# what is your writing process ?



## who me?

what is your writing process ?
or do you just wing it ?

does your process change by genre or size or other factors ?

for me i wing it for an oped length piece of <1500 words

more than that i will do some organising to break it down into smaller chunks of ~500 words each

for really large projects i will do a detailed outline breaking it into sections  ~<3000  and then into chunks ~500

for a novel i would have a detailed out line down to the scene level and then break scenes down into beats


----------



## sunaynaprasad

I write an outline with chapter by chapter summaries and then go for at least 500 words a day. My chapters are usually between 1000 and 3000 words.


----------



## Bard_Daniel

I plan a rough summary and work from that to my first draft. For my current WIP my plan is about 15 pages single-spaced. I separated the summary into Acts rather than chapters. Chapter breaks I'm planning on doing later.

I think it's important to have a combination of pantsing as well as planning-- allows for the best of best worlds. However, this is just my humble opinion! 

I should also mention that, for each work I create, I also vary the process of planning/pantsing so that it's a little different each time. That is, as well, just my way of doing it.


----------



## who me?

danielstj said:


> I plan a rough summary and work from that to my first draft. For my current WIP my plan is about 15 pages single-spaced. I separated the summary into Act's rather than chapters. Chapter breaks I'm planning on doing later.
> 
> I think it's important to have a combination of pantsing as well as planning-- allows for the best of best worlds. However, this is just my humble opinion!
> 
> I should also mention that, for each work I create, I also vary the process of planning/pantsing so that it's a little different each time. That is, as well, just my way of doing it.


=========================

when i ever do a novel it will be sliced and diced finer as so:  acts > chapter > scenes > bits


----------



## Sam

My writing process is ass on seat and fingers on keyboard.


----------



## NeenaDiHope

I first have an idea then I figure out my main characters, who they are, what they look like and what type of personality they have. Once this is done, I wing it. I have an idea about my story but no clue how it will unfold or where it will go. I know that is probably the worst way to write but it works for me. I like that based on what I've previously written will guide me to what I write next.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> My writing process is ass on seat and fingers on keyboard.


===============

how exactly does that work

how is that different from the 1000 monkey approach  ?


----------



## who me?

NeenaDiHope said:


> I first have an idea then I figure out my main characters, who they are, what they look like and what type of personality they have. Once this is done, I wing it. I have an idea about my story but no clue how it will unfold or where it will go. I know that is probably the worst way to write but it works for me. I like that based on what I've previously written will guide me to what I write next.


====================

some people can keep more in their head to guide them than others

some of us need the map written down in detail before we can take a trip and not get lost


----------



## Bloggsworth

I write what I write when I write it - The only planning involved is if I'm going to college and have to make sure I've printed out 20 copies for the group...


----------



## who me?

Bloggsworth said:


> I write what I write when I write it - The only planning involved is if I'm going to college and have to make sure I've printed out 20 copies for the group...


=======================

but how does that approach ensure you write what you need to write to satisfy the prof 
or are they grading on volume these days and not quality or content


----------



## KellInkston

I tend to plot the ending first, snowflake method off of that, and then write from chapter one. Seems to work well for me.


----------



## who me?

KellInkston said:


> I tend to plot the ending first, snowflake method off of that, and then write from chapter one. Seems to work well for me.


==================

i would agree knowing the ending before the middle and beginning is a good way to go
knowing where you want to end up makes it a lot easier to get there
but if you dont care where you end up then any road will get you somewhere
the question is would you want to be there when you arrive 

i like the basic snowflake idea
when i finish with my process it will be modifed for my use along with some other ideas i have researched


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ===============
> 
> how exactly does that work
> 
> how is that different from the 1000 monkey approach  ?



I think it's pretty self-explanatory.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> I think it's pretty self-explanatory.


=================

if it were i would not keep asking people to explain it

still waiting for anyone to give a cogent reply as how that method works


----------



## EmmaSohan

I think of a good start, then write it. Usually, the ideas then stop and I put it in my extensive "good start" collection.

Sometimes, though, I get enough good things that they force me to finish. That's the only reason I ever finish a book. I will make sure I know how it ends before I get too far.

Sometimes I can work out a scene before I start writing. More often I start the scene with no idea where it's going.

I edit constantly, even as I write the first draft. When I have a first draft, I improve on it for clarity, suspense, interest, clever grammar, humor, etc. I add emotions. I will probably read my book 20 times.

The whole thing is very painful. I had to force myself to finish the first draft of the book I am working on. But it's so wonderful when it works.


----------



## bdcharles

TBH most of my writing is done while doing the gardening, DIY, driving, anything. Typically it starts with an idea, perhaps a phrase/situation/person, maybe someone's name or a mental picture - something that excites me and demands further interest. First I note it down (Apple "Notes" app has got a lot of use out of me; if I don't get it down within a minute or so, I will be _very _lucky to remember it again) and dream on it further. Later, back at my desk, I pen out a few points and expand on the original thing, 'til I have enough fragments to string together, to see how they could conceivably go from one to the other. That forms the plot. If the plot is the first thing I came up with, I comb my notes for some suitable characters and places and other actors to put in it. They have to be the right fit though, stylistically and whatever else - believably, etc. Basically I try and view it as a puzzle or project, something to assemble.

Once I have all (or a workable amount of) that, I begin writing in earnest. I am not one of these writers that can easily knock out a first draft that has all the data but has yet to be polished in terms of syntax and grammar. Maybe I'm lazy but even my early drafts have to be as good as I can make them otherwise the magic sort of dwindles. I have all the info anyway, in my notes. Currently I am thinking much more about ideas as that is a weak spot, and I seem to have got to a point where good(-ish, i.m.o. anyway) ideas are happening, I'm recognising them as such, and working with them. Then away we go. Write, write, write.

Eventuially Spielberg, or Abrams, or Besson, or Howard, calls me (speed-dial, _naturellement_) and I do the round of chat shows. As soon as the movie comes out I splash out on another manor; and around and around we go. It's hard life


----------



## bdcharles

who me? said:


> =================
> 
> if it were i would not keep asking people to explain it
> 
> still waiting for anyone to give a cogent reply as how that method works



Haha it helps to know Sam's approach to writing, to fully appreciate his answer. It is - correct me if I'm misrepresenting you Sam - basically "just do it", where any bumpf about nailing yourself to the wall to fully inhabit your character or whatever is somewhat extraneous. I suppose much does come down to just doing it, but for me, I like the dramatics, the whole end-to-end journey, the hero's-quest narrative, from stumbling over the cursed chalice to clambering atop the black throne


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> =================
> 
> if it were i would not keep asking people to explain it
> 
> still waiting for anyone to give a cogent reply as how that method works



This topic comes up approximately once every few weeks. Most of the time, the person doing the asking is not seeking to have a discourse about the advantages/disadvantages of any method, but instead is trying to imply that one is better than, or less flawed than, another. 

Your clipped tone here suggests you're attempting to do the same, which is why my replies were terse. 

I will let others explain how that method works. I've said all I'm going to say in past replies to this topic. You're welcome to search for them.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ==================
> 
> i would agree knowing the ending before the middle and beginning is a good way to go
> knowing where you want to end up makes it a lot easier to get there
> but if you dont care where you end up then any road will get you somewhere
> the question is would you want to be there when you arrive



I'm 60+ thousand words into my current WIP and only have a vague idea of how it will end. I wouldn't want to know where I'm going -- it would spoil the trip. You see, I write for the pleasure of discovery. If I knew everything that was going to happen to my characters before I wrote it, I would be bored to tears. It would be like doing paint by numbers. There are a lot of writers who feel the same way, and many who need/enjoy the structure of an outline. It's really all about finding what works for you and doing that. I know that, for me, If I don't know where my story is going, my readers won't either, and we will both be surprised.

To use your analogy of a journey; When I was a kid my family took a vacation by car. Now my Dad was one of those guys who planned out the whole trip. He knew how many miles we going to drive every day, where we were going to stop, and what we were going to do along the way. It worked for him. He got us where he wanted to go and saw all the things on his itinerary. It was a good vacation. But, for that ten year old kid riding in the back seat, there seemed to be many opportunities lost. Alternate routes through landscapes you couldn't see from the interstate, roadside attractions filled with colors and textures that went whisking past the window at 65 miles per hour. Just so much else to explore along the way. For me, writing is about exploration.

Stephen King uses the analogy of an archaeological dig. His original idea is just the corner of something poking up out of the ground. If it interests him, he starts to dig. He doesn't know what it is until the digging is done. That process has worked pretty well for him.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> I'm 60+ thousand words into my current WIP and only have a vague idea of how it will end. I wouldn't want to know where I'm going -- it would spoil the trip. You see, I write for the pleasure of discovery. If I knew everything that was going to happen to my characters before I wrote it, I would be bored to tears. It would be like doing paint by numbers. There are a lot of writers who feel the same way, and many who need/enjoy the structure of an outline. It's really all about finding what works for you and doing that. I know that, for me, If I don't know where my story is going, my readers won't either, and we will both be surprised.
> 
> To use your analogy of a journey; When I was a kid my family took a vacation by car. Now my Dad was one of those guys who planned out the whole trip. He knew how many miles we going to drive every day, where we were going to stop, and what we were going to do along the way. It worked for him. He got us where he wanted to go and saw all the things on his itinerary. It was a good vacation. But, for that ten year old kid riding in the back seat, there seemed to be many opportunities lost. Alternate routes through landscapes you couldn't see from the interstate, roadside attractions filled with colors and textures that went whisking past the window at 65 miles per hour. Just so much else to explore along the way. For me, writing is about exploration.
> 
> Stephen King uses the analogy of an archaeological dig. His original idea is just the corner of something poking up out of the ground. If it interests him, he starts to dig. He doesn't know what it is until the digging is done. That process has worked pretty well for him.


===================================

I guess it depends why you are writing.  If you just enjoy the fun of doing it then it does not matter how you do it as long as you are enjoying it.
If you like road trips more than being on the beach itself then the road itself  is the destination.

I think that King is a very unique person who is able to plan enough and keep things in his  mind as a guide.


----------



## who me?

bdcharles said:


> TBH most of my writing is done while doing the gardening, DIY, driving, anything. Typically it starts with an idea, perhaps a phrase/situation/person, maybe someone's name or a mental picture - something that excites me and demands further interest. First I note it down (Apple "Notes" app has got a lot of use out of me; if I don't get it down within a minute or so, I will be _very _lucky to remember it again) and dream on it further. Later, back at my desk, I pen out a few points and expand on the original thing, 'til I have enough fragments to string together, to see how they could conceivably go from one to the other. That forms the plot. If the plot is the first thing I came up with, I comb my notes for some suitable characters and places and other actors to put in it. They have to be the right fit though, stylistically and whatever else - believably, etc. Basically I try and view it as a puzzle or project, something to assemble.
> 
> Once I have all (or a workable amount of) that, I begin writing in earnest. I am not one of these writers that can easily knock out a first draft that has all the data but has yet to be polished in terms of syntax and grammar. Maybe I'm lazy but even my early drafts have to be as good as I can make them otherwise the magic sort of dwindles. I have all the info anyway, in my notes. Currently I am thinking much more about ideas as that is a weak spot, and I seem to have got to a point where good(-ish, i.m.o. anyway) ideas are happening, I'm recognising them as such, and working with them. Then away we go. Write, write, write.
> 
> Eventuially Spielberg, or Abrams, or Besson, or Howard, calls me (speed-dial, _naturellement_) and I do the round of chat shows. As soon as the movie comes out I splash out on another manor; and around and around we go. It's hard life


===========================

That is all very logical and looks isomorphic to the snowflake approach .


----------



## who me?

bdcharles said:


> Haha it helps to know Sam's approach to writing, to fully appreciate his answer. It is - correct me if I'm misrepresenting you Sam - basically "just do it", where any bumpf about nailing yourself to the wall to fully inhabit your character or whatever is somewhat extraneous. I suppose much does come down to just doing it, but for me, I like the dramatics, the whole end-to-end journey, the hero's-quest narrative, from stumbling over the cursed chalice to clambering atop the black throne


==================

I tried the Nike method.  Total fail.  

I had to learn to write to keep my job.  Organising saved me from being homeless after I would have been fired for not producing the reports needed.
I ended up in a job where I was a writer for several years.  Organisation was mandatory for what we produced. As in required or else. 

I can see some writers just enjoy being creative and if they don't have to deliver word count on deadline, then they can be free to do whatever they want.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> This topic comes up approximately once every few weeks. Most of the time, the person doing the asking is not seeking to have a discourse about the advantages/disadvantages of any method, but instead is trying to imply that one is better than, or less flawed than, another.
> 
> Your clipped tone here suggests you're attempting to do the same, which is why my replies were terse.
> 
> I will let others explain how that method works. I've said all I'm going to say in past replies to this topic. You're welcome to search for them.


================================

I have not seen it and I have looked at many forums trying to find an answer to how the pantsers actually do it.

I do not want a discourse per se but rather just informatio,  as I am researching the topic of 'How to Write' and have found many methods, mostly similar, but the wingit/pantser method is still a mystery. 

I tried the pantsing approach to write a novel.  Total fail.  I  used the pantsing approach at my job.  Total fail.  
To save my job I had to teach myself how to write.  What I came up with was organising and planning.  

As a systems person I am not implying what you are inferring or supposing.  The combination of writing process and a person that works is not the same as saying the process works for everyone nor that one is better than another.   Although statistically I suspect that a valid survey would find that an overwhelming number of professionals carefully plan and plot first, whilst the overwhelming number of amateurs just charge forth at random hoping to find a novel in there somewhere when they finish. It just means the psychological profiles of people skew towards organising and planning. 

I have searched for the others you claim exist. They are not to be found.
I must think that your refusal to answer is equivalent to stating you don't know how it works. 

I consider your replies better described with a more personal adjective than terse connotes.
And I infer a strong defensiveness because you know you can not tell anyone how your approach works.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ===================================
> 
> I guess it depends why you are writing.  If you just enjoy the fun of doing it then it does not matter how you do it as long as you are enjoying it.
> If you like road trips more than being on the beach itself then the road itself  is the destination.
> 
> I think that King is a very unique person who is able to plan enough and keep things in his  mind as a guide.



You seem to be saying that writers who choose to write organically, without a structured plan, are just doing it "for the fun of doing it." Respectfully, that's a load of horseshit and pretty condescending toward people who choose that path.

King is not unique in the way he writes, there are many bestselling writers who do no outlining; Mark Twain, Lee Child, Meg Cabot, Lawrence Block, and many more. I've completed two novels with no idea how they were going to end when I started. I'm serious about my craft, and, while I enjoy the hell out of the process, my goal is always to produce a publishable manuscript, not just to write for the fun of doing it. If planning, extensive or slight, works for you, great. Do it. But not everyone finds that helpful. I don't need a map to find a beach.


----------



## Sam

> I have not seen it and I have looked at many forums trying to find an answer to how the pantsers actually do it.
> 
> I do not want a discourse per se but rather just informatio, as I am researching the topic of 'How to Write' and have found many methods, mostly similar, but the wingit/pantser method is still a mystery.
> 
> I tried the pantsing approach to write a novel. Total fail. I used the pantsing approach at my job. Total fail.
> To save my job I had to teach myself how to write. What I came up with was organising and planning.
> 
> As a systems person I am not implying what you are inferring or supposing. The combination of writing process and a person that works is not the same as saying the process works for everyone nor that one is better than another. Although statistically I suspect that a valid survey would find that an overwhelming number of professionals carefully plan and plot first, whilst the overwhelming number of amateurs just charge forth at random hoping to find a novel in there somewhere when they finish. It just means the psychological profiles of people skew towards organising and planning.
> 
> I have searched for the others you claim exist. They are not to be found.
> I must think that your refusal to answer is equivalent to stating you don't know how it works.
> 
> I consider your replies better described with a more personal adjective than terse connotes.
> And I infer a strong defensiveness because you know you can not tell anyone how your approach works.




As I already said, you are not looking to discuss this. Your opinion is that plotting is good and pantsing is bad; your words betray anything you say to the contrary. 

I have been writing for twenty years. Not only have I pantsed fourteen novels, I also pantsed my way through both degree and master's degree courses. I have never planned any piece of writing in my life, yet I will be embarking on a PhD come September. 

So, please, do not attempt to tell me I don't know how my approach works. I am intimately familiar with how it works, and it does not matter if every single writer who ever lived went down to their nearest lake and threw themselves in the river -- I'm not going to blindly follow them. 

And, yes, this discussion can be found with the utmost ease. I suggest you look harder.


----------



## Phil Istine

An in-between approach seems to work for me.  I only have vague plans except where the plot becomes more complex - then I need to plan more tightly for those bits, but only to get it straight in my head.  I can see a day when even less planning is required as I become more experienced.
No right or wrong in my view - whatever works for the individual.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> You seem to be saying that writers who choose to write organically, without a structured plan, are just doing it "for the fun of doing it." Respectfully, that's a load of horseshit and pretty condescending toward people who choose that path.
> 
> King is not unique in the way he writes, there are many bestselling writers who do no outlining; Mark Twain, Lee Child, Meg Cabot, Lawrence Block, and many more. I've completed two novels with no idea how they were going to end when I started. I'm serious about my craft, and, while I enjoy the hell out of the process, my goal is always to produce a publishable manuscript, not just to write for the fun of doing it. If planning, extensive or slight, works for you, great. Do it. But not everyone finds that helpful. I don't need a map to find a beach.


===================================

I am saying that it sure seems that way to me from all my observations.

I suspect you are also a defensive user of the pantsing method and unable to tell us how it actually works. 

