your writing process, whether you're a self-professed pantser or a self-professed planner.


----------



## Pluralized (Jan 2, 2016)

My dad's one of those guys who can just take off into the wilderness, hiking at a good clip with nothing but dead reckoning to find his way around. Never known him to get lost and he's always pretty sure of where he is and what time he'll be back.

Me, I'm generally lost even with a GPS and big landmarks. So I take care with my route, always know where I'm going. 

We both equally enjoy being out there.


----------



## Blade (Jan 2, 2016)

Sam said:


> Some people need to read sheet music; other people can just sit down and play by ear. Are you telling me either of those are wrong?



A good analogy IMHO.:cookie: One extreme sees the other as contrived and rigid and in return is viewed as erratic. Most likely someone is somewhere in between and vacillates somewhat day to day anyhow. To each his own.:eagerness:


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 2, 2016)

Wow.  Opened a can of worms here.  As someone earlier asked, why is this topic such a bone of contention?
I will say this ... my intention was to outline how I am doing it these days.  If one is not in agreement, or doesn't see that as being of any value, I don't get why they just don't move on.  In another post I talked about speaking in absolutes and anecdotal evidence.  
One person writes 'All writers use some kind of planning'  - well that adds zip to the conversation since obviously he / she hasn't observed all writers.
Another takes offense and throws in their anecdotal evidence.  How is one person's vehnement insistence that they don't plan of any added value to the forum? The more one defends an unlikely scenario, the less the crowd is likely to believe.  I certainly don't.  
Just silly.  
This is why I only drop by ocasionally.  Check ego before log in.  
DGB


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 2, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:
			
		

> Wow. Opened a can of worms here. As someone earlier asked, why is this topic such a bone of contention?



I've come to learn there are three conversation topics that tend to spark arguments: politics, religion, and . . . the creative process.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 3, 2016)

The extent to which no-one cares whether this conversation was 'planned' or 'pantsed' mirrors the extent to which no-one should care if their story was 'planned' or 'pantsed'. There are a million things more important than such vague and useless labels for creative processes, exemplified by how said labels are only ever used or discussed in conversations like these which debate their usage.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 3, 2016)

Cadence said:


> The extent to which no-one cares whether this conversation was 'planned' or 'pantsed' mirrors the extent to which no-one should care if their story was 'planned' or 'pantsed'. There are a million things more important than such vague and useless labels for creative processes, exemplified by how said labels are only ever used or discussed in conversations like these which debate their usage.



The 43 replies plus the fact that the Planned & Pantsed terminology extends to all areas of conversation between writers DOES show that people are interested in the topic.  While the labels themselves are hardly definitive or binding, it would seem obvious that people are interested in other people´s creative process.  If not, why the hell do we come to this forum in the first place?  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Sam (Jan 3, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> The 43 replies plus the fact that the Planned & Pantsed terminology extends to all areas of conversation between writers DOES show that people are interested in the topic.  While the labels themselves are hardly definitive or binding, it would seem obvious that people are interested in other people´s creative process.  If not, why the hell do we come to this forum in the first place?
> 
> David Gordon Burke



People can be interested in other people's creative process(es) all they want. That's a perfectly legitimate question that has been answered thousands of times on this forum. 

The problem, which arises every single time this conversation comes up, is that people are not just interested in other people's creative process(es). They believe they know what the best process is, will chastise people for doing one or the other, and then, as if that wasn't bad enough, will tell them that they're mistaken about their own process(es). 

At this stage, I've been writing since 1996. I started my first novel in '97 and self-published it in '99. In that time, I have written precisely zero words of planning, yet I have been told on numerous occasions that I plan, and even told that I plan unbeknownst of myself. 

By now, with twenty years of writing under my belt, I think I ought to know what the hell my own process is, but still and all I'm told that I'm mistaken. Funny how that works.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 3, 2016)

Ahh, but are you subconsciously planning, Sam?    That Sigmund has a lot to answer for!