King is in a tiny minority.
Most famous authors plan and organise to some extent, and some to great detail.  Patterson has 90 page outlines.

Since you actually finished something, please tell us how you got to the end.
Tell us where they were published too. 

I think we all have a goal to end up with a publishable mss.  
But millions of unfinished and really bad mss are sitting in desk drawers.
Those were not written by true professionals.  But by amateurs and wannabees who don't know how to write a good book.

Nobody needs a map to find a beach if they can tell east and west from north and south.
Maybe dont even need to know south, just dont go north.

But if you want to get to a specific beach, or get to any beach faster it is better to have a map and know the route you are taking so you can avoid the bridge that is being repaired, bypass the rush hour slowdowns, and pot holed roads that will beat up your car.


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ===================================
> 
> Since you actually finished something, please tell us how you got to the end.
> Tell us where they were published too.



By writing. You know that thing you do with your fingers on a keyboard? 

Check my signature and you'll find where it's published and by whom.


----------



## Ptolemy

who me? said:


> Most famous authors plan and organise to some extent, and some to great detail.  Patterson has 90 page outlines.



Are you referencing James Patterson? While he still works on them (like setting plots and characters) and adds creative advice, he usually hires ghostwriters to fully flesh out the story and then reaps the rewards. And yea, most of the ghostwriters? They freehand it, with a tad of creative advice. The dude and his writers bang out a book around every month, that's absurd production for 90 page outlines. So yea, 90 page outlines are good, but they are useless when the writer doesn't even write the story using them.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ===================================
> 
> I am saying that it sure seems that way to me from all my observations.



I can't speak to this as I have no idea who, or what you are observing. 



> I suspect you are also a defensive user of the pantsing method and unable to tell us how it actually works.



I'm not defensive at all. I don't need to justify my method to anyone. I just think forum members, particularly those just starting out, need to know that there are as many 'methods' as there are writers. No one way is best.



> King is in a tiny minority.
> Most famous authors plan and organise to some extent, and some to great detail.  Patterson has 90 page outlines.



I don't care what "most" writers do. Why do you? Do you need justification for your method? I find that odd. As long as it works, it works. My only point in mentioning King and the others was to illustrate that planning is not a prerequisite for completing a salable manuscript. And, in my opinion only, using James Patterson's assembly line writing isn't much of an endorsement for planning.



> Since you actually finished something, please tell us how you got to the end.



One word at a time. There is really nothing mysterious about it. For me the key to writing a novel is establishing a writing routine. Sit down at the keyboard at the same time every day and don't make excuses. When I do that, the creative parts of my brain are ready to write when I am. The next part of the story is there. It is ready to be written. All I have to do is pick the words.



> Tell us where they were published too.



I self published my books through Createspace. Probably more pertinent to this conversation is, how were they received? My first novel has sold just over 1,000 copies and is currently sitting a 4.5 stars on Amazon. My second has sold more than 2,000 copies and has averaged 5 star reviews. Both also move regularly from brick-and-mortar bookstores. Not bestselling numbers, but I'm not looking for huge sales at this point in my career.



> I think we all have a goal to end up with a publishable mss.



Not the 'hobby writers' you suggested non-plotters to be. Many folks write just for the joy of getting words on paper. There are members here who have written several novels with no intention whatsoever of getting them published.



> But millions of unfinished and really bad mss are sitting in desk drawers.



And many of those are sitting right on top of the outline used to write it.



> Those were not written by true professionals.  But by amateurs and wannabees who don't know how to write a good book.



Most "true professionals" have their share of unsold manuscripts also. Manuscripts written before they knew how to write a good book. But now you seem to be implying that the only way to write a 'good' book is to plan it? For you maybe. Not so much for others.



> Nobody needs a map to find a beach if they can tell east and west from north and south.
> 
> Maybe dont even need to know south, just dont go north.
> 
> But if you want to get to a specific beach, or get to any beach faster it is better to have a map and know the route you are taking so you can avoid the bridge that is being repaired, bypass the rush hour slowdowns, and pot holed roads that will beat up your car.



In writing we learn from those detours, and some of those rougher roads lead us to places that are far more interesting than what we would find if we stayed on the well traveled roads. Sure, planning a book might get it written faster, maybe, there's no assurance of that, but what is the rush?


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> I can't speak to this as I have no idea who, or what you are observing.
> 
> I'm not defensive at all. I don't need to justify my method to anyone. I just think forum members, particularly those just starting out, need to know that there are as many 'methods' as there are writers. No one way is best.
> 
> I don't care what "most" writers do. Why do you? Do you need justification for your method? I find that odd. As long as it works, it works. My only point in mentioning King and the others was to illustrate that planning is not a prerequisite for completing a salable manuscript. And, in my opinion only, using James Patterson's assembly line writing isn't much of an endorsement for planning.
> 
> One word at a time. There is really nothing mysterious about it. For me the key to writing a novel is establishing a writing routine. Sit down at the keyboard at the same time every day and don't make excuses. When I do that, the creative parts of my brain are ready to write when I am. The next part of the story is there. It is ready to be written. All I have to do is pick the words.
> 
> I self published my books through Createspace. Probably more pertinent to this conversation is, how were they received? My first novel has sold just over 1,000 copies and is currently sitting a 4.5 stars on Amazon. My second has sold more than 2,000 copies and has averaged 5 star reviews. Both also move regularly from brick-and-mortar bookstores. Not bestselling numbers, but I'm not looking for huge sales at this point in my career.
> 
> Not the 'hobby writers' you suggested non-plotters to be. Many folks write just for the joy of getting words on paper. There are members here who have written several novels with no intention whatsoever of getting them published.
> 
> And many of those are sitting right on top of the outline used to write it.
> 
> Most "true professionals" have their share of unsold manuscripts also. Manuscripts written before they knew how to write a good book. But now you seem to be implying that the only way to write a 'good' book is to plan it? For you maybe. Not so much for others.
> 
> In writing we learn from those detours, and some of those rougher roads lead us to places that are far more interesting than what we would find if we stayed on the well traveled roads. Sure, planning a book might get it written faster, maybe, there's no assurance of that, but what is the rush?


=========================================

I observe people writing andor trying to write.

You don't have to do anything.  I asked for an explanation.  You could have ignored that request without the veiled insults. 

One way is certainly best for each person.  Unless you can understand the various ways it is harder to pick the one that would be best for you.

I have intellectual curiosity.  And like my bookie said:  The battle is not always to the strong, the race is not always to the fast, but that is the way to bet. 
If someone is looking for a method then the one that works for the most people is the logical first choice for consideration.

You addressed the creativity aspect.  But how do you focus it so you don't just create noise but get a coherent result with minimal entropy.

Anybody can use createspace for free and do.   Your success is way more than 99.9% of all authors ever achieve. 

Most people seem to be the hobbyist type who are happy to have anything on paper.  And they felt creative doing it which was enough for them.
Some folks do want to achieve the best results possible and are more serious. 

Not every mss sells, but professionals have a far higher batting average.
I will always maintain what the evidence shows which is  that the vast majority of good books were planned.   

It is true that new writers need experience and practice until they are proficient.  
But I also know that to become a concert pianist you must play the scales perfectly before you try to do them faster.
The same is with writing.  The Socratic method is a big fail and very slow and inefficient.  
Just writing will take longer to learn how to write and actually write anything that is good.


----------



## who me?

Ptolemy said:


> Are you referencing James Patterson? While he still works on them (like setting plots and characters) and adds creative advice, he usually hires ghostwriters to fully flesh out the story and then reaps the rewards. And yea, most of the ghostwriters? They freehand it, with a tad of creative advice. The dude and his writers bang out a book around every month, that's absurd production for 90 page outlines. So yea, 90 page outlines are good, but they are useless when the writer doesn't even write the story using them.




Patterson uses ghosts to write to his detailed outline in his style and then he revises them to meet his standards.
He used to write to his outline himself but he can produce more books faster with the help of ghosts. 

The writers do use the outline to create the story.  Not sure what your hangup is with Patterson's method.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> =========================================
> 
> I observe people writing andor trying to write.



I wonder how that is done with any accuracy. Writing isn't a very 'observable' occupation.



> You don't have to do anything.  I asked for an explanation.  You could have ignored that request without the veiled insults.



What veiled insults? There is nothing in my replies even remotely insulting. 



> One way is certainly best for each person.  Unless you can understand the various ways it is harder to pick the one that would be best for you.



Yes, but what new folks do not need is someone whispering in their ear, "Sure do it how you want, but _this_ way is best."




> You addressed the creativity aspect.  But how do you focus it so you don't just create noise but get a coherent result with minimal entropy.



The routine keeps me organized, keeps my plot tight, and reduces the chance for entropy (although a little entropy can be a good thing from time to time). 



> Anybody can use createspace for free and do.   Your success is way more than 99.9% of all authors ever achieve.



I'm not sure of your stats, but whatever. Not outlining works for me. It may work for many others too. If it doesn't work for another writer, she'll know it soon enough.



> Most people seem to be the hobbyist type who are happy to have anything on paper.  And they felt creative doing it which was enough for them.
> Some folks do want to achieve the best results possible and are more serious.



I think 'most' people who come to fora like this want to achieve the best results they are capable of. Most seem to want to publish, but writing is hard work and many aren't willing to do that work. They want to talk about 'writer's block', 'muses', and 'art', or they get bogged down in questions of technique, point-of-view, or tense, or they get hung up on how much they should plan. Eventually some decide that hobby writing is enough. Others, however, learn to filter out the white-noise and realize that their writing is in their hands -- that no one can tell them how to start, how to keep going, or how to complete a story. 



> Not every mss sells, but professionals have a far higher batting average.



Isn't that a little like saying everyone who gets into the pool gets wet?



> I will always maintain what the evidence shows which is  that the vast majority of good books were planned.



That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but do you have any stats to back it up?



> It is true that new writers need experience and practice until they are proficient.
> But I also know that to become a concert pianist you must play the scales perfectly before you try to do them faster.
> The same is with writing.  The Socratic method is a big fail and very slow and inefficient.
> Just writing will take longer to learn how to write and actually write anything that is good.



The Socratic Method is a teaching tool, not a writing method. It has nothing to do with trial-and-error (which is what I think your point is). All outlining can do for a writer is create a structure for them to follow to build their story. It's a fine way to that. What it will not do is make anyone a better writer. Only practice will do that.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> I wonder how that is done with any accuracy. Writing isn't a very 'observable' occupation.
> 
> What veiled insults? There is nothing in my replies even remotely insulting.
> 
> Yes, but what new folks do not need is someone whispering in their ear, "Sure do it how you want, but _this_ way is best."
> 
> The routine keeps me organized, keeps my plot tight, and reduces the chance for entropy (although a little entropy can be a good thing from time to time).
> 
> I'm not sure of your stats, but whatever. Not outlining works for me. It may work for many others too. If it doesn't work for another writer, she'll know it soon enough.
> 
> I think 'most' people who come to fora like this want to achieve the best results they are capable of. Most seem to want to publish, but writing is hard work and many aren't willing to do that work. They want to talk about 'writer's block', 'muses', and 'art', or they get bogged down in questions of technique, point-of-view, or tense, or they get hung up on how much they should plan. Eventually some decide that hobby writing is enough. Others, however, learn to filter out the white-noise and realize that their writing is in their hands -- that no one can tell them how to start, how to keep going, or how to complete a story.
> 
> Isn't that a little like saying everyone who gets into the pool gets wet?
> 
> That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but do you have any stats to back it up?
> 
> The Socratic Method is a teaching tool, not a writing method. It has nothing to do with trial-and-error (which is what I think your point is). All outlining can do for a writer is create a structure for them to follow to build their story. It's a fine way to that. What it will not do is make anyone a better writer. Only practice will do that.


===============

actually it is when you know the people 
and the results are very observable

well, i thought they were insulting

how does that routine have anything to do with a plot
still waiting for any hint of how it could work that way
just sitting down ensures a random plot
organising the flow of the big picture at a minimum keeps the plot on track

new people DO need to know what works best for THE VAST MAJORITY of SUCCESSFUL writers
they can choose to ignore it
what they dont need is people just saying NIKE! 

if outlining does not work for you then you are doing it in your head and calling it something else
else you are randomly writing stuff to throw at the plot wall to see if it sticks

for sure writing is hard work.  and nobody wants to do hard work.
worse, marketing is much harder work. 

everybody who gets in the pool does get wet.
but not every author sells a book
most of them sell less than 5.  or used to.  with kindle they may 'sell' 30 if you count the free ones. 
some authors never sell any.
not even to their mother. 

if you look at the books on writing by successful authors the vast majority are some sort of planning.
none of them tell you HOW to do it pantsing style.  even if that is what the author says they use. 

the socratic method is a self learning approoach and  how your approach leads to discovering a method to write. 
it is totally trial and error unless you are a genius and can do a gedanken experiment based on your intuition to avoid actually doing the experiment.
my uni used the socratic method to teach writing and it was a total fail.
they said write!
we wrote and they marked it up.  we were supposed to somehow know what to do to write differently next time.
sorry but picasso like red marks on an mss dont teach students anything useful.
repeat ad nauseum.  i had to teach myself to write after i had a job and had to write for real. 

later when i taught at the uni i saw the same problem with my students.
i told our english dept to teach HOW to write not just the low level SPaG


----------



## Terry D

Well, this is getting circular, so I'll sign-off with this:

You have shown nothing to prove that "the vast majority of successful" writers use an outline. All you have presented is your opinion. Many, probably most, do. Many do not. It is not a requisite for success.

I know you don't really want to know how a non-planner writes. Every time that question is answered you change the criteria. But here it is as simply as I can make it; When you outline, do you organize ideas and put them on paper? That's what I do also. During each writing session I take the ideas from my head about the scene I'm writing and put them on paper (or virtual paper as the case may be). I just don't do it before the writing session. You say I'm doing the same thing you are only in my head and that's correct. The only difference is in the timing. You feel the need to do it ahead of time, to get several scenes, chapters, or a whole book outlined ahead of writing it. I don't. Sure, the words come from the same place, and they form in my head before they trickle out through my fingers, but I'm not planning what I'm going to write. As a scene flows I may visualize what it is leading to within the next few paragraphs, or pages, but that visualization isn't documented anywhere. If you want to call that a form of planning, go ahead. Keep your world comfortable. I haven't written an outline since 1971. Haven't needed to.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> Well, this is getting circular, so I'll sign-off with this:
> 
> You have shown nothing to prove that "the vast majority of successful" writers use an outline. All you have presented is your opinion. Many, probably most, do. Many do not. It is not a requisite for success.
> 
> I know you don't really want to know how a non-planner writes. Every time that question is answered you change the criteria. But here it is as simply as I can make it; When you outline, do you organize ideas and put them on paper? That's what I do also. During each writing session I take the ideas from my head about the scene I'm writing and put them on paper (or virtual paper as the case may be). I just don't do it before the writing session. You say I'm doing the same thing you are only in my head and that's correct. The only difference is in the timing. You feel the need to do it ahead of time, to get several scenes, chapters, or a whole book outlined ahead of writing it. I don't. Sure, the words come from the same place, and they form in my head before they trickle out through my fingers, but I'm not planning what I'm going to write. As a scene flows I may visualize what it is leading to within the next few paragraphs, or pages, but that visualization isn't documented anywhere. If you want to call that a form of planning, go ahead. Keep your world comfortable. I haven't written an outline since 1971. Haven't needed to.


==================

Opinion based on facts from the data found and situations observed.

I really do want to know how a non planner writes.
You can't tell me,  so you project some mistaken idea onto me.

Nobody has answered the question:  How does a pantser write?  How does winging result in a good book, if indeed any book.

I have changed no criteria about the question.
Nobody has said anything specific except that magically sitting in a chair makes it happen.

Now you are saying you do outline.
That is a change, and you made it not I.
How you outline is another topic. 
But at least you finally admit honestly that you do outline and are NOT a true pantser.

I suspect that all pantsers who finish a book had an outline in their head but either don't realise it or just won't admit it for some psychological reason.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ==================
> 
> Opinion based on facts from the data found and situations observed.



But not substantiated any where here.



> I really do want to know how a non planner writes.



I just told you.



> You can't tell me so you project some mistaken idea onto me.



 See above.



> Nobody has answered the question.



Sure we have. You just can't accept the answer.



> Nobody has said anything specific except that magically sitting in a chair makes it happen.



Nothing magic about it. If you can't understand that your brain can be trained to be creative by establishing patterns of behavior, then maybe you should do some research.



> Now you are saying you do outline.
> That is a change and you made it not I.



If that's what you got out of my reply, you need to work on your comprehension. Unless you are latching onto my admission that I did outline 46 years ago, but I really don't see what a biology term paper has to do with this conversation.



> How you outline is another topic.
> But at least you finally admit honestly that you do outline and are NOT a true pantser.



This is a child's argument and doesn't warrant a response.


----------



## Bard_Daniel

I really think that it's obvious that you can write without an outline or without extensive planning and be successful. The WRITING is the part that is important. Planning helps THE WRITING but without the experience, and skills, in WRITING no amount of planning is going to make a manuscript, story etc successful. Sam and Terry D are just highlighting those points-- they are not trying to put down your method. It is undeniable that they have pertinent advice so...???