----------



## Patrick (Jan 3, 2016)

It really does just depend on what you mean by planning. If planning is constrained to extensive notes and plot outlines, then of course not all writers plan. Lots of writers really do just improvise a story in front of a blank page. I believe it. But the fact they don't plan using this arbitrary definition of the word doesn't tell me anything about what they are doing when writing the manuscript. It's really a powerless label, and I only care about the writing process. 

If the free use of the word "plan" is triggering, then exchange it for one of the synonyms I posted. When you write, how do you _intend _to get through each scene? Do you _intend _to introduce at some point the character you just imagined? Do you _intend _to go back and tinker with chronology if you get into plot spaghetti?  And if so, what is the thought process when you have such an intention? Or does everything you write occur to you after you've written it? because there is a school of thought that says writing makes sense of one's thoughts, rather than one's thoughts making sense of the writing. I believe it's a collaborative effort. I can't imagine writing without concentration and intention, nor can I imagine rigid adherence to some former intention when the imagination is lucid and provokes a better alternative, which is often.


----------



## Sam (Jan 3, 2016)

Patrick said:


> It really does just depend on what you mean by planning. If planning is constrained to extensive notes and plot outlines, then of course not all writers plan. Lots of writers really do just improvise a story in front of a blank page. I believe it. But the fact they don't plan using this arbitrary definition of the word doesn't tell me anything about what they are doing when writing the manuscript. It's really a powerless label, and I only care about the writing process.
> 
> If the free use of the word "plan" is triggering, then exchange it for one of the synonyms I posted. When you write, how do you _intend _to get through each scene? Do you _intend _to introduce at some point the character you just imagined? Do you _intend _to go back and tinker with chronology if you get into plot spaghetti?  And if so, what is the thought process when you have such an intention? Or does everything you write occur to you after you've written it? because there is a school of thought that says writing makes sense of one's thoughts, rather than one's thoughts making sense of the writing. I believe it's a collaborative effort. I can't imagine writing without concentration and intention, nor can I imagine rigid adherence to some former intention when the imagination is lucid and provokes a better alternative, which is often.



You want to know my process. Okay. 

I sit down on a seat, I put my fingers on a keyboard, and I write. I write one word, then another, then a sentence, and as I'm writing it, the next sentence comes to me. 

I don't think ten chapters ahead. I don't even think ten words ahead. 

But, I guess I'm a planner because I think. Descartes would be proud.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 3, 2016)

Sam said:


> You want to know my process. Okay.
> 
> *I sit down on a seat, I put my fingers on a keyboard, and I write.* I write one word, then another, then a sentence, and as I'm writing it, the next sentence comes to me.
> 
> ...



Don't bet on it, mate, lest you stub your toe on the way to the computer. But then that it is what one deserves for improper procedure. Yes, that's right. I just implied I hope you stub your toe, and now I've stated it. 

Trippy and sunny like the buck himself, along comes our would-be novelist, rounding the corner to an unplanned cast-iron dumbbell. An improvised tale of tragedy and comedy.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 3, 2016)

When I sat down to start writing my WIP, I had no idea what I was doing. No idea what the story was. No idea what it wanted to be. No intentions of making it anything in particular other than a story of some sort.

The characters showed up as I was writing. I didn't intend to introduce any of them. They just showed up. An old wizard showed up. He was followed by a horse in his barn. I didn't intend this horse to be a man in character in the story. But then the horse (without me intending it) started talking. 

Despite my best intentions, things happen in my story that I don't intend. Characters introduce themselves. They say all kinds of odd things. Mostly, they leave me shaking my head wondering why they do what they do. 

I realize it's hard to understand for someone whose process doesn't work that way.


----------



## voltigeur (Jan 3, 2016)

> The problem, which arises every single time this conversation comes up, is that people are not just interested in other people's creative process(es). They believe they know what the best process is, will chastise people for doing one or the other, and then, as if that wasn't bad enough, will tell them that they're mistaken about their own process(es).



Sam you get a prize! I could not have said this better myself. 

I think if we want this forum to be helpful, when a new writer joins and tries to figure this all out is for us to put our process out there for them to try. But under no circumstances should we ever tell that person what they should do. 