I'll just weigh in here: You polled and asked for info and Terry D and Sam gave it-- along with the others. I don't think it's very purposeful to try and start an argument with either of them just because it does not agree with your frame of mind. There is always more than one way of doing things. Furthermore, there are many "pantsers" who do phenomenal work. Even more so, if you wanted to look at a writer on here that has had success then look at Terry D's second book results. Over 1,000 copies is great! Sure, it doesn't make a millionaire but it's only his second book. (P.S Congrats Terry! )


----------



## Darkkin

I listen, to my music, my moods...The observations.  With a repository of projects, I find the one that fits the conditions of my thought patterns and mood and I go.  Toes tucked up behind me on my yoga ball, I let my fingers fly until my thoughts are quiet.  Until I reach a good stopping point.  Actions accrued, others coming...Something to look forward to the next time that particular mood strikes.  Yes, my pieces advance at different rates, but there is progress on all fronts and a global perspective of how and when story arcs and characters intersect.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> But not substantiated any where here.
> 
> 
> I just told you.
> 
> See above.
> 
> Sure we have. You just can't accept the answer.
> 
> Nothing magic about it. If you can't understand that your brain can be trained to be creative by establishing patterns of behavior, then maybe you should do some research.
> 
> If that's what you got out of my reply, you need to work on your comprehension. Unless you are latching onto my admission that I did outline 46 years ago, but I really don't see what a biology term paper has to do with this conversation.
> 
> This is a child's argument and doesn't warrant a response.


=====================================

none are so blind as those who won't look

substantiated  by all the books on how to write out there
and by my observations which i have posted here

you finally admitted you do plan in your head

i accept the answer that you plan in your head
i do not accept anybody claiming they just do it by sitting down 

i know how to be creative
but the claim by pantsers is they dont plan dont plot dont organise
they just sit down and start writing and somehow a book emerges

you are using logical fallacies and erroneous claims 

if you are now saying you don' plan then you still have not answered how pantsers write 
it does not magically happen as most writers prove 
and as all my students at the uni proved every semester


----------



## gohn67

> i know how to be creative
> but the claim by pantsers is they dont plan dont plot dont organise
> they just sit down and start writing and somehow a book emerges



Is that really the definition of a pantser?


----------



## aj47

who me? said:


> none are so blind as those who won't look



Okay, I'm looking -- point me at your book(s).  I'd like to take a read or few.


----------



## Terry D

@gohn67

No, it is not.

@who me?

The pantser vs plotter argument is about pre-planning vs letting the story grow organically without a written plan. Free writing a novel stream of consciousness style is not pantsing. No one has ever claimed that it is. Since you don't seem to understand, pantsing (a terrible word used by planners as a way to make themselves feel better) is about writing without a documented road map for their novel. It has never been defined as writing without thinking, except, perhaps, by you. To suggest that it is, is absurd. Thinking about the next word choice to make, or the next scene to write, could only be considered 'planning' by someone so desperate for validation of their point-of-view that they need to bastardize the concept to make it fit their preconceptions.

That's really rather sad.


----------



## who me?

gohn67 said:


> Is that really the definition of a pantser?


==================

is seems to be the way they all describe it to me

they all deny doing any planning

unless pantser is some sort of badge of honor and not just a method
then i am not sure why anyone who plans even a little would claim to be one


----------



## who me?

astroannie said:


> Okay, I'm looking -- point me at your book(s).  I'd like to take a read or few.


===================

your security clearance is not high enough
and you dont have a need to know

now that i am retired i am looking at doing some general books that anyone could buy
started 3 of those over the years
but abandoned when the trad pubs had one book on the topic already and didnt want another
now i can self publish no matter how many others are out there which may be similar 

my forte is NF but I might consider doing a novel after my 'How to Write' book 
just to prove the method works if you use it


----------



## aj47

who me? said:


> ===================
> 
> your security clearance is not high enough
> and you dont have a need to know
> 
> now that i am retired i am looking at doing some general books that anyone could buy
> started 3 of those over the years
> but abandoned when the trad pubs had one book on the topic already and didnt want another
> now i can self publish no matter how many others are out there which may be similar
> 
> my forte is NF but I might consider doing a novel after my 'How to Write' book
> just to prove the method works if you use it



so, what I'm hearing is you don't have any evidence that you are willing to share with anyone that you actually know anything about what you're talking about.

... just a keyboard and time on your hands ... 

I'll endeavor to remember that.


----------



## who me?

astroannie said:


> so, what I'm hearing is you don't have any evidence that you are willing to share with anyone that you actually know anything about what you're talking about.
> 
> ... just a keyboard and time on your hands ...
> 
> I'll endeavor to remember that.


============

i have been published in national newspapers and magazines from WD to washpost
i made a living with my writing for 3 years
i made a living withjobs  that needed occasional writing for decades

i feel no need to prove anything to you 

being retired i do have more time
and i own a half dozen keyboards
not counting the virtual ones on the tablets

i can guarantee to a john mclaughlin metaphysical certitude that not only do i know what i am talking about but that you can take it to the bank


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ==================
> 
> is seems to be the way they all describe it to me
> 
> they all deny doing any planning
> 
> unless pantser is some sort of badge of honor and not just a method
> then i am not sure why anyone who plans even a little would claim to be one



Is an ordinary person who prepares a meal for more than one person the same thing as a chef? Is a wife who occasionally cuts her husband's hair a hairdresser? 

No, they are someone who performs those tasks on occasion. I may have an idea for the first chapter of a novel, or I may even go as far as writing down said idea, but that does not mean I do it for every first chapter or any other chapter at all. 

To be a planner, you must habitually plan. Planning one chapter out of ninety does not make you planner, anymore than pantsing one chapter out of ninety makes you a pantser.


----------



## Non Serviam

I'm a confirmed outliner.  I write an outline by scene, then I write each scene on 12cm x 20cm index cards.  Then I rearrange the scenes a bit so I don't get two action scenes one after the other, or two dialogue scenes together or whatever.  Then I write a thumbnail sketch of each character and figure out what motivates them to do what the plot needs them to do -- occasionally I find I need to divide one character into two, or fuse two characters into one, in order to produce a consistent flow of who wants what, and who knows what, at each stage.  This leads to some summary-style back stories for each character.

Then I start writing, and I usually go heavily off-plan.  But I always find the writing process easier when I have a detailed outline to ignore.

I sometimes find I run out of outline about 20,000-30,000 words in.  I don't pad it out -- if that happens, then I just carry on writing past the end of my outline, exploring the consequences of each of the characters' decisions, and the story grows organically from there.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> Is an ordinary person who prepares a meal for more than one person the same thing as a chef? Is a wife who occasionally cuts her husband's hair a hairdresser?
> 
> No, they are someone who performs those tasks on occasion. I may have an idea for the first chapter of a novel, or I may even go as far as writing down said idea, but that does not mean I do it for every first chapter or any other chapter at all.
> 
> To be a planner, you must habitually plan. Planning one chapter out of ninety does not make you planner, anymore than pantsing one chapter out of ninety makes you a pantser.


================

that is your definition

the poll allowed for either or some mixture of both or none


----------



## Darkkin

The writing process is unique to the individual.  If you are looking to identify writers who follow impulsivity on an instinctual level, take a closer look at those with conditions like ADHD and autism.  The very process of how they think and function is different from that of a so called normal brain on a fundamental level.  Inhibitions between the observation and the leap to conscious thought are much lower.

The connections come seemingly out of no where and given the hyperfocus that often accompanies issues like ADD, ADHD, and autism chances of the individual following through with these creative leaps is high.  It is an instinctual response, what the individual has taken in through reading and basic education is summoned by rote, but the ideas and mediums are fluid.  When it is right, you know it and you let go.  It is about the words within the moment, the emotions and expressions of characters you know as well as yourself.  You listen to their urgings and follow where they lead.  Yet all the while, there is an inherent crystalline structure unseen, the unwritten tenets of storytelling.  Hardwired into our understand from the moment we begin to comprehend language.  Stories are how we relate to the world, to others...Those patterns are always there.  Some writers flesh out these structures in great detail.  Others, well it is like a pointalism painting.  A dot here, a dot there, but the writer see the whole picture.  A global understanding that doesn't require an outline.

Impulse writers leap where others plan, but it doesn't mean that their leaps are without a plan.  It might seem elusive at the time, but the lattice work is there.


----------



## who me?

Non Serviam said:


> I'm a confirmed outliner.  I write an outline by scene, then I write each scene on 12cm x 20cm index cards.  Then I rearrange the scenes a bit so I don't get two action scenes one after the other, or two dialogue scenes together or whatever.  Then I write a thumbnail sketch of each character and figure out what motivates them to do what the plot needs them to do -- occasionally I find I need to divide one character into two, or fuse two characters into one, in order to produce a consistent flow of who wants what, and who knows what, at each stage.  This leads to some summary-style back stories for each character.
> 
> Then I start writing, and I usually go heavily off-plan.  But I always find the writing process easier when I have a detailed outline to ignore.
> 
> I sometimes find I run out of outline about 20,000-30,000 words in.  I don't pad it out -- if that happens, then I just carry on writing past the end of my outline, exploring the consequences of each of the characters' decisions, and the story grows organically from there.


======================

That method I can understand as to how it works.

Don't know where you get those odd sized cards
I use 3x5 to hold one liners about scenes so I can line them up and make sure they are logical.
I have not gotten to breaking the scenes down into bits yet.  
But I suspect I would do that on the PC with one liners to save retyping from the cards and then elaborate in excel.  
Similar to the famous Rowling diagram only with much more detail.

That would be small enough that I can see each scene on one page and rearrange the beats , if  needed , easily.

If a picture is worth a 1000 words then what is a scene worth that is describing a picture that moved some.
Actually I saw that somewhere but I would  have to dig through a box of notes on how to write a novel to find that number. 
A movie might have 90 scenes in 90 minutes.  Could well be less, might be more.  Not counting coverage and transitions the director adds.
A novel of say 120K words , taking a wild guess, would have about 250-300 beats that could be 120 full scenes or so.  TBV


----------



## aj47

who me? said:


> ============
> 
> i have been published in national newspapers and magazines from WD to washpost
> i made a living with my writing for 3 years
> i made a living withjobs  that needed occasional writing for decades
> 
> i feel no need to prove anything to you
> 
> being retired i do have more time
> and i own a half dozen keyboards
> not counting the virtual ones on the tablets
> 
> i can guarantee to a john mclaughlin metaphysical certitude that not only do i know what i am talking about but that you can take it to the bank



Of course!  Ever seen the *Internet Tough Guy* meme?   You remind me of him.


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ================
> 
> that is your definition
> 
> the poll allowed for either or some mixture of both or none



The poll serves no point if the person who posted it doesn't want to hear any answer that doesn't satisfy their limited criteria. 

Best of luck with it, though.


----------



## gohn67

> is seems to be the way they all describe it to me
> 
> they all deny doing any planning



Is that true that though? That seems contrary to what others have said in this thread alone. 

Perhaps the issue here is a matter of conflicting definitions and misunderstandings.

I think this can easily be resolved if you provide your definitive definition of pantser.


----------



## who me?

Darkkin said:


> The writing process is unique to the individual.  If you are looking to identify writers who follow impulsivity on an instinctual level, take a closer look at those with conditions like ADHD and autism.  The very process of how they think and function is different from that of a so called normal brain on a fundamental level.  Inhibitions between the observation and the leap to conscious thought are much lower.
> 
> The connections come seemingly out of no where and given the hyperfocus that often accompanies issues like ADD, ADHD, and autism chances of the individual following through with these creative leaps is high.  It is an instinctual response, what the individual has taken in through reading and basic education is summoned by rote, but the ideas and mediums are fluid.  When it is right, you know it and you let go.  It is about the words within the moment, the emotions and expressions of characters you know as well as yourself.  You listen to their urgings and follow where they lead.  Yet all the while, there is an inherent crystalline structure unseen, the unwritten tenets of storytelling.  Hardwired into our understand from the moment we begin to comprehend language.  Stories are how we relate to the world, to others...Those patterns are always there.  Some writers flesh out these structures in great detail.  Others, well it is like a pointalism painting.  A dot here, a dot there, but the writer see the whole picture.  A global understanding that doesn't require an outline.
> 
> Impulse writers leap where others plan, but it doesn't mean that their leaps are without a plan.  It might seem elusive at the time, but the lattice work is there.


==================

I had planned to look at psychological profiles vs preferences.  Thanks for the idea to also look at ADHD and Autism or others not usually broken out on the MBTI or similar profiles. 

I do see a difference in the creativity end vs the planning needed.
EVERY good book ends up organised and well planned no matter what path was used to get there. 
I have known brilliant people who jumped from one thing to another so fast they could never put together a coherent set of related ideas.

I know how painters work. The masters outline on sketches to get an idea of the finished painting, and limn the general structure in pencil on the canvas before they start painting.   I would expect a pointillist to do that too ,  so they know the big picture and can keep the perspective correct as they do their dots. 
So while you don't think they need an outline, the old masters all outlined first.  And planned before outlining.  
With enough practice they might be able to do a good painting without that but I guarantee that for most artists especially noobies that outlining first will always help.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi who me? How do you write nonfiction?

I have a 21K section on using the comma and I basically know what I want to say. I wrote an organization, yeah, but then it didn't work.

 There's a logic to things. If I write out the first idea in that section (which definitely comes first), then I am better placed to decide what comes next, right?

And don't you get new ideas as you write? Quite often those make me throw away my original organization. Actually, my original plan was to never discuss commas, so that section at one time wasn't in the plan.

Anyway, fiction is different. I am guessing you have daydreams and that you don't organize them first. Does that help? Fiction is different because anything can come next, as long as it's consistent with what happened before.

The book I read by Patterson had the best blurb I have ever read -- two really great hooks! The book itself, from start to end, was a disappointment.


----------



## who me?

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi who me? How do you write nonfiction?
> 
> I have a 21K section on using the comma and I basically know what I want to say. I wrote an organization, yeah, but then it didn't work.
> 
> There's a logic to things. If I write out the first idea in that section (which definitely comes first), then I am better placed to decide what comes next, right?
> 
> And don't you get new ideas as you write? Quite often those make me throw away my original organization. Actually, my original plan was to never discuss commas, so that section at one time wasn't in the plan.
> 
> Anyway, fiction is different. I am guessing you have daydreams and that you don't organize them first. Does that help? Fiction is different because anything can come next, as long as it's consistent with what happened before.
> 
> The book I read by Patterson had the best blurb I have ever read -- two really great hooks! The book itself, from start to end, was a disappointment.


============================

NF - the short version of the writing process. 

Have a need to write at all.  If not for job or school that might be because you want to do it to make money or build up your street cred or whatever.
Know the constraints = deadline and word count.
Know the audience and the purpose of the writing.

Brainstorm what you think might fit.

Look at what you know or have readily available that matches.
Research any holes in the  content you have.

Take a big table top and put everything you have in a corner. 
Then take one item at a time and try to label it starting in the center of the table. 
Group items with the same or very similar labels in the same pile. 
Place related items in piles closer to piles they relate to, and put less related info in piles farther away. 

Put a phrase on each pile to identify it.
Because books are linear you will need to identify the best sequence through the piles for use in writing.

Create a template if one was not mandated.  Often government and other enterprises have an official template, as do professional journals, etc. 
that is a good guide to ensuring all needed items are covered.
That includes meta style information like stating the purpose , scope, audience, why it was written, what was included, what was omitted, yada yada.
Also glossary and perhaps index later and other similar items. 

Start with the required boilerplate which will set the context and fill in the initial outline from the labels on the piles.
This is a good time to figure out if you want to use infographics and if so which ones.

Then use your material to write  balanced content and which  fits the word count if any.

There may be some iteration here.
New questions may arise. 
Too much material in one area may need to be condensed.
Too little in other areas may need further research
If you have a lot of material then you may need to repeat the sequence with each section to create subsections.

If over word count you will have to trim it. 

Now continue with normal writing process.
Read and do a development edit to make sure it is the right stuff in the right sequence and it makes sense.
Then drill down with substantive edits.
Finally end up with line edits.

Add the index and create a TOC.
Insert figures, graphs, etc. 

Make sure all page numbers are correct.
Make sure formatting for various levels are correct.

Give it to an editor to go over independently.

Send it to formatting for publication.

Print it.


----------



## who me?

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi who me? How do you write nonfiction?
> 
> I have a 21K section on using the comma and I basically know what I want to say. I wrote an organization, yeah, but then it didn't work.
> 
> There's a logic to things. If I write out the first idea in that section (which definitely comes first), then I am better placed to decide what comes next, right?
> 
> And don't you get new ideas as you write? Quite often those make me throw away my original organization. Actually, my original plan was to never discuss commas, so that section at one time wasn't in the plan.
> 
> Anyway, fiction is different. I am guessing you have daydreams and that you don't organize them first. Does that help? Fiction is different because anything can come next, as long as it's consistent with what happened before.
> 
> The book I read by Patterson had the best blurb I have ever read -- two really great hooks! The book itself, from start to end, was a disappointment.


============================
I find it easier to lay out the sections in sequence first.

Then lay out subsections. 

If needed continue down to the points you want to make.  Think topic sentences. 

Then writing becomes trivial assuming you have something to say about each point. 

There is always iteration.  If you have ideas, find holes, see extraneous material then adjust  as needed.
I never had to throw away the original organisation.  I might reshuffle at times, but never start over. 
If you started before the research was finished that might happen.  

For fiction anything can come next that fits.  But they should fit like a row of dominoes set up by the kinetic king on AGT. 
I believe you will do better if you know the ending first as that is key to success.  So the dominoes you include have to end up at the right place which limits what can fit best.  Sort of like the intro to Elementary as the ball rolls through the Rube Goldberg maze of options. 

I never read Patterson.  Don't know if I would like his books  or not.  I read almost ever Nero Wolfe in the 60s.  I like the Stephanie Plum Evanovich books but not her co-authored Fox and O'hare books. 


I also think that starting at very high viewpoint and letting the balloon come slowly down so you can see more and more detail is the best way to write a novel.
Genre first.  Then logline.  Blurb.  Elevator speech.  Summary.   Synopsis.  Scene mattrix.  Beat sheet.  Write it.   At the end you have done all the creativity for characters and plot and can concentrate on your voice and writing style.  Get in the zone and words will flow from brain to screen at incredible speeds.

Write it all before you stop.  Then continue as above.  Read the draft.  Fix development issues is any slipped by the top down organisation phase.
Do a substantive edit to tweak sequencing and polish your prose.  Do a line edit.  Finish with pages, TOC, etc. as needed.  Format.  Publish.


----------



## Darkkin

One major question you forgot to ask.  Fiction or nonfiction?  The processes between the two while similar are miles apart in not only the mindset of the writer, but available material.  Nonfiction has foundations in fact.  A firmer footing for a planning process, whereas fiction is often entirely reliant on the writer.  It is a flexibiliy and adaptability that nonfiction writing has a hard time mimicking.  Consider which you preferred doing when in school.  What as easier?  An essay or a short story?  That answer will vary by the writer as will the processes of the two types of writing.

Nonfiction, like this post, I can do by rote, without really having to put much effort into it.  Think.  Type.  Done.  Whereas when working with fictional constructs, I go deep.  A thousand miles down to the roots of the quasars and tessellations in my head.  Soaring from mirco to macro in the blink of an eye.  Time suspends and the possibilities are truly limitless for a finite moment.  In that breath you are in perfect sync with yourself and the world falls away.  Journeys to that place don't generally happen with the pragmatic factual journey of nonfiction.  These places and frames of mind are stray far from the structured track.

It helps to understand the process of creativity before trying to categorize it.  Yes, it is subjective.  Unique to the individual, but there are factors that play fundamental roles in how even the most basic information is processed, many of them dealing with the chemical and structural functions with the brain of the individual.  And as numerous studies have found strong correlations between brain differences like ADHD, anxiety, depression, bipolar, and autism and the creative process.  Even here on the boards, the number of members dealing with one of these issues...It goes hand in hand with the creative drive.  

It is the process that drives the development of the writer's habits, and while the MBTI is useful in determining a personality archetype, what correlation does it play with a writer's process?


----------



## EmmaSohan

!. _The Racketeer_, by Grisham, has an intricate plot. Grisham had to know the whole plot before he could write the start (or any other part of the book). _Ender's Game_ reads like Card was kind of thinking of the scenes as he wrote them. _Of Mice and Men_ reads like Steinbeck created two wonderful characters and then made up events in a story for them to be in.

So it depends on the book? Are you going to write a book with a clever, intricate plot? If your book starts with a murder in a locked room that the police claim is impossible, you had better work out in advance how that murder got committed.

Plum Series probably needed to have the major crime worked out in advance. But Evanovich makes her characters pop out. I don't know how you do that except pantsing a scene. Stephanie and Lula go the wife's house and . . . they talk. In a really interesting way.

Or I am projecting. I start a scene, and let my characters do what they are going to do, almost like daydreaming. Really, I crawl into each moment in the scene and ask what my characters would do. My characters think of the best lines, not me. They have this amazing ability to surprise me but still act in character. And I'm guessing Evanovich does that.

So nobody organizes everything. Except Grisham in the Racketeer, and I think his characters came out a little flat, because they were following the plot. But it was still a very worthwhile read.


----------



## NeenaDiHope

Fiction, I let my mind soar free. I let the idea take me to a new plane of existence. I get so wrapped up in the unfolding story that I have to go back, once I've come back to myself, to break up paragraphs and chapters.


----------



## who me?

EmmaSohan said:


> !. _The Racketeer_, by Grisham, has an intricate plot. Grisham had to know the whole plot before he could write the start (or any other part of the book). _Ender's Game_ reads like Card was kind of thinking of the scenes as he wrote them. _Of Mice and Men_ reads like Steinbeck created two wonderful characters and then made up events in a story for them to be in.
> 
> So it depends on the book? Are you going to write a book with a clever, intricate plot? If your book starts with a murder in a locked room that the police claim is impossible, you had better work out in advance how that murder got committed.
> 
> Plum Series probably needed to have the major crime worked out in advance. But Evanovich makes her characters pop out. I don't know how you do that except pantsing a scene. Stephanie and Lula go the wife's house and . . . they talk. In a really interesting way.
> 
> Or I am projecting. I start a scene, and let my characters do what they are going to do, almost like daydreaming. Really, I crawl into each moment in the scene and ask what my characters would do. My characters think of the best lines, not me. They have this amazing ability to surprise me but still act in character. And I'm guessing Evanovich does that.
> 
> So nobody organizes everything. Except Grisham in the Racketeer, and I think his characters came out a little flat, because they were following the plot. But it was still a very worthwhile read.


===========================

Most people do not organise at all.  
With experience you need less detail just like top musicians can plan any style of music from a few notes to get them started.

If the book is big on plot and subplots then they really need to be planned in advance.
If the book is about character then you can just let them experience what happens, but that does make creating a good ending difficult.
If the book is some slice of life literary fiction then you can stream of consciousness any pile of garbage and wrap it in beautiful language with no planning at all.

Evanovich is good about using her characters but she says she plans in her book 'How I Write'. 
And then works hard to make sure it is good at every level and aspect. 

Daydreaming is a way to brainstorm ideas to use.  But a hard technique to rely on exclusively to make the dominoes line up and fall in order with a good ending.

Janet says the characters are most important, so if Grisham's come across as flat then he did not spend enough time polishing them after he got them through the plot.


----------



## who me?

NeenaDiHope said:


> Fiction, I let my mind soar free. I let the idea take me to a new plane of existence. I get so wrapped up in the unfolding story that I have to go back, once I've come back to myself, to break up paragraphs and chapters.


=============================

That is a  good way to be creative but how do you ensure that the unfolding story is good and goes to the ending you want.
Does that ever lead down dead ends or to endings an audience would not like?

Do you have a way to control your mind and guide the direction so it is a good story with a satisfying logical ending?


----------



## Theglasshouse

If I have an idea for a good while I write it and add it in a notebook or the word processor. I look at unfinished works, such as dale once said to see if I can be inspired by one character of a failed fiction and start there. Then any plot after months of not reading a story, does it give me more ideas?

I always work on craft theory. I am a planner sometimes called a panser. Forgotten stories are something I like to use for inspiration.

As my craft improves I know I will find new ways. I spawned ideas this way. By judging a critique someone gave me I might go deeper into the rewrite or get further inspired. If I read a very good story that went into a different direction. 

If my English were better I'd be perfect. But I think I need my family to do that. However, it is never easy. These should be easy pointers that maybe people use.


----------



## bdcharles

who me? said:


> ===========================
> 
> That is all very logical and looks isomorphic to the snowflake approach .



Mmm it's kind of snowflakey in that it involves iterations - rewrites - and a gradual zoning in on select bits of detail. But really, I feel I have very little input to it other than donkeywork. The muse takes care of the artistry side of the business; my job is to chronicle it all and make it happen. As for the endgame, sometimes I know it, sometimes my characters and world surprise me.  My second WIP is somewhat more snowflakable because I have an idea of where I want to get to, & can drill down. My first was total wing-age. It was glorious, but the second is excitement of a different flavour.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> If the book is big on plot and subplots then they really need to be planned in advance.
> If the book is about character then you can just let them experience what happens, but that does make creating a good ending difficult.
> If the book is some slice of life literary fiction then you can stream of consciousness any pile of garbage and wrap it in beautiful language with no planning at all.



These are gross generalities, and like most generalities they are wholly inaccurate. Some writers who write books with complex plots and subplots need to plan, others do not. Satisfying endings are not more difficult to write without a plan. In fact, I think un-plotted endings tend to be fresher and far more natural. Many works of literary fiction are highly planned. The to-plan-or-not-to-plan decision has to be made by every writer in every genre.


----------



## plawrence

I get an idea for a story and broadly outline it in my mind. I have a general idea about the character, what I want him or her to experience and the sequence of events that need to occur for him or her to have those experiences.

When I write, the details get fleshed out, events get rearranged, and characters he or she interacts with are developed further as needed. When I edit, I strip out stupid things like very, really, just, etc., remove every passive voice I can that can be done better in active, strip away detritus that doesn't contribute and work to make it cleaner and more fluid. Then I read, and reread, changing words or sentences here and there until I get the impact I'm looking for. In the end, I try to pack as much emotional impact into the story as I can.

I'm not a planner.  I don't like getting bogged down in minutiae.  I prefer to let the character take me where he or she would naturally go.  Sometimes I learn surprising things about them or realize I've taken them in a direction they would never have chosen.  In those cases, I may have to rewrite a scene, an entire chapter or completely rearrange chapters to make it work.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Also adding prose in the final draft never is a bad idea. It's a part of the writing process I wished I had done more often.


----------



## who me?

Theglasshouse said:


> Also adding prose in the final draft never is a bad idea. It's a part of the writing process I wished I had done more often.


==============

the first draft is to get it all out there so you can look at it and see if it all makes sense and to spot problems easier 
of course  there will be errors and omissions
and often extraneous stuff slipped in too that would be better if they were gone 

of course we should expect to beef up the skimpy first draft and polish the prose


my core question is how to best get a first draft done 
quicker faster better easier would be a plus


----------



## who me?

Theglasshouse said:


> If I have an idea for a good while I write it and add it in a notebook or the word processor. I look at unfinished works, such as dale once said to see if I can be inspired by one character of a failed fiction and start there. Then any plot after months of not reading a story, does it give me more ideas?
> 
> I always work on craft theory. I am a planner sometimes called a panser. Forgotten stories are something I like to use for inspiration.
> 
> As my craft improves I know I will find new ways. I spawned ideas this way. By judging a critique someone gave me I might go deeper into the rewrite or get further inspired. If I read a very good story that went into a different direction.
> 
> If my English were better I'd be perfect. But I think I need my family to do that. However, it is never easy. These should be easy pointers that maybe people use.




Alas,  perfection is not possible.  
Strive to be as good as you can be considering all your personal constraints such as family and a job.
And if you are good enough then be satisfied.  
If not them keep working at it.


----------



## who me?

bdcharles said:


> Mmm it's kind of snowflakey in that it involves iterations - rewrites - and a gradual zoning in on select bits of detail. But really, I feel I have very little input to it other than donkeywork. The muse takes care of the artistry side of the business; my job is to chronicle it all and make it happen. As for the endgame, sometimes I know it, sometimes my characters and world surprise me.  My second WIP is somewhat more snowflakable because I have an idea of where I want to get to, & can drill down. My first was total wing-age. It was glorious, but the second is excitement of a different flavour.


================================

I find that it is easier to be creative when you are looking at the higher level then when you are down in the weeds stuck in a stubborn scene slinging verbiage as fast as you can to get it done while trying to keep in mind how the scene connects to the next one and where the story needs to go to get to that satisfying ending you had planned at the start.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> These are gross generalities, and like most generalities they are wholly inaccurate. Some writers who write books with complex plots and subplots need to plan, others do not. Satisfying endings are not more difficult to write without a plan. In fact, I think un-plotted endings tend to be fresher and far more natural. Many works of literary fiction are highly planned. The to-plan-or-not-to-plan decision has to be made by every writer in every genre.


============================

Like the bookie said
not every race is to the swift
not every battle is to the strong
but that is the way to bet. 

Unless you have some insider trader secret tip then you would be better off going with the generality because the odds are with you that way.

Maybe you can just wing it and have a good ending.  I find that it is easier to line up the dominoes to fall where I want them to go when I plan first.

Indeed the plannit or pantsit decision is personal and imho TBV relates to the persons psychological profile.  
The question is are there more people who planning works better for or are there more who would find pantsing works better.


Planning is guaranteed to work for everyone who actually uses it seriously.   
Most people don't know how to plan.  My HS was totally wrong how they told us to outline.  It was metaphysically pantsing with a different name.
Made no sense then.  Still doesn't.
Others may  'try' and then claim it fails. 


Pantsing is still a mystery to me how it can work at all.
I tried it first.  Total fail.  For both a novel and for NF.
I then used organising and succeeded at my job that required writing.

Still waiting for any pantser to explain just how pantsing can work as a general process for any writer.


----------



## JustRob

I don't like multiple choice questions where the questioner also provides the answers. In my experience they never have the ability to include all of the possibilities and in fact I gained my reputation by coming up with possibilities which others overlooked. 

To determine whether as a writer I am a pantser or a plotter I would have to decide what I do initially, but to do that I would have to accept that the events in my mind occur in a particular order. That means being restricted to a very simple chronological perception of thought, which is hardly in itself conducive to being creative.

The creative process of story telling, as opposed to writing, must presumably be primarily a function of the right hemisphere of the brain, the one usually responsible for the more conceptual aspects of life which do not involve the creation of boundaries. A poll which offers answers starting with "I" is immediately addressing the left side, which prefers to set boundaries and believes in a clear definition of where "I" begins and ends. Also, as I have already mentioned, the terms "pantser", "planner" and "plotter" all relate to the order of events and that is something that only the left side addresses. Together the two sides of the brain cooperate to create a story and write it, each having their respective part to play, but without that essential cooperation the result can turn out to be in the extreme a chaotically written fantasy or a dull formulaic piece of incredibly well structured prose.

My own brief experience of writing "fiction" creatively has shown me that there appear to be anachronistic processes involved and that how these possibly work is far more interesting than any by the book methods of writing. For that reason I am contemplating writing about my writing experiences, these being potentially more entertaining than the actual results of my efforts at fiction writing. Indeed, that may have been my intention all along but out of necessity I had to have written something first to write about writing it. How I knew that my method of writing would be anachronistic is of course an anachronism in itself.

I have currently chosen "In Particular No Order - Impractical experiments outside of time" as the working title for my work, but I'm not working on it yet as I don't think the research for it will be complete until the end of 2017. That doesn't mean that I'm doing any, simply that that was when my earlier pantser writing indicated that it would be time to start writing it. I am of course using the term "pantser" in its conventional sense here as my work is evidently very carefully planned out in arrear, but chronological thinkers wouldn't understand that.

As I said, I don't like multiple choice questions because they are too limited and, as Sam has indicated, this is a very broad subject about which much can be and has been written elsewhere. 

Now my angel doesn't write much at all but she is a very keen and experienced gardener, so we can put her down as a plantster, can't we? In that case maybe I am behaving as a panner here. Yep, that makes sense, Rob and his angel, panner and plantster. That's probably the best answer that I can manage off the cuff. (or was it?)


----------



## who me?

plawrence said:


> I get an idea for a story and broadly outline it in my mind. I have a general idea about the character, what I want him or her to experience and the sequence of events that need to occur for him or her to have those experiences.
> 
> When I write, the details get fleshed out, events get rearranged, and characters he or she interacts with are developed further as needed. When I edit, I strip out stupid things like very, really, just, etc., remove every passive voice I can that can be done better in active, strip away detritus that doesn't contribute and work to make it cleaner and more fluid. Then I read, and reread, changing words or sentences here and there until I get the impact I'm looking for. In the end, I try to pack as much emotional impact into the story as I can.
> 
> I'm not a planner.  I don't like getting bogged down in minutiae.  I prefer to let the character take me where he or she would naturally go.  Sometimes I learn surprising things about them or realize I've taken them in a direction they would never have chosen.  In those cases, I may have to rewrite a scene, an entire chapter or completely rearrange chapters to make it work.


====================================

Details always get added. 
A plan is the skeleton.  You have to put tissue on it.  Then exercise it to build muscle.  

Iteration is normal with any process.  The longer the work the more it happens. 
I could pants a perfect paragraph or two if that were all I had to write. Like a letter to the editor. 
I can pants a 1500 word oped but I would iterate and revise.  And likely lay out 3-5 notes in advance with a sequence of doing them.
I can not pants a 50000 word novel without planning it.  
The rework would take too much time and effort.  And I hate waste and inefficiency so psychologically I could not cope with pantsing a novel.

You are using pantsing as a form of brainstorming to help be creative.
That is a good use for it if you can't do it in your head and just jot down quick notes to remember the flow of the key actions. 

That physicist in the wheel chair writes his books in his head.  But he is very smart and has a lot of practice of doing it all in his mind. 
And he has the advantage of working with facts not having to also invent things as he writes.


----------



## Darkkin

Is this a poll or an advice column on what _you_ would do in the other writer's situation?  You are asking about our processes, not vice versa...It is starting to sound like a litany of:  No structure...No write.  Wrong.  Some writing is organic, total spur of the moment, and shock and awe, it isn't all rubbish. 

 Good writing stems from a writer listening to their instincts, not plotting out every minute detail.  That is how you kill fiction.  Writing shouldn't be a chore.  Most writers have enough sense to understand their creative processes, and adapt their approach.  Yes, there are a variety of methods, planning helps, but it isn't a required attribute.  The latent patterns of story and understanding come to the aid of one's creative process at a nearly unconscious level.  These patterns provide the ground work around which writers build.


----------



## Phil Istine

Darkkin said:


> One major question you forgot to ask.  Fiction or nonfiction?  The processes between the two while similar are miles apart in not only the mindset of the writer, but available material.  Nonfiction has foundations in fact.  A firmer footing for a planning process, whereas fiction is often entirely reliant on the writer.



Very good point.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ============================
> 
> Like the bookie said
> not every race is to the swift
> not every battle is to the strong
> but that is the way to bet.
> 
> Unless you have some insider trader secret tip then you would be better off going with the generality because the odds are with you that way.
> 
> Maybe you can just wing it and have a good ending.  I find that it is easier to line up the dominoes to fall where I want them to go when I plan first.