When I post my process it is simply offered as an option to try out. If it works for the reader GREAT! If it doesn't and they find another process works better for them GREAT! 

I have also found out the ugly truth is that there are no 100% pure plotters any more than there are 100% pure pansters. 

The correct answer is a function of the writer and how their brain is wired and the type of story being written. Everything else that is said on the matter is complete rubbish.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 3, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> When I sat down to start writing my WIP, I had no idea what I was doing. No idea what the story was. No idea what it wanted to be. No intentions of making it anything in particular other than a story of some sort.
> 
> The characters showed up as I was writing. I didn't intend to introduce any of them. They just showed up. An old wizard showed up. He was followed by a horse in his barn. I didn't intend this horse to be a man in character in the story. *But then the horse (without me intending it) started talking*.
> 
> ...



Imagine your shock!

Thanks for sharing the way it happens for you. The way it happens for me is I get an idea, and then a tremor of emotion follows, and then, without introduction, and quite apart from all intention on my own part, the pants come off.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 3, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Imagine your shock!
> 
> Thanks for sharing the way it happens for you. The way it happens for me is I get an idea, and then a tremor of emotion follows, and then, without introduction, and quite apart from all intention on my own part, the pants come off.



Perhaps a bit of sarcasm? Lol

Honestly, though...yes. Sometimes I do get shocked by what I am writing. Not because of anything outlandish, but because what comes from my mind through my fingers is, at times, completely unexpected.

Most times, I keep my pants on, though. Too many kids running around in my house.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 3, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Perhaps a bit of sarcasm? Lol
> 
> Honestly, though...yes. Sometimes I do get shocked by what I am writing. Not because of anything outlandish, but because what comes from my mind through my fingers is, at times, completely unexpected.
> 
> Most times, I keep my pants on, though. Too many kids running around in my house.



Just tell them that daddy has to write with his underpants on his head and two pencils up his his nose because he's heard madness and genius are bedfellows. Naturally, they'll understand.


----------



## TJ1985 (Jan 3, 2016)

My method closely resembles the method Sam uses. I've tried to plan things implicitly and it always ends up being a snaggle. 

For example, I had a great idea for a story and I felt it could, if handled correctly, be polished into a solid little story that might be worth reading. The base premise was simple: a single entity would be one of few civilians left in a world where the "authority" micromanaged everything. From dietary requirements for all civilians down to bodily waste, every part of everything was micromanaged. Ah, civilian 5248 in Precinct Loma 221 produced 7% less than the predicted amount of bodily waste today. Arrest him and send him to the research prison to locate the reason for this discrepancy. Is he hoarding food, giving it away, selling it on the dark market? Is he supplying a rebel army??? Study him thoroughly and determine whether he will be defunded. Defunding would be... "cut off" No food, no water, no utilities, no nothing. He will die of dehydration or starvation in days, this freeing his place to a more suitable civilian who understands what it means to be under the authority of the authority. 

My big concept was my MC character development. That was what would take my story from being a knockoff of Orwell-meets-Eastwood to become a unique thing. I wanted him to be a catchphrase machine. As he fought hard against the authority, his brash attitude would perfectly illustrate why the authority wasn't his cup of tea. One of his lines would be, after having prescribed death on a captured authority goon he'd just questioned minutes after capture, the goon would say "What about a trial???" to which he'd stoically reply "You just had it. It did not go well..." 

However, as he and his team of elite soldiers planned their attack on the headquarter of the authority, their failure became a likely outcome. He didn't know that one of his elite soldiers was indeed an elite, that is, an elite spy from the authority who was reporting his every word back to the authority and guaranteeing his doom from the first word. 

On like that. Planning... I can't keep it just as a plan, it becomes the story but it's just being told in a different voice, a different tone. Instead of being a plan, it becomes a short story about my long story. 

My best advice? Stop worrying about how you'll write a story and just write the damn story. Think about it too much and you're not even writing, you're just thinking, thinking, thinking about the story but you're never writing the damn thing. That's what works for ME. Probably wouldn't work for anyone else. That said, if someone has success by writing individual plot elements on ping-pong balls, tossing them in a wading pool, and bobbing for them blindfolded to determine the order they're written into the story, if it works for them... bob away. Go nuts. If somebody has success writing 25 page life stories for their characters, a 75 page write-up on the area they'll be in, and they call that their research period... if that works then I suggest they do it that way. 

I know what works for me. Some people have tons of success in methods I would not do well with while others would suffer in my method. I keep notes for things I'll need later in the story, and I keep my WIP. I keep nothing else. That's how I make what I make. It's a moronic method that only hacks and goofballs could use and that may be the sole reason it works for me. 

I write the way I write because the way I write works for me. I'll keep doing it that way until it doesn't work for me anymore. Then? I'll go looking for another method. Or I'll go fishing. Or I'll go insane.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 4, 2016)

Foreshadowing
In media res
Theme
Exposition
Symbolism
Irony
Motif
Subplot
Subtext

Just a few elements that inherently tend to lean toward the Planning side.  
The idea that the plot is revealing itself, word by word as one writes with no conscious thought beforehand?  Hmmmm.  
Certainly one can write a monolith of nonsense and then add these elements into the story in the edit phase.  Seems highly inefficient to me.  The writing process in itself is complicated enough ... I'll be damned if I'll tie one arm behind my back.  
I must be a bit slow but I just don't see how anyone could possibly write a novel without at least some of these elements without it being boring, pretentious and predictable.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Sam (Jan 4, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Foreshadowing
> In media res
> Theme
> Exposition
> ...



Translated as: I don't believe it can be done, ergo it cannot be done. Classic argument from ignorance. 

The above post could not have succinctly made my point for me any better. It's the typical argument that I've read hundreds of times; the argument that asserts that because so-and-so can't possibly see how it could be done, it therefore stands to reason that it cannot be done; or that if it can be done, it must be done horribly. 

It's wonderful how human beings who've witnessed inventions that were considered pipe dreams twenty years ago, still live in a blinkered bubble and subscribe to the notion that if they haven't seen or done something, it therefore follows that nobody has seen or done it. 

Sorry to burst the bubble, but it's been done. By published authors. On numerous occasions. 

But, hey, I'm sure they all planned unbeknownst of themselves too.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 4, 2016)

Sam said:


> Translated as: I don't believe it can be done, ergo it cannot be done. Classic argument from ignorance.
> 
> The above post could not have succinctly made my point for me any better. It's the typical argument that I've read hundreds of times; the argument that asserts that because so-and-so can't possibly see how it could be done, it therefore stands to reason that it cannot be done; or that if it can be done, it must be done horribly.
> 
> ...



Sam, in the foreword to your novel, you mention the research that has to go into a novel, particularly your own. Is that not planning? I am not trying to catch you out. Certainly I understand that all of the things mentioned by David can come through the subconscious during the process of writing the novel; much of my own stuff gets to the page that way. No arguments from incredulity here. I am just trying to establish what can be reasonably grouped under planning in this discussion.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 4, 2016)

Sam said:


> Translated as: I don't believe it can be done, ergo it cannot be done. Classic argument from ignorance.



Actually, that is a personal interpretation of the text.  Doesn't state anything remotely similar.
Can it be done?  Who knows?
Do I believe that anyone with that enormous talent would spend their time here on writer's forum defending such an unlikely premise?  

Unlikely.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## TJ1985 (Jan 5, 2016)

I do not know how to fly, despite having given it considerable thought I still cannot do it without some form of mechanical assistance. That does not mean that birds cannot fly, it merely means that I don't know how to jump off a building a fly like a bird. A personal inability to understand and carry out a technique does not instantly render the technique worthless for all. Some people plan and others don't and personally I think it goes much deeper than that, with each writer finding what works for them unless they've decided to simply copy a technique used by someone else. If planning a story works for you then carry on and plan out every page line by line if you like. If someone else writing a story as the ideas strike them, I think they have as much a right to do that as you have to plan your story. Let the publishing houses and the actual buyers figure out what is good and what isn't. 