Writing isn't gambling, or the stock market. There's no correlation. It's fine that planning works for you, that doesn't mean everyone should do it.



> Indeed the plannit or pantsit decision is personal and imho TBV relates to the persons psychological profile.
> The question is are there more people who planning works better for or are there more who would find pantsing works better.



That's not the question at all. The numbers of writers who choose one over the other don't mean anything. All that matters is what works for each individual.




> Planning is guaranteed to work for everyone who actually uses it seriously.



Hardly. You can't possibly guarantee that. There are too many factors involved with telling a winning story to single out just one.



> Most people don't know how to plan.  My HS was totally wrong how they told us to outline.  It was metaphysically pantsing with a different name.
> Made no sense then.  Still doesn't.
> 
> Others may  'try' and then claim it fails.



I get it now. Your way is the right way and anyone who believes differently is wrong.




> Pantsing is still a mystery to me how it can work at all.
> I tried it first.  Total fail.  For both a novel and for NF.
> I then used organising and succeeded at my job that required writing.



Maybe you didn't do it the right way.



> Still waiting for any pantser to explain just how pantsing can work as a general process for any writer.



No you are not.


----------



## Darkkin

@ who me?

You're looking for absolute proof in a process that is as diverse as humanity to say hey, my method is perfect.  No pantser can say they don't plan, ergo my method is foolproof.  It is a gross, egregious assumption.  Not only because it lacks reasoning, but also because it is flawed on a fundamental level.  You have not taken the creative process into account in any way, shape, or form.  Nor do you have firm parameters for your criteria.  Basic delinations such as fiction, nonfiction, or heaven forbid, poetry...The education levels of the individuals, and the why behind their processes.  What works and what doesn't and possible organic issues that can impact the process.

The defining criteria of your question seems to be, you've had an organized thought so, you plan.  It is basic brain function to make sure our thoughts are coherent.  And in saying such a thing, my patterns are thought out and organized.  It is instanteous.  Is it then classified as planned writing?  Because if so, then there is no quantifiable measure of pantsing or planning in writing because it is all planned, even if at a nearly unconscious level.

Listen to what the writers are saying.  There is no all or nothing.  Absolutes in a fluid construct like creativity are an impossibility.  Writing is a fusion of dreams and patterns.  Not just plans.  That isn't how creativity works.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Darkkin has somewhat of a point. If you are looking for more input of what will help inspiration they are probably going to suggest more off just writing down what you think. I did, for instance, today try writing dialogue with fictitious encounters with people the character may not like to speak to under personal belief because the person hated said person. Let's say you zero in on a personality (which is really you writing and experiences) your own experience of life and start writing about it, or someone you know and is subconscious. The muse of trying a dialogue exercise can probably inspire since that is where your subconscious mind comes in. You can later rewrite it, and then have them phrased as actions or goals, or conflicts. If that helps inspire you. In dialogue, you never show what your characters are thinking anyways. It's more or less a character interview which some writers use. If anything helps get the writing process started probably the best inspiration is yourself. It may not come eloquently from me explained with sources. (Dixon mentioned once that a character interview is one way)(or a questionnaire). Anyways if you write you discover what you have to say and are more productive and that helps with the writer's goal of conquering writer's block in a way.

Maybe writer's block is the refusal to write any material for fear it will look bad. Planning will always have a special spot for me because research and other areas are immensely helpful and may be only possible this way.

Just my opinion and 2 cents worth.


----------



## who me?

JustRob said:


> I don't like multiple choice questions where the questioner also provides the answers. In my experience they never have the ability to include all of the possibilities and in fact I gained my reputation by coming up with possibilities which others overlooked.
> 
> To determine whether as a writer I am a pantser or a plotter I would have to decide what I do initially, but to do that I would have to accept that the events in my mind occur in a particular order. That means being restricted to a very simple chronological perception of thought, which is hardly in itself conducive to being creative.
> 
> The creative process of story telling, as opposed to writing, must presumably be primarily a function of the right hemisphere of the brain, the one usually responsible for the more conceptual aspects of life which do not involve the creation of boundaries. A poll which offers answers starting with "I" is immediately addressing the left side, which prefers to set boundaries and believes in a clear definition of where "I" begins and ends. Also, as I have already mentioned, the terms "pantser", "planner" and "plotter" all relate to the order of events and that is something that only the left side addresses. Together the two sides of the brain cooperate to create a story and write it, each having their respective part to play, but without that essential cooperation the result can turn out to be in the extreme a chaotically written fantasy or a dull formulaic piece of incredibly well structured prose.
> 
> My own brief experience of writing "fiction" creatively has shown me that there appear to be anachronistic processes involved and that how these possibly work is far more interesting than any by the book methods of writing. For that reason I am contemplating writing about my writing experiences, these being potentially more entertaining than the actual results of my efforts at fiction writing. Indeed, that may have been my intention all along but out of necessity I had to have written something first to write about writing it. How I knew that my method of writing would be anachronistic is of course an anachronism in itself.
> 
> I have currently chosen "In Particular No Order - Impractical experiments outside of time" as the working title for my work, but I'm not working on it yet as I don't think the research for it will be complete until the end of 2017. That doesn't mean that I'm doing any, simply that that was when my earlier pantser writing indicated that it would be time to start writing it. I am of course using the term "pantser" in its conventional sense here as my work is evidently very carefully planned out in arrear, but chronological thinkers wouldn't understand that.
> 
> As I said, I don't like multiple choice questions because they are too limited and, as Sam has indicated, this is a very broad subject about which much can be and has been written elsewhere.
> 
> Now my angel doesn't write much at all but she is a very keen and experienced gardener, so we can put her down as a plantster, can't we? In that case maybe I am behaving as a panner here. Yep, that makes sense, Rob and his angel, panner and plantster. That's probably the best answer that I can manage off the cuff. (or was it?)



That is why none of the above was included. 
And all of the above for those who use a hybrid mixture at various times. 

I see the creativity part as separate from the writing part. 
Trying to do both would be impossible for me to do well.

I have not found much on pantsing vs plotting anywhere that was not a pure flame war.



Theglasshouse said:


> Darkkin has somewhat of a point. If you are looking for more input of what will help inspiration they are probably going to suggest more off just writing down what you think. I did, for instance, today try writing dialogue with fictitious encounters with people the character may not like to speak to under personal belief because the person hated said person. Let's say you zero in on a personality (which is really you writing and experiences) your own experience of life and start writing about it, or someone you know and is subconscious. The muse of trying a dialogue exercise can probably inspire since that is where your subconscious mind comes in. You can later rewrite it, and then have them phrased as actions or goals, or conflicts. If that helps inspire you. In dialogue, you never show what your characters are thinking anyways. It's more or less a character interview which some writers use. If anything helps get the writing process started probably the best inspiration is yourself. It may not come eloquently from me explained with sources. (Dixon mentioned once that a character interview is one way)(or a questionnaire). Anyways if you write you discover what you have to say and are more productive and that helps with the writer's goal of conquering writer's block in a way.
> 
> Maybe writer's block is the refusal to write any material for fear it will look bad. Planning will always have a special spot for me because research and other areas are immensely helpful and may be only possible this way.
> 
> Just my opinion and 2 cents worth.


==============

I have no problem with dialogue.

I would build the basic character(s) before I started like Evanovich said to do in her book.

I would add to their database as new characteristics are used so as to avoid contradictions later by being able to refer to the reference sheet as needed. 

My writers block was ALWAYS not having organised what I needed to say before I started. 
Worse was when I had nothing to say and needed to do some research first to have something to say.

I was unable to write very well in HS or the uni because they did NOT teach HOW to write. 
They taught SPaG and low level things but never any way to  actually write.  
At least now some schools do use templates to help guide kids learning to write short pieces. 
And they have a method of sorts that works even if not always the most efficient but plenty good enough.



Darkkin said:


> Is this a poll or an advice column on what _you_ would do in the other writer's situation?  You are asking about our processes, not vice versa...It is starting to sound like a litany of:  No structure...No write.  Wrong.  Some writing is organic, total spur of the moment, and shock and awe, it isn't all rubbish.
> 
> Good writing stems from a writer listening to their instincts, not plotting out every minute detail.  That is how you kill fiction.  Writing shouldn't be a chore.  Most writers have enough sense to understand their creative processes, and adapt their approach.  Yes, there are a variety of methods, planning helps, but it isn't a required attribute.  The latent patterns of story and understanding come to the aid of one's creative process at a nearly unconscious level.  These patterns provide the ground work around which writers build.


====================

It was a poll to help understand the comments in the discussion so we could see where people stood.

Writing is hard work.  Marketing is harder. 
You do not need every detail.  But depending on your experience and psychological profile some outline is very helpful.
How much outline is a personal characteristic. 

I understand the creative process.  And for me I am much more creative by doing it at a high level not when I am down in the verbiage weeds trying to write well while simultaneously trying to ensure that this scene flows from the last one and will lead to another that aims at the ending and is not some detour to a dead end that would mean scrapping days or weeks of work by deleting many thousands of words.



Phil Istine said:


> Very good point.


===============

I have discussed both but the general process is good for all writing and is easily tweaked for special cases.



Terry D said:


> Writing isn't gambling, or the stock market. There's no correlation. It's fine that planning works for you, that doesn't mean everyone should do it.
> 
> That's not the question at all. The numbers of writers who choose one over the other don't mean anything. All that matters is what works for each individual.
> 
> Hardly. You can't possibly guarantee that. There are too many factors involved with telling a winning story to single out just one.
> 
> I get it now. Your way is the right way and anyone who believes differently is wrong.
> 
> Maybe you didn't do it the right way.
> 
> No you are not.


=======================
What a bunch of logical fallacies and erroneous claims. 

Are you saying any method is as good as another one for every writer.
I can guarantee that you are totally wrong. 
Which is why people use the method that works best for them.

A priori it makes a big difference.  
When a new writer sets out they need to know what is the best most likely tool to use for success.

I have not singled out anything.  I am saying that some methods work better than others and the data confirms it. 

You don't get jack.  I have shown how one way works.
Still waiting for anybody to show how pantsing works at all.
All they do is claim it works but never say HOW to use that method. 

I sure didn't do it the right way in HS and the uni because they did not teach the correct way and most of what they  did teach was counterproductive and a total FAIL.  I had to develop my own way to write successfully to keep my job.  Who is that famous guy who says an imminent hanging really focuses the mind. 

I can guarantee that I am doing it the right way now.  There is no other way that works at all for me.  There may be alternatives that work to some extent for other people.  

If I am doing it wrong how did I get paid and published in many national newspapers and magazines from washpost to Writers Digest.
How did I make a living for years when writing was my main job.  How did I keep my job when writing was a sideline but mandatory.



Darkkin said:


> @ who me?
> 
> You're looking for absolute proof in a process that is as diverse as humanity to say hey, my method is perfect.  No pantser can say they don't plan, ergo my method is foolproof.  It is a gross, egregious assumption.  Not only because it lacks reasoning, but also because it is flawed on a fundamental level.  You have not taken the creative process into account in any way, shape, or form.  Nor do you have firm parameters for your criteria.  Basic delinations such as fiction, nonfiction, or heaven forbid, poetry...The education levels of the individuals, and the why behind their processes.  What works and what doesn't and possible organic issues that can impact the process.
> 
> The defining criteria of your question seems to be, you've had an organized thought so, you plan.  It is basic brain function to make sure our thoughts are coherent.  And in saying such a thing, my patterns are thought out and organized.  It is instanteous.  Is it then classified as planned writing?  Because if so, then there is no quantifiable measure of pantsing or planning in writing because it is all planned, even if at a nearly unconscious level.
> 
> Listen to what the writers are saying.  There is no all or nothing.  Absolutes in a fluid construct like creativity are an impossibility.  Writing is a fusion of dreams and patterns.  Not just plans.  That isn't how creativity works.


===================

I am not looking for absolute anything.  I am looking for someone to tell me how pantsing works at all.

I am looking for probabilities if there are alternative methods that both work in order to guide new writers to choose the most likely one to succeed first.

I think we agree that somehow pantsers are planning in their mind but won't admit it. 

Creativity is separate from documenting what you made up to use in a novel.

Creativity first.  Define characters, create a plot.  Then plan how to best use those characters to instantiate that story.
After that you can easily do the writing part without having to also juggle creativity in the mind which allows focusing on best writing the words that tell what you had created.



Theglasshouse said:


> Darkkin has somewhat of a point. If you are looking for more input of what will help inspiration they are probably going to suggest more off just writing down what you think. I did, for instance, today try writing dialogue with fictitious encounters with people the character may not like to speak to under personal belief because the person hated said person. Let's say you zero in on a personality (which is really you writing and experiences) your own experience of life and start writing about it, or someone you know and is subconscious. The muse of trying a dialogue exercise can probably inspire since that is where your subconscious mind comes in. You can later rewrite it, and then have them phrased as actions or goals, or conflicts. If that helps inspire you. In dialogue, you never show what your characters are thinking anyways. It's more or less a character interview which some writers use. If anything helps get the writing process started probably the best inspiration is yourself. It may not come eloquently from me explained with sources. (Dixon mentioned once that a character interview is one way)(or a questionnaire). Anyways if you write you discover what you have to say and are more productive and that helps with the writer's goal of conquering writer's block in a way.
> 
> Maybe writer's block is the refusal to write any material for fear it will look bad. Planning will always have a special spot for me because research and other areas are immensely helpful and may be only possible this way.
> 
> Just my opinion and 2 cents worth.


============================

Inspiration and creativity are , to me, separate and distinct from the actual writing and comes first. 

Dialogue is not a problem for me.  All I need is to know the character and the situation in the scene.


----------



## Theglasshouse

This is where I depart in my methods from most writers. The external situation is a disaster according to what I read. The story starts with some positive event that changes into misfortune (fortune is changed)  that creates sympathy for the reader, and you frame goals based on what is standing in the way and create the obstacles that thrawt that goal or desire . The situation is something where change or the fortune has happened of the character almost as if reversed and things are no longer the same. This I am not up to date, and I am looking into it. However, lets that change alters the consequences or a character's life forever. He is the antagonist might be caught off guard and then someone or some outside character gets in the way. As in someone who is trying to ruin the protagonist's life. Because it creates a sympathetic character to start with a story problem. 


Let's say for instance plot is how human people react. Much like history and myth, it has been told a different way. I know where am I getting this from? Well, I study Aristotle poetics sometimes because I would buy books on the topic. That's all I think could help a writer, who may have a lot of trouble on how to go with plotting a situation. Newspapers, and other places, ancient societies, could all be sources of a situation. Remember Aristotle saying pity and fear make for a good story? He said it in this way. Because of how the world was at the time. Because the best stories were made originally as a way to reform the world from ancient laws that were broken and new laws made.(during his time) Remember he said human nature or mimesis is a way of imitation. History has recorded crimes and repeats.

However, my approach is a research one on resources or mining memory. No one does that here except for looking on the internet or searching for information in books or technology, newspapers. Do what you think works for you. I think this planning part is something I would do. I believe Aristotle poetics is complex more than for easy understanding or reading. That is why I said I don't like talking about it.

So also I have to say dialogue has to have a way to inspire plot. Because simply the actions a character takes reveals character. Dialogue supposedly is action and could make a story plot advance and move forward.

I don't think this will help really. Someone could have a better answer or opinion because only screenwriters read and study Aristotle. Some say it starts with an image or a conversation.

Just my opinion but I don't endorse it since I am more curious than trying to have something answer the question.

The most straightforward answer you will probably get is craft is needed to learn how to plot better. Or read stories and get inspired.

That is all I will post on this because it probably won't help the discussion.


----------



## JustRob

who me? said:


> I am not looking for absolute anything.  I am looking for someone to tell me how pantsing works at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think we agree that somehow pantsers are planning in their mind but won't admit it.



There are too many problems with the semantics for you to get an answer that in itself wouldn't lead to your misinterpretation. We usually see things as they appear within our own model of reality. It can be very difficult to see things as others see them. The skill in writing is to try to achieve that, to bring the reader inside our perception of reality so that they see something similar to that which we do. Words have a limited common meaning but once we start looking at the fundamentals then perceptions of their meanings diverge. I spent several years studying this phenomenon within the company where I worked. People would leave a meeting thinking that they had agreed about something, but upon being questioned we would discover that although they had agreed on certain statements their perception of the meanings of the words used differed, so so did their perception of what had been agreed. When we write fiction we can't be sure that the reader sees what we intended, but the intention isn't usually to convey some absolute truth but to entertain. Conveying absolute information is quite another matter.

Your remark "won't admit it" implies to me that you think that a person is conscious of everything that happens within their mind, "won't" implying a wilful act. "Can't" would imply something different. So did you mean "won't" or "can't" or can you see no difference? Perhaps we differ in our perception of identity, exactly who this "I" who you expect to answer your question is. You may be right that someone plans the events that take place within a pantser's mind to create a story, but who they are and when they do so is not a simple thing to answer. 

If, as appears to be the case with my novel, the events are not planned as such but simply reported by someone who knows about realities that the writer doesn't at that time, then nobody can admit to having planned the story; it simply happened for real in a different context. For this very reason I have always described myself not as the author of my story but simply as its scribe. I wrote it down as it became known to me by some then unknown means. That is generally seen as pantser writing. I am now willing to admit that I apparently based it on events that happened in my life after I wrote it. You may consider that to have been impossible, but I have no other explanation. We obviously write creatively by drawing on all our experiences in life. There is no reason for that process to be a conscious one and certainly when drawing on future experiences it would be madness to be aware that one was doing it. That would be tantamount to planning one's own future life, not simply as an aspiration but as a fact, directing fate to make it happen in effect. If only we could do that.