I'm not sure how Kerouac planned his scroll of On The Road, yet that seemingly unplanned hack trash (sometimes reviled as a typing exercise) was ranked 55th of 100 best English Language Novels from 1923 to 2005. Sales reported in the 3 million range all based from a single long paragraph, almost vomited from his fingertips into the typewriter. Admittedly, I'm sure many novels that were planned to death line by line were ranked higher by the Modern Library and Time magazine but at the same time I notice that there were 45 behind it in the Modern Library ranking. I am left to wonder how many of them were planned thoroughly and how many were vomited forth predictably. 

So stupid of them to merely consider the end result rather than the underlying methodology... 

Refs: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road
http://www.dharmabeat.com/ontheroad.html


----------



## Sam (Jan 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Sam, in the foreword to your novel, you mention the research that has to go into a novel, particularly your own. Is that not planning? I am not trying to catch you out. Certainly I understand that all of the things mentioned by David can come through the subconscious during the process of writing the novel; much of my own stuff gets to the page that way. No arguments from incredulity here. I am just trying to establish what can be reasonably grouped under planning in this discussion.



That's called authenticity, Patrick, and is something every writer -- irrespective of whether they're planners or pantsers -- should aspire to. 



David Gordon Burke said:


> Actually, that is a personal interpretation of the text.  Doesn't state anything remotely similar.
> Can it be done?  Who knows?
> Do I believe that anyone with that enormous talent would spend their time here on writer's forum defending such an unlikely premise?
> 
> ...



Hardly. 

I spend a lot of time on this forum because I'm an administrator of it. 

It just so happens that this topic rears its ugly head about once every fortnight.


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 5, 2016)

I have decided not to plan all of my stories. Simply cause when I start planning and writing out backgrounds etc. I get caught up into perfectioning things that are unnecessary. 
So to keep myself busy with the most important part, I write down basic and necessary plots and twists I have an freehand in between.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 5, 2016)

Sam said:


> That's called authenticity, Patrick, and is something every writer -- irrespective of whether they're planners or pantsers -- should aspire to.



Yes, and it is its own preparation to write the novel. My point all along, and still is, is that planning is being constrained to a formula when the reality is, as we all know from our experience, that it can happen at a great many levels of the process. With that in mind, it's just not helpful for anybody to say they're a planner or a pantser. It's much better to say, I don't plan A,B,C,D, etc, or I do plan A,B,C, and so on. It's incredibly restricting to say I NEVER plan. It's an almost-mystical approach to the writing process, and not only do I dislike it, I don't think it's a well-thought-through declaration. It's also wrong to say I plan EVERYTHING because there's no author on the planet who hasn't improvised due to an idea that's occurred to them while writing, or they would be such a rare case that it's almost pointless to discuss them.


----------



## Sam (Jan 5, 2016)

Okay, I'll concede the point that no one fully plans and no one fully pants, in the sense that there are things that we all do that fall into both camps. Research falls into planning, and even the most stringent plans can be deviated from. 

However, the attitude of certain people in this thread (that is to say, the belief that no one can write well without a dedicated plan) is the problem that I have with this entire argument. And, let me be clear, I've read it dozens and hundreds of times from ill- and mis-informed people who presume to speak for others and their processes. 

It doesn't hold water.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 5, 2016)

Sam said:


> Okay, I'll concede the point that no one fully plans and no one fully pants, in the sense that there are things that we all do that fall into both camps. Research falls into planning, and even the most stringent plans can be deviated from.
> 
> However, the attitude of certain people in this thread (that is to say, the belief that no one can write well without a dedicated plan) is the problem that I have with this entire argument. And, let me be clear, I've read it dozens and hundreds of times from ill- and mis-informed people who presume to speak for others and their processes.
> 
> It doesn't hold water.



Amen.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 5, 2016)

Whether you pants, or plan, or roll the dice to choose your words, or conduct a seance that turns your body into an empty vessel so an authorial poltergeist can possess you with their ancient, beyond-the-grave powers of word-smithery—as long as words are appearing on your page, you're doing something right. :encouragement:


----------