I suspect that pantser writing comes from the psyche, that is the whole mind rather than just the conscious element that many people regard as self. In fact even psychologists have given up considering what happens within the psyche, despite their nominal title, and they now focus just on what happens within the unconscious mind, the layer just beneath the surface of consciousness. When a pantser opens their mind to all possibilities in order to find a story worth relating they don't stop there though. If you can't envisage that experience then there is no common ground upon which anyone can build an explanation of how the process works. I have in the past compared it to explaining to someone who can't waggle their ears how to do it. If anyone can explain to me how to do that then I'd be fascinated to know, but even if they don't I am forced to accept that some people can waggle their ears, something that is apparently beyond my comprehension and ability. 

If you have to explain pantser writing to your own satisfaction in terms that you understand from your own apparently limited experience then that is fine, but others may well have a clearer understanding of what it really is, even if they too find it difficult to explain satisfactorily in your terms. We all have our limitations compared to others. That's what makes sharing our lives with those others so interesting.

Personally I would get no pleasure out of my writing if it involved conscious effort of the sort that planners and plotters say is "necessary". To be honest I feel sorry for them. No, as a pantser I'm just along for the ride regardless of who is driving.


----------



## NeenaDiHope

who me? said:


> =============================
> 
> That is a  good way to be creative but how do you ensure that the unfolding story is good and goes to the ending you want.
> Does that ever lead down dead ends or to endings an audience would not like?
> 
> Do you have a way to control your mind and guide the direction so it is a good story with a satisfying logical ending?



I don't know where the story is going so I don't have an ending in mind. 
I go back over it and read what I've written to make sure it makes sense, that it flows well and the plot moves along. 
As for the story being good, well even if I think the story is good it doesn't mean everyone will, for that I have to leave it to preference.


----------



## who me?

NeenaDiHope said:


> I don't know where the story is going so I don't have an ending in mind.
> I go back over it and read what I've written to make sure it makes sense, that it flows well and the plot moves along.
> As for the story being good, well even if I think the story is good it doesn't mean everyone will, for that I have to leave it to preference.


=================

Fair enough.  I believe that if you determine the ending first it will be better than one that is arrived at randomly.

I have trouble seeing how the story can go anywhere if it is not laid out at least somewhat in advance.
Dead ends and poor plot seem more likely than the great American novel if it is just written and goes where ever the characters pull it.


----------



## who me?

JustRob said:


> There are too many problems with the semantics for you to get an answer that in itself wouldn't lead to your misinterpretation. We usually see things as they appear within our own model of reality. It can be very difficult to see things as others see them. The skill in writing is to try to achieve that, to bring the reader inside our perception of reality so that they see something similar to that which we do. Words have a limited common meaning but once we start looking at the fundamentals then perceptions of their meanings diverge. I spent several years studying this phenomenon within the company where I worked. People would leave a meeting thinking that they had agreed about something, but upon being questioned we would discover that although they had agreed on certain statements their perception of the meanings of the words used differed, so so did their perception of what had been agreed. When we write fiction we can't be sure that the reader sees what we intended, but the intention isn't usually to convey some absolute truth but to entertain. Conveying absolute information is quite another matter.
> 
> Your remark "won't admit it" implies to me that you think that a person is conscious of everything that happens within their mind, "won't" implying a wilful act. "Can't" would imply something different. So did you mean "won't" or "can't" or can you see no difference? Perhaps we differ in our perception of identity, exactly who this "I" who you expect to answer your question is. You may be right that someone plans the events that take place within a pantser's mind to create a story, but who they are and when they do so is not a simple thing to answer.
> 
> If, as appears to be the case with my novel, the events are not planned as such but simply reported by someone who knows about realities that the writer doesn't at that time, then nobody can admit to having planned the story; it simply happened for real in a different context. For this very reason I have always described myself not as the author of my story but simply as its scribe. I wrote it down as it became known to me by some then unknown means. That is generally seen as pantser writing. I am now willing to admit that I apparently based it on events that happened in my life after I wrote it. You may consider that to have been impossible, but I have no other explanation. We obviously write creatively by drawing on all our experiences in life. There is no reason for that process to be a conscious one and certainly when drawing on future experiences it would be madness to be aware that one was doing it. That would be tantamount to planning one's own future life, not simply as an aspiration but as a fact, directing fate to make it happen in effect. If only we could do that.
> 
> I suspect that pantser writing comes from the psyche, that is the whole mind rather than just the conscious element that many people regard as self. In fact even psychologists have given up considering what happens within the psyche, despite their nominal title, and they now focus just on what happens within the unconscious mind, the layer just beneath the surface of consciousness. When a pantser opens their mind to all possibilities in order to find a story worth relating they don't stop there though. If you can't envisage that experience then there is no common ground upon which anyone can build an explanation of how the process works. I have in the past compared it to explaining to someone who can't waggle their ears how to do it. If anyone can explain to me how to do that then I'd be fascinated to know, but even if they don't I am forced to accept that some people can waggle their ears, something that is apparently beyond my comprehension and ability.
> 
> If you have to explain pantser writing to your own satisfaction in terms that you understand from your own apparently limited experience then that is fine, but others may well have a clearer understanding of what it really is, even if they too find it difficult to explain satisfactorily in your terms. We all have our limitations compared to others. That's what makes sharing our lives with those others so interesting.
> 
> Personally I would get no pleasure out of my writing if it involved conscious effort of the sort that planners and plotters say is "necessary". To be honest I feel sorry for them. No, as a pantser I'm just along for the ride regardless of who is driving.


=================================

Most people are incredibly stupid and arrogant so I know exactly what those meeting results were like.
Worse with contracts.  That is why I made sure to define all terms precisely so the reader could not misparse them.

Many pantsers claim to be the scribes documenting what the characters did. 
Like one famous author said and I translate it loosely :  BLEEP!
You are in control of the characters make them do what they should do.

I suspect that the pantser have a different psychological profile from the planners.  
I can envision that mind opening to come up with ideas to use when writing. 
I can't see how most people can do both at once.  Clearly there are exceptions like King. 

What I find difficult is how to teach a class on HOW TO WRITE to new writers and tell them how to pantsit.
If I tell them to just write , which seems to be how pantsers describe it, then they don't need the class at all and we can't teach them anything.
OTOH I can teach them a full planning process.  They can tailor it and pick and choose what they need for a given project. 
What I can't conceive is scaling up a pantsing approach from a short essay, to a short story, to a novellet, to a full novel.

Writing is hard work.   I hate writing.  I like having written.  I love taking the check to the bank.


----------



## JustRob

who me? said:


> Most people are incredibly stupid and arrogant so I know exactly what those meeting results were like.
> Worse with contracts.  That is why I made sure to define all terms precisely so the reader could not misparse them.



One person's stupidity is another's pragmatism just as one's arrogance may be the other's self-confidence. Everyone has a coping mechanism. The relevant quotation from the first chapter of my novel is "Nobody should have their illusions shattered." 

We have a beta readers' forum here because no matter how precisely we phrase what we write there is still the possibility that some readers will interpret our words differently. As writers we can never be so arrogant as to believe that we have not in any way allowed that to happen. 



> Many pantsers claim to be the scribes documenting what the characters did.
> Like one famous author said and I translate it loosely :  BLEEP!
> You are in control of the characters make them do what they should do.



They say that there's no smoke without fire, don't they? If many people claim the same thing shouldn't one give it some credence?

We write fiction using fictional characters but the story elements within our minds may relate to real people. In fact modelling characters on real people is normal practice, isn't it? Those models of real people that we know, the models that we use when understanding how and why they behave the way that they do, they lead us to anticipate how they would behave in a situation that we have presented to them. That has nothing to do with writing but is simply how we live our lives alongside others. Having modelled our fictional characters in this way it follows that we can't force their behaviour outside of the envelope. I tried to do this with one of my characters and she literally fought back, bending the story in a different direction. A planner might have continued to distort the character into what they needed at that point, but then readers might have sensed the incongruity and thought, "She wouldn't have done that." It isn't about making characters do what you think they _should_ do but accepting what they _would_ do. My characters are not my puppets but actors playing parts that I have devised. A good director welcomes feedback from his actors. Perhaps you should consider using this theatrical analogy to explain the pantser technique to your students.



> I suspect that the pantser have a different psychological profile from the planners.
> I can envision that mind opening to come up with ideas to use when writing.
> I can't see how most people can do both at once.  Clearly there are exceptions like King.



Once again it is about how we deal with real life. We all have a mental model of that within our minds and pantsers simply use that as a template for the fictional context of their stories. In the subconscious mind our model of reality plays out alongside the reality and we use it to guide our decisions and actions. When those result in the wrong consequences we revise our mental model to realign it with reality. Some stubborn people don't do that and either become misaligned with reality or use their influence to change it. The pantser technique simply applies the same process to a fictional context. It comes naturally, so is probably how many novice writers start out.

The planning and pantsing can be directly compared with the way that the two sides of the brain work. There is no fundamental difference between the two hemispheres but they seem to adopt different roles and then cooperate to form a well balanced attitude to life. Modern society is highly organised with possibly too little freedom to express individuality and creativity. This may well be why many young people now feel the need to escape somehow and exercise their right sides more. Some people like the reassurance of an orderly life and don't want to feel the insecurity of that freedom though. There has been much written about the right-left balance within the mind.



> What I find difficult is how to teach a class on HOW TO WRITE to new writers and tell them how to pantsit.
> If I tell them to just write , which seems to be how pantsers describe it, then they don't need the class at all and we can't teach them anything.
> OTOH I can teach them a full planning process.  They can tailor it and pick and choose what they need for a given project.
> What I can't conceive is scaling up a pantsing approach from a short essay, to a short story, to a novellet, to a full novel.



As a complete novice writer with an experienced analytical mind used to understanding its own workings I was to a great extent able to observe my own efforts to write a novel starting from scratch. The result, freely downloadable from my website, shows how the process developed. This may be of use to you. I had no ambition to be a writer and hence no thoughts of satisfying any preconceived rules of good writing. In fact I consider my novel to be simply a by-product of something else that my mind was doing at the time. Psychologists call this sort of thing dissociated behaviour and treat it as a mental disorder if it appears to have no purpose, but the pantser writer employs dissociated thought to be creative. It just happened that I didn't intend to be creative in that particular way at the time, so I evidently had something else in mind as well, but that is by the way here.

I certainly had premises and motifs in my mind when I started to write but these did not amount to a plot or plan, just a very loose framework within which I would build my story. Somehow, and exactly how was the mystery that I had to solve, I also had small self-consistent episodes pre-assembled in my mind. In fact I regarded them as being episodes of a TV series that I knew about but had never watched. I could write these episodes down quite fluently with very little thought, but couldn't see how they could be assembled into a longer story initially. Had I had any aspirations to be a script-writer I would simply have scripted a TV series from them and discarded the idea of a long story, but as a novice a novel was a simpler approach, so I welded them together and allowed an overall story to shape around them in my mind. From this you can see that pantsing, plotting and planning all contributed and it was only the order in which these things got done that defined the process as primarily pantsing. As with the cooperation of the two brain hemispheres it isn't what one does but simply how one naturally goes about it. 

My novel is comprised of chapters, each of which is virtually a short story in itself, which reveals its pantser origin, but there are also many cross-references between the chapters which form the longer story. One might assume that I consciously placed those during a subsequent planning and plotting phase but in fact _they were already there_. All I had to do was work out how to organise the chapters so that the reader saw a progressive story develop. That proved to be very difficult and my success was possibly limited. The last thing that happened was that I saw an overall plot and theme emerging and as a result I am now in a position to rewrite the whole thing with that in mind if I wish. 

Every writer probably works differently, but in my case I wasn't working with very small pantser elements stacked in a planned framework like bricks but massive chunks of prefabricated story. What made them fit together as well as they did were those underlying common motifs with which I started out. Perhaps that may give you a clue as to how a pantser works. Compare this to the challenges in the poetry section here where poets create entire poems starting with a single prompt word. That is also all that a prose pantser needs.

Pantsing gives that natural elation of escape from the order of reality and as such provides a motive for writing without the doubts that plague the writer who sets out to write to gain an income. Yes, the hard work must come later if a novice wants to move on and be published, but either way there must be a persistent motive of one sort or the other to keep a writer practising their skills. 



> Writing is hard work.   I hate writing.  I like having written.  I love taking the check to the bank.



For me writing is not hard work. I enjoy writing, but only at the times when there is something that needs, nay _demands_, to be written. I too like having written. I love to read what I have written, to see the depth of meaning in it and to be amazed about how it came about. I do not need more money, but love seeing how the human mind is itself banked up with an astonishing wealth of ability if only we can unleash it. If a novice writer can learn how to take their own enjoyment of that experience and transfer it into the minds of readers, possibly awakening something there of which they were not previously aware, then just maybe there might be some money in it along the way as well. A writer must have both a vision and the skill to present it to others. Maybe only the latter can be taught though. The former comes from untamed experience.


----------



## bdcharles

who me? said:


> Still waiting for anybody to show how pantsing works at all.
> All they do is claim it works but never say HOW to use that method. .



My first WIP was pantsed. How did I do it? For years - most of my life actually - I had (and still do) all these ideas, imaginary scenarios, people, phrases, all sorts, knocking about in my head. Alongside that, frequently I would see something and get this big burst of thought and good feeling, like excitement, or awe in the face of beauty. It could be anything: a film, a song, a book, a phrase, an old building, a forest, sometimes again just a mental picture. But I didn't do anything with these things. I thought I was pretty odd for even having them where I should have been focusing on real-world things, but there they were.

The one day, tiring of myself spending more time daydreaming than doing proper stuff, something clicked. "If I spend so much damn time blue-skying about all this, why don't I just put it in a book and get rid of it that way while hopefully creating something in the process." It was that simple thought. The plus side of this is that I had all the raw materials, so in that sense there was no pantsing. I was ahead of the curve.

But I had no plot, just a load of static scenery and short little vignettes. "Bugger," I remarked to myself. "That's going to be a slight issue." But then I hit on a plan: I would treat the whole thing as an mystery for me to solve. Pick one event, one bit that perhaps was more significant or interesting to me, as a starting point and try and discover what connects all these other events, what happened to throw up these scenes and goings on. So I began to investigate. As I did, I pantsed.

Now, for much of my life - adult and child - I have been plagued by imaginary friends, Walter Mitty syndrome, a tendency towards fabulism and whatever else. It was a pretty intense source of shame to me. I mean, only saddoes do that right? Right. Was I lonely as a child? I was, a bit, but I also enjoyed being by myself, though often I felt like I didn't fit quite right anywhere. Don't get me wrong, I have done perfectly serviceably in the real world and you would never know it to meet me but all this time I was hiding this dirty secret I felt pretty bad about. But no more. Again, there came a lightbulb moment where suddenly all these dreamings I had tried to hide had a reason to live. It was like having a large resource of actors, props, scenes, dialogue, pithy lines, everything ready to go. It was like being a bit hard up and then suddenly - wham, you find a crisp fifty, a bonus and get a whopping tax rebate. I suppose that must have been my imagination at work all that time, and it came through for me big style. For that I am very grateful and it slotted a large chunk of my identity into place. I was, and am, very proud of that aspect of my character and it is something I cherish (and feel a bit lost without, whenever it goes on a break, for example if I am tired or working alot)

So I had all these things to revisit and explore and move about and do things with. Some of the characters are, quite frankly, more appealing than real people, to me. They don't answer back or judge or make you feel bad. Well, that's not true. They do that, and I love them for it. I can love them 'cos I am bigger than they are.

In reality, I am perfectly aware that they are just thoughts, frequently fuelled by real life encounters and excess time spent in my own company. With that knowledge I have two choices. I can think about the imaginary aspect of it all, put it away when real life intrudes and compartmentalise it. Or I can embrace it, let it be part of me, give free rein to it all without shame or negative judgment - and if negative judgment comes, well, I let my characters duke it out. Which to choose? It's easy. The latter option brings joy to my life, the former doesn't. No brainer. So it's not true. Well, other than being demonstrably correct, what is so appealing about truth anyway?

So that's it really. That's how you pants. It's not a method, it's more of a personality trait, in my view. It's about possessing a vivid imagination, treating it as something absolutely real and independent, and learning how to work with it like one would a mixed team of creatives and engineers, gaining a sense for which one needs to run out on a long leash, and how to do that, and when. I suspect that if one doesn't have a pathologically overactive inner world, planning alone may be more suitable. I dunno. I do plan my raw materials into place but sometimes things change on me. That pesky imagination again. It feels quite separate from myself but it does work. Bypassing the ego or something. Dunno. Discuss.


----------



## Sam

What really fascinates me in this entire discussion is thinking your opinion is going to make me change the way I've written and continue to write. 

A word to the wise: no one should ever allow themselves to be dictated to by ignorance. Write the way you want to write. Read how you want to read. 

But, most importantly, *always ignore the trolls.*


----------



## JustRob

bdcharles said:


> The one day, tiring of myself spending more time daydreaming than doing proper stuff, something clicked. "If I spend so much damn time blue-skying about all this, why don't I just put it in a book and get rid of it that way while hopefully creating something in the process." It was that simple thought. The plus side of this is that I had all the raw materials, so in that sense there was no pantsing. I was ahead of the curve.



That sounds very similar to my own experience back in 2011, but that wasn't a regular part of my character, just something that came suddenly and then went away equally suddenly. There was this feeling that the only way to flush the thoughts out of my head was to write them down though, which is why I very reluctantly wrote my novel. I can't imagine anyone just deciding that they will be a writer without first having something in mind demanding to be written. It must take enormous optimism, or desperation, to think that they'd ever make any money out of it and use that as a motive.

To a great extent that idea that I wouldn't forget the story buzzing around in my head unless I wrote it down probably stemmed from my days as a software designer, when I had to hold all the intricate interconnected details of a design securely in my head until I had documented them all, at which point I could safely forget them and move on to the next task. That is why you will only rarely see any revised versions of my work on WF, because once it is gone it is gone forever and reliving the experience is very difficult for me. In a way one could say that asking a pantser how they create a story is like asking a woman how she creates a baby. If you follow that analogy through you will understand why I might find revising the offspring of my mind somewhat difficult. 

I didn't have imaginary characters in my head throughout my life but I had the equivalent in a way. I worked in a life assurance company (and please don't challenge me on the correctness of that word "assurance" yet again. I assure you that it is correct terminology in the UK.) and there I dealt with the information about real people without ever encountering them. I saw their lives played out in terms of their health, family relationships, business activities and finances. I learned what motivated them and particularly how they were motivated to buy life assurance by their expectations and experiences. I saw their potential futures and the probabilities of when certain key events would happen in their lives. They were just numbers in my actuarial calculations, as impersonal as the calculations performed by RPG players in their fictional games. In my designs I had to cater for those future events, straining my mind to see patterns into the mist of time. No wonder it became accustomed to incorporating future events into my present activities. It was how I stayed ahead of the game and gained my reputation. 

The one thing that I never saw though was the reality, although it wasn't difficult to imagine as one of my responsibilities was compilation of the company's death statistics. Once the reality was brought home to me when two of my past schoolteachers appeared in the list of deaths simultaneously. Apart from rare incidents like that those clients were all just facsimiles of the real people within my mind. Manipulating their lives with my computer systems was a very valid introduction to manipulating the lives of imaginary characters in a novel, which may explain how I took to the task so easily. It may also explain why there are no deaths as such in what I write and why I am surprised by the callous way that other writers on WF pile up the body counts. Maybe it is an aspect of my personal philosophy, that there are no truly bad people, only bad ideas that need to be killed off, or maybe it's just that I'm too lazy to create more characters and prefer to keep the ones that I have created already alive come what may.

Yes, how we write and why must be quite personal to each of us, but beyond that there are the pure mechanics of conveying our thoughts to the reader and that is where the learning process and teaching becomes essential. However. by sharing our ideas on how we each work we may help each other to develop our creative techniques as well.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> What a bunch of logical fallacies and erroneous claims.



Then show me the fallacy, or error. Deal in specifics not generalities.



> Are you saying any method is as good as another one for every writer.



You probably should end that with a question mark. I've never said that. Nothing close. 



> Which is why people use the method that works best for them.



And yet you still insist that planning is best. Quite the contradiction.



> A priori it makes a big difference.
> When a new writer sets out they need to know what is the best most likely tool to use for success.



They need to know their options without prejudice. 



> I have not singled out anything.  I am saying that some methods work better than others and the data confirms it.



I like data. I use it daily in my work. Show me some to back up your point. If you can't, or won't, you should stop talking about it.



> You don't get jack.  I have shown how one way works.
> Still waiting for anybody to show how pantsing works at all.
> All they do is claim it works but never say HOW to use that method.



Here you are being deliberately obtuse. A number of people have explained how they work to you, but, since it doesn't fit your preconceptions, you exhibit behavior similar to a petulant child repeatedly shouting "No!"



> I sure didn't do it the right way in HS and the uni because they did not teach the correct way and most of what they  did teach was counterproductive and a total FAIL.  I had to develop my own way to write successfully to keep my job.  Who is that famous guy who says an imminent hanging really focuses the mind.



Sorry you had a poor education. 



> I can guarantee that I am doing it the right way now.  There is no other way that works at all for me.  There may be alternatives that work to some extent for other people.



Those alternatives may work just as well for others as your's does for you. Perhaps better. I'd need to see examples of your writing to judge how well it works for you.



> If I am doing it wrong how did I get paid and published in many national newspapers and magazines from washpost to Writers Digest.
> How did I make a living for years when writing was my main job.  How did I keep my job when writing was a sideline but mandatory.



Again with the missing question marks. Not a good way to convince anyone of your writing skills. I have every issue of Writer's Digest for the past fifteen years, I'd love to know in which copy I could find your work. You make a lot of claims about expertise, but offer no substantiation. Why?


----------



## Theglasshouse

Well, I wanted to add this. Sometimes studying famous artists worlds helps for world building. In other cases, I will be careful and say that it might apply to fiction writing when you look at other famous writers and what inspired them. They can be huge sources of influence.

Charles Dickens was famous for his stories of the suffering and abject misery in great Britain. I found an article that shares some of his influences on the internet. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ew-book-says-misery-helped-forge-Britain.html

Articles such as these create a great wealth of influence. But one has to be careful. One's mind is when constantly searching for material could always draw of experiences people had. You want a new experience. Plot is old, character should always be new is a saying.

I liked bdcharles explanation of image as well. I remember this book reading it in barnes and noble, and it said that this famous author name escapes me. Wrote about a skull castle. Or a big skull people lived in. These strong images draw on emotion. And I thought well, how did that mystery begin? Sounds like the start of a good fantasy story.


----------



## JustRob

Terry makes a very valid point which requires a response. I am a self-confessed novice writer and barely that. In a way I am here under false pretences and outside of my comfort zone in some respects, but I do have an established reputation. I have never truly claimed to be a fiction writer as such. In fact the only character that I created back in 2011 was a fictional writer and I then delegated the entire process of writing my one novel to him. It's much cheaper than employing a ghost writer. Real ghosts don't expect to be paid, just allowed to continue to exist. 

So, in fact it is this fictional writer who compiles all this stuff that I type out for him. I have spent my life creating artificial intelligences that function within computers entirely unassisted by me, so one that functions similarly within my own brain is no problem to conceive and create and a whole lot more intellectually capable than any of my other creations. In fact one might almost think that he was real within the constraints of this medium. The reality is not that important though as ultimately we judge people by their achievements. I have openly demonstrated within WF what my admittedly fictional writer has achieved, so he apparently has a greater standing here than your counterpart to him at present. That is quite possibly an inappropriate situation but one that you seem to persist in maintaining. That is of course your prerogative but this is a place where fact and fiction freely interact, so many of the images of ourselves that we present here may not be exactly what we are in reality. This here is just virtual reality. If you want us to believe in your reality then do please show some aspect of it to us.

Sharing an experience creates a reality, so share something of your real self and please stop being fictionally incredible. It's boring and that's a bad reputation for any writer to have regardless of their genuine past achievements.


----------



## Darkkin

I have more than three hundred interlinked narrative poems, not one line of which was planned or plotted. (There isn't time on a fifteen minute lunch break.)  Massive story arcs that have come full circle quite simply because I keep writing.  I'm not a fool or a hack, and I've also had enough education to know my work is decent.  You want the process in a bottle.  I turn my music on and go.  It is not a common skill to be able to dissociate from the drama of everyday life and leap to these places.  It is a direct result of my ADHD and ASD.  fMRIs have shown that creativity is a global process within the brain, the shift from the normal range of awareness to the consciousness of the chaos are profound.  It is like someone flipped a switch in the brain and the whole thing lights up.  For those who can do it, it is a natural endorphine rush.

Similiar to heightened states reached by meditation, there are writers who can tap into these places.  Yet for all your claims of planning you haven't even done basic foundation work of establishing a firm thesis, let alone parameters for your criteria.  Your questions are fundamentally flawed because you refuse to listen to what the writers are saying consistently.  There is a difference between fiction and nonfiction writing.  There is a reason schools offer courses on both.  

 Any basic collegiate level writing course will tell you this.  Nonfiction doesn't have much room for chaos.  Fiction thrives on it.  The fundamental patterns found in everything from snowflakes to the beauty of irrational Phi.  Storytelling is a pattern.  Our brain wiring tells us this.  And unless you have grown up on the dark side of the moon and have never heard a story before, you know how its basic pattern works.  How redimentary, coherent thought works.  Point A to Point B.  One tenet point in the chaos.  Freeform writers pull dot after dot out of the maelstrom, beacons in the darkness.  It doesn't follow a nice, clean line.  It just happens and when tangents intersect, well...We certainly didn't reach that critical connection through hours of planning.  There are reasons some people get astrophysics, quantum theory, string theory, and geometry, yet suck at metaphors.

You also want to use the Myer-Briggs test as a measure of a writer's process...All that gives you is a personality archetype.  What pertinent criteria can it offer an outside observer into a writer's process?  The MMPI provides more thorough insight, but it doesn't take into account organic brain differences like ADHD, ASD, depression, bipolar, anxiety disorders, dyslexia...Brain differences that have been proven to have strong correlations between the creative processes and above average IQs.  People, who by their very biology are inherently creative. 

 A couple of books that offer well rounded insight into the subject.  _Imagine: How Creativity Works _by Lehrer, _The Power of Different _by Saltz, and _NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism_ by Silberman.  As such for a process query this was not very well planned.  Your questions and reactions have rendered your method redundant because part of planning is remaining objective, yet you rail at those who point out issues with the basic reasoning.

You haven't established a quantifiable measure of a writer's subject dichotomy:  Fiction Writing verses Nonfiction Writing.  You will find that most will tell you they approach the two types of writing very differently, with totally different mindsets.  To understand freeform writing it helps to have a strong working knowledge of basic research writing.  By understanding one side it is easier to grasp the counterpoint patterns of the other.

The only thing that matters is your 'method' which you guarantee will work with proper effort.  This is basic discipline to one's craft, part of the learning process.  The creative process.  Writers have been doing it since the inception of the written language.  So please excuse me if I find fault with your logic because there really isn't any that can be quantified.  No facts.  Merely grandiloquent guarantees based on the individual writer's efforts.  That is not a method.


----------



## Terry D

The term 'pantsing' comes from old aviation jargon. It's a shortened version of 'flying by the seat of your pants', a phrase used when airplanes had frequent instrumentation problems and pilots were forced to improvise flight plans and intuit headings and bearings. The best description I've found of the phrase, as it is used in the current vernacular, is :

Decide a course of action as you go along, using your own initiative and perceptions rather than a predetermined plan. (From Phrases.org.UK)

It really is that simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with not thinking while you write. All writing has structure and organization, even a grocery list. But not all writing is done to a predetermined plan. Having such a plan helps some writers and inhibits others. That's why the plotting vs pantsing discussion is so futile, each writer needs to find out individually which way best suits their work. Don't waste valuable time stressing out over, "Should I outline my book, or just write it?" Just do what feels right for you. You will soon find your method for writing your poem, article, story, or book. Nobody here is smart enough to make that call for you.


----------



## Phil Istine

Reminds me of a window cleaning forum I used to frequent (yes, that's how I pay my way in life).
Someone would go on about how they rinse with the brush on the glass.  Others would rinse with the brush off.
And so it would continue _ad nauseam.
_To all who may be wondering, I didn't plan this post (it probably shows).


----------



## bdcharles

JustRob said:


> To a great extent that idea that I wouldn't forget the story buzzing around in my head unless I wrote it down probably stemmed from my days as a software designer, when I had to hold all the intricate interconnected details of a design securely in my head until I had documented them all, at which point I could safely forget them and move on to the next task.



I like this analogy and can relate to it reasonably well. I think of my editing phase as engineering the story, making the connectors all fit, bevelling off all the rough edges and clunky constructions and ensuring events are synchronous so that dead characters don't turn up alive and well seventeen chapters later (I had the sun set implicitly in both east and west at one stage!). It's very helpful for structuring, I find.



JustRob said:


> please don't challenge me on the correctness of that word "assurance" yet again. I assure you that it is correct terminology in the UK.



Wha-_aaat_? Have we ever even discussed this? But yes, your use of the term is entirely correct 



JustRob said:


> Yes, how we write and why must be quite personal to each of us, but beyond that there are the pure mechanics of conveying our thoughts to the reader and that is where the learning process and teaching becomes essential. However. by sharing our ideas on how we each work we may help each other to develop our creative techniques as well.



The mechanics, to me, is an interesting bit because that's the interface between the idea and the reader. I have very clear ideas and styles and I know just how I want the thing to sound and read and what it should contain, and can generally trust myself to achieve that, but when it comes to formal techniques and devices, like oh, foreshadowing, or irony, or something like that, all the little tricks that manipulate the reader, I really have to try and craft it into shape. It frequently doesn't work, though I am always learning and trying things in the comps here, for instance. Mind you, other times a solution leaps out and does the job - but I feel I can take little credit for those things (though it doesn't stop me including them). Funny old business, this writing, innit


----------



## JustRob

Phil Istine said:


> Reminds me of a window cleaning forum I used to frequent (yes, that's how I pay my way in life).
> Someone would go on about how they rinse with the brush on the glass.  Others would rinse with the brush off.
> And so it would continue _ad nauseam.
> _To all who may be wondering, I didn't plan this post (it probably shows).



Ever since I bought a set of semi-professional window cleaning poles for use at home I have received emails from the suppliers which make me feel that I'm on a window-cleaning forum. It does appear to be an art form in its own right according to its proponents.



bdcharles said:


> Wha-_aaat_? Have we ever even discussed this? But yes, your use of the term is entirely correct



On another thread hereabouts some time ago someone to the west of the pond did tell me what I "meant to write" as though I was a total pantser in the worst sense. We never offer anyone life _insurance_ in Britain because insurance is intended to restore the client to their state prior to the event and we're evidently way behind the US in resurrection technology. That's probably something else that we can blame on our long-suffering National Health Service then. All we can do is offer clients the _assurance_ that the consequences of their demise will be ameliorated.

Yes, Terry is right about the "seat of the pants" analogy. It means reacting appropriately to the inertia that one feels within the story line, just as a pilot would react to how the plane's motion felt. The real question may be whether we are flying powered aircraft or gliders though, able to open the throttle when necessary or searching for an obliging thermal. I've only been in a glider once on a very short flight. In fact that is why in my avatar picture I am wearing a parachute, it having been taken just as I left the glider after touchdown. The instructor had trouble with the way that I handled the craft in flight though as my previous flying experience, such as it was, had been in powered planes where the technique is quite different. Writing is the same with different techniques being the most appropriate in different circumstances. Wow, how's that for pantsing spontaneous improvisation "on the fly" then?


----------



## Phil Istine

JustRob said:


> Ever since I bought a set of semi-professional window cleaning poles for use at home I have received emails from the suppliers which make me feel that I'm on a window-cleaning forum. It does appear to be an art form in its own right according to its proponents.



Some of the supply companies tend to over-elaborate something that is really quite simple.  It does have a knack to it but no great skill  .  It is easy to spot someone who is totally new though.


----------



## JustRob

Phil Istine said:


> Some of the supply companies tend to over-elaborate something that is really quite simple.  It does have a knack to it but no great skill  .  It is easy to spot someone who is totally new though.



I wouldn't know. I bought the poles for my angel and she cleans the windows. She is a gardener so looks out of the windows more often than I do, my activities being predominantly indoor ones, so that makes sense, plus of course the fact that she is an angel in all respects (except the flying bit, hence the need for the poles).

Evidently still pantsing then. Everything that we write is literature if someone reads it. If they don't then it's scripture, which is a sad reflection on religious texts, but there we are.


----------



## Bishop

There's a story in my head, and I type the words into the computer machine.

Later, I read them again and fix them.


----------



## JustRob

Bishop said:


> There's a story in my head, and I type the words into the computer machine.
> 
> Later, I read them again and fix them.



Maybe so, but what about the window cleaning poll? Do you rinse with the brush on the glass or off? Or maybe you don't have filthy windows in your computer machine.


----------



## Sam

If not for the preconceived prejudices, from one person in particular, this thread could have been an interesting discourse. But, as tends to be the norm for these sort of things, it becomes an argument of "your method stinks and mine is superior". That's a real shame. 

For those, however, who _genuinely _want to know how someone can pants a novel, I will lay out my approach to writing: 

I have an idea for a first chapter (sometimes, three or more and I will whittle it down to the best one). That is my springboard, from which all other chapters will logically follow, and it is where I tend to set up the major problem/conflict of the entire novel. For instance, in my first published novel, my opening chapter introduced a deep-cover operative engaging in illegal counter-espionage in a foreign country. His cover was blown, but what he learned in his final days undercover was that a massive operation was underway to attack a U.S. black-site. The problem was that the operative had been in deep cover for far too long and did not know if he could trust his own country. Thus, that set up a chunk of the storyline right there. 

As chapter one is being written, the events that take place within it dictate where the story will go next. There is a common, and quite fatuous, belief that pantsers will jump all over the place owing to lack of a plan. That is nonsense. Once you have created your first chapter, and as long as it is coherent continuity-wise, the only way you can jump all over the place is if you start having dragons attack in your espionage thriller. You've created your problem; now begins the long process of arriving at the solution. Ahead, there will be many obstacles and many setbacks; that is a given. Writing them in is simply a matter of understanding how to write a novel, and that does not come from either planning or pantsing; it comes from experience. 

All the chapters that come after will be created based on either the one that came before, or the direction in which the story is moving forward, and it becomes a matter of following the often-linear path the majority of stories adhere to. In a great deal of contemporary novels, time moves linearly. Modernists experimented with time, but a lot of their work is incoherent for that reason (just read Henry James' _The Turn of the Screw_). Most modern writers do not attempt to mess with that, for reasons that are plain as day. 

There is no requirement for one to know one's ending, but sometimes you will before you start the first chapter. Other times, it will come to you somewhere in the middle. Rarely, it will come to you a few chapters from the end. Again, it's simply a matter of following the thread you've created. In _Dereliction of Duty, _my aforementioned first published novel, the ending was inexorably moving towards the black-site and the planned attack from as early as the third or fourth chapter. It was a matter of lining up the dominoes so that everyone (I use multiple characters and multiple POVs) arrived there in time for the final showdown. 

And that is pretty much it. I've written some hugely complex novels without ever needing to plan, as Robert Ludlum (one of the greats) did throughout his career, because I intimately know my process and how it works. It's one, as I said earlier in this thread, that not only got me published (and approximately 3,000 sales of _Dereliction of Duty_), but also got me through both undergrad and master's degrees. 

As an aside, it is not the method that makes someone a good writer. Tell a crap writer to plan, and s/he will still write crap; tell a crap writer to pants, and s/he will still write crap. Writing a brilliant novel is predicated on a few things: skill and experience, the latter being more important than the former. It is not enough to plan or pants; you must also _write. _And that is what always amazes me about planners -- not that they plan, but that they spend months on a plan and then never write the bloody novel! 

There is one more thing I always think about when this topic rears its horns: the art of storytelling, that is the original and oral art of imparting culture through words, is as natural as anything could possibly be. When you are down the pub and you're talking to your mates about what happened during the week, you don't plan that conversation. You just speak. That is, in many ways, how pantsers work. It is a natural telling of a story, of which we are intrinsically wired to tell.


----------



## JustRob

One aspect of writing that doesn't really appear in WF is the timeline of how any specific work developed, as opposed to observations on any writer's normal approach. I think actual case histories might well give others insight into how the different approaches progress. I know that my first and only novel went through a series of evolutionary stages which haven't ended yet. Maybe I am not a typical novice writer but we apparently all tread a very similar path, so something like that might be useful. I would suggest that it might merit a subforum or group of its own where members could post individual threads on their work and field questions from others on their ways of working. As there is a common theme it might be better to do this than simply write personal blogs.

I have already mentioned that I started with a set of motifs within my story but no established main theme. As a pantser I was content to take the reader on a journey to discover the solution to maybe the greatest mystery in literature, which is what the point of the story actually is. A classic plot is that the characters go in search of one thing and find something else, so I wondered why one couldn't open that idea up much wider and simply go in search of whatever was out there. Does a reader read only to discover how the story leads to a predefined outcome or also simply to enjoy the journey regardless of where it leads? Is pantser writing simply, as I intimated earlier, how the writer starts the work, adding the detailed planning at a later stage when the main plot has become established, or is there also a specific type of reader, the pantser reader, who just wants that seat-of-the-pants experience that a roller-coaster ride going pretty much nowhere provides? 

I have occasionally described my unwritten trilogy as a shaggy dog story. In fact to emphasise the point there actually is a shaggy dog in it at a later stage, by which time the reader has probably realised what I am doing and may well take the hint. That doesn't mean that there is no main plot, just that its resolution always seems too far off to be important. So, perhaps we haven't even tackled the fundamentals of pantser and planner writing, even though the thread originator claimed to define all his terms precisely. Here then are the questions that I would first ask.

Do the final products, planned stories and pantsed ones, look different or do both ways of working converge to produce very similar results?

When I asked what "literary fiction" is in another thread and looked into its definition I got the impression that it is highbrow pantsing where the outcome of a story is not that important. Does that then answer my first question and is lowbrow pantsing equally legitimate as a literary form? When reading some successful authors, like say Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, one does feel that the journey is more important than the destination, e.g. 42.

Is there then a specific type of reader who gravitates towards such pantsed stories, the pantser reader? If so then is the implicit contract between pantser writer and pantser reader different from that between their planning and plotting brethren?

If this different contract exists, then is all the conventional advice given to those learning the skills of writing equally appropriate to it or do other guidelines take precedence? In fact, is the bias exhibited by this thread's originator simply the consequence of too much emphasis being placed on certain methods of writing _and their consequent products? _

That last question is a key one for me as I have never compiled a satisfactory synopsis for my novel. That is probably because the requirement for a synopsis presumes a clearly planned and plotted story that can be encapsulated in such a document. In another thread some time ago I posted a list of publishers' rejections of some of the most famous stories around. One got the impression from these that the publishers quoted had based their rejections on cursory examinations of the synopses. Hence _Gone With The Wind _was rejected as "another civil war story. Do we need yet another one?" and _Animal Farm _as "an animal story. They never sell well." Maybe they weren't the exact words, which are in that other thread, but that was the gist of the rejections. So much for synopses.

I have no interest in satisfying publishers, only readers, including myself. Perhaps that's why I'm the beta reading mentor, because I am willing to listen to what real readers have to say. Indeed this whole pantser issue may be as much about their expectations as it is about writers' techniques. It's just a thought.


----------



## Terry D

JustRob said:


> One aspect of writing that doesn't really appear in WF is the timeline of how any specific work developed, as opposed to observations on any writer's normal approach. I think actual case histories might well give others insight into how the different approaches progress. I know that my first and only novel went through a series of evolutionary stages which haven't ended yet. Maybe I am not a typical novice writer but we apparently all tread a very similar path, so something like that might be useful. I would suggest that it might merit a subforum or group of its own where members could post individual threads on their work and field questions from others on their ways of working. As there is a common theme it might be better to do this than simply write personal blogs.
> 
> I have already mentioned that I started with a set of motifs within my story but no established main theme. As a pantser I was content to take the reader on a journey to discover the solution to maybe the greatest mystery in literature, which is what the point of the story actually is. A classic plot is that the characters go in search of one thing and find something else, so I wondered why one couldn't open that idea up much wider and simply go in search of whatever was out there. Does a reader read only to discover how the story leads to a predefined outcome or also simply to enjoy the journey regardless of where it leads? Is pantser writing simply, as I intimated earlier, how the writer starts the work, adding the detailed planning at a later stage when the main plot has become established, or is there also a specific type of reader, the pantser reader, who just wants that seat-of-the-pants experience that a roller-coaster ride going pretty much nowhere provides?
> 
> I have occasionally described my unwritten trilogy as a shaggy dog story. In fact to emphasise the point there actually is a shaggy dog in it at a later stage, by which time the reader has probably realised what I am doing and may well take the hint. That doesn't mean that there is no main plot, just that its resolution always seems too far off to be important. So, perhaps we haven't even tackled the fundamentals of pantser and planner writing, even though the thread originator claimed to define all his terms precisely. Here then are the questions that I would first ask.
> 
> Do the final products, planned stories and pantsed ones, look different or do both ways of working converge to produce very similar results?
> 
> When I asked what "literary fiction" is in another thread and looked into its definition I got the impression that it is highbrow pantsing where the outcome of a story is not that important. Does that then answer my first question and is lowbrow pantsing equally legitimate as a literary form? When reading some successful authors, like say Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, one does feel that the journey is more important than the destination, e.g. 42.
> 
> Is there then a specific type of reader who gravitates towards such pantsed stories, the pantser reader? If so then is the implicit contract between pantser writer and pantser reader different from that between their planning and plotting brethren?
> 
> If this different contract exists, then is all the conventional advice given to those learning the skills of writing equally appropriate to it or do other guidelines take precedence? In fact, is the bias exhibited by this thread's originator simply the consequence of too much emphasis being placed on certain methods of writing _and their consequent products? _
> 
> That last question is a key one for me as I have never compiled a satisfactory synopsis for my novel. That is probably because the requirement for a synopsis presumes a clearly planned and plotted story that can be encapsulated in such a document. In another thread some time ago I posted a list of publishers' rejections of some of the most famous stories around. One got the impression from these that the publishers quoted had based their rejections on cursory examinations of the synopses. Hence _Gone With The Wind _was rejected as "another civil war story. Do we need yet another one?" and _Animal Farm _as "an animal story. They never sell well." Maybe they weren't the exact words, which are in that other thread, but that was the gist of the rejections. So much for synopses.
> 
> I have no interest in satisfying publishers, only readers, including myself. Perhaps that's why I'm the beta reading mentor, because I am willing to listen to what real readers have to say. Indeed this whole pantser issue may be as much about their expectations as it is about writers' techniques. It's just a thought.



There's a lot here to talk about and I don't have much time at the moment, so I'll write more later this morning -- including a brief description of how my novels have come to fruition.

One thing I do want to address now is your question about "pantser" readers. In my opinion a reader will have no idea if a novel was planned extensively, or written from the hip, _if_ the writer has mastery of his craft. A well-written story will hide its bones.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> There's a lot here to talk about and I don't have much time at the moment, so I'll write more later this morning -- including a brief description of how my novels have come to fruition.
> 
> One thing I do want to address now is your question about "pantser" readers. In my opinion a reader will have no idea if a novel was planned extensively, or written from the hip, _if_ the writer has mastery of his craft. A well-written story will hide its bones.


=========

exactly

in the end every good novel is organised and logical

the question is what is the fastest bestest easiest way for a writer to arrive at that point
clearly the details will differ for most writers
but the data strongly shows that success comes faster better quicker easier cheaper by planning


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> If not for the preconceived prejudices, from one person in particular, this thread could have been an interesting discourse. But, as tends to be the norm for these sort of things, it becomes an argument of "your method stinks and mine is superior". That's a real shame.
> 
> For those, however, who _genuinely _want to know how someone can pants a novel, I will lay out my approach to writing:
> 
> I have an idea for a first chapter (sometimes, three or more and I will whittle it down to the best one). That is my springboard, from which all other chapters will logically follow, and it is where I tend to set up the major problem/conflict of the entire novel. For instance, in my first published novel, my opening chapter introduced a deep-cover operative engaging in illegal counter-espionage in a foreign country. His cover was blown, but what he learned in his final days undercover was that a massive operation was underway to attack a U.S. black-site. The problem was that the operative had been in deep cover for far too long and did not know if he could trust his own country. Thus, that set up a chunk of the storyline right there.
> 
> As chapter one is being written, the events that take place within it dictate where the story will go next. There is a common, and quite fatuous, belief that pantsers will jump all over the place owing to lack of a plan. That is nonsense. Once you have created your first chapter, and as long as it is coherent continuity-wise, the only way you can jump all over the place is if you start having dragons attack in your espionage thriller. You've created your problem; now begins the long process of arriving at the solution. Ahead, there will be many obstacles and many setbacks; that is a given. Writing them in is simply a matter of understanding how to write a novel, and that does not come from either planning or pantsing; it comes from experience.
> 
> All the chapters that come after will be created based on either the one that came before, or the direction in which the story is moving forward, and it becomes a matter of following the often-linear path the majority of stories adhere to. In a great deal of contemporary novels, time moves linearly. Modernists experimented with time, but a lot of their work is incoherent for that reason (just read Henry James' _The Turn of the Screw_). Most modern writers do not attempt to mess with that, for reasons that are plain as day.
> 
> There is no requirement for one to know one's ending, but sometimes you will before you start the first chapter. Other times, it will come to you somewhere in the middle. Rarely, it will come to you a few chapters from the end. Again, it's simply a matter of following the thread you've created. In _Dereliction of Duty, _my aforementioned first published novel, the ending was inexorably moving towards the black-site and the planned attack from as early as the third or fourth chapter. It was a matter of lining up the dominoes so that everyone (I use multiple characters and multiple POVs) arrived there in time for the final showdown.
> 
> And that is pretty much it. I've written some hugely complex novels without ever needing to plan, as Robert Ludlum (one of the greats) did throughout his career, because I intimately know my process and how it works. It's one, as I said earlier in this thread, that not only got me published (and approximately 3,000 sales of _Dereliction of Duty_), but also got me through both undergrad and master's degrees.
> 
> As an aside, it is not the method that makes someone a good writer. Tell a crap writer to plan, and s/he will still write crap; tell a crap writer to pants, and s/he will still write crap. Writing a brilliant novel is predicated on a few things: skill and experience, the latter being more important than the former. It is not enough to plan or pants; you must also _write. _And that is what always amazes about planners -- not that they plan, but that they spend months on a plan and then never write the bloody novel!
> 
> There is one more thing I always think about when this topic rears its horns: the art of storytelling, that is the original and oral art of imparting culture through words, is as natural as anything could possibly be. When you are down the pub and you're talking to your mates about what happened during the week, you don't plan that conversation. You just speak. That is, in many ways, how pantsers work. It is a natural telling of a story, of which we are intrinsically wired to tell.


====================

the only preconceived prejudice is by the pantsers

the data and evidence clearly shows that most successful writers plan to some extent, and some plan in detail, one in minute detail

one thing i know for sure is that crap writers have a chance to turn out acceptable material if they plan


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ====================
> 
> the only preconceived prejudice is by the pantsers
> 
> the data and evidence clearly shows that most successful writers plan to some extent, and some plan in detail, one in minute detail
> 
> one thing i know for sure is that crap writers have a chance to turn out acceptable material if they plan



No, they don't. And there is no evidence for anything you have said anywhere in this thread. 

And weren't you leaving?


----------



## Darkkin

Outside of my _Strangeways to Nowhere_ nonsense, I ended up with my _Darkkin Chronicles_ all because I was angry about the city cutting huge chunks out of the maple trees to run power lines through them.  Seeing those sad disembowled trees, well, it made me think and I kept right on thinking.  And I listened to what I thought.  Showed my professors what I had been thinking and writing.  They liked what I had thought and written.  They encouraged me to keep on thinking as I was thinking and writing.  Tangent after tangent linking and twining like the gnarled branches of those big old trees leading to an endeavor to save a big, old tree.  Not one moment planned.  Just thoughts thought that were acted upon in a written medium. Those same thoughts and words have maintained a 4.0 GPA and landed numerous commissions for my rhymed nonsense.

Had I planned, those pieces would not exsist because it would have quashed the impulse to keep writing.  Planning is for required nonfiction writing.  It is done by rote.  My fiction is completely organic, fly by the wings of a song, writing.  It isn't a chore; it is a pleasure.  The story for the sake of the story.  I live in the heart of my chaos and I control it.  Like being at the center of a spiraling galaxy, I can see the plot points lighting to form constellations and solar systems.  Cycles and circles within a seemingly random collection of thoughts.

There is no diagram for the chaos.  No method to make it all neat and tidy.  Nor should there be.  Just because one person cannot do it, does not mean that it cannot be done.  I've done it and will keep on doing it.

- D. the T.


----------



## aj47

astroannie said:


> Okay, I'm looking -- point me at your book(s).  I'd like to take a read or few.





who me? said:


> ===================
> 
> your security clearance is not high enough
> and you dont have a need to know
> 
> now that i am retired i am looking at doing some general books that anyone could buy
> started 3 of those over the years
> but abandoned when the trad pubs had one book on the topic already and didnt want another
> now i can self publish no matter how many others are out there which may be similar
> 
> my forte is NF but I might consider doing a novel after my 'How to Write' book
> just to prove the method works if you use it





astroannie said:


> so, what I'm hearing is you don't have any evidence that you are willing to share with anyone that you actually know anything about what you're talking about.
> 
> ... just a keyboard and time on your hands ...
> 
> I'll endeavor to remember that.





Sam said:


> No, they don't. And there is no evidence for anything you have said anywhere in this thread.
> 
> And weren't you leaving?



*who me? *never provides evidence.  Dunno why ... citations were one of the things I was taught how to do in high school.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ====================
> 
> the only preconceived prejudice is by the pantsers
> 
> the data and evidence clearly shows that most successful writers plan to some extent, and some plan in detail, one in minute detail
> 
> one thing i know for sure is that crap writers have a chance to turn out acceptable material if they plan




And what preconceived prejudices would those be? 

A crap writer will turn out crap material by definition. It will just be planned crap. It doesn't matter a whit if 'most' writers plan or write by the seat of their pants. All that matters is what works for each individual. At this point, I'd usually ask you again to show me the "data and evidence", but I won't because I really don't care if 25%, 51%, or 99% of writers plan ahead (and you couldn't prove it in any case). As Sam mentioned in a previous reply, I also have seen many writers on this site who spend months, if not years, planning, but never get around to actually writing a book. They are going nowhere as writers. Far better off are those who jump in and start a book without a clue as to where it's going. Sure, it may founder, but at least they are flexing their writing muscles, getting stronger, finding their voice.


----------



## JustRob

who me? said:


> in the end every good novel is organised and logical
> 
> the question is what is the fastest bestest easiest way for a writer to arrive at that point
> clearly the details will differ for most writers
> but the data strongly shows that success comes faster better quicker easier cheaper by planning



Being organised and logical comes naturally to me. I don't plan it because that is just the way it is. Somehow my mind goes straight from problem to solution without any intermediate process. That's how during my working career I found the solutions that linear thinkers evidently couldn't. Apparently they call this sort of thing lateral thinking or thinking outside of the box, but to me it isn't even thinking. Having made a discovery of this sort I could then work out a way of leading linear thinkers through a process to get to my solution and convince them that it was sound, but those who knew me would just trust me to go ahead with it anyway. I'm referring to computer system developments affecting the finances of hundreds of thousands of clients here, not fiction.

At school I was just the same. One of my best subjects was pure geometry, where there is often no predefined process to follow. I'd look at a diagram and see the solution. You say that you don't know how to teach this approach. Neither do I. I tried to give colleagues at my office guidelines that might help them to apply my methods but their minds didn't seem able to take the individual steps, such as they were, that mine did. I think I did unlock something in one chap's mind though. I saw his eyes light up and he said, "I get it now! Why don't they teach it this way on the courses?" The answer is probably that the learning process is different for everyone. You just have to keep presenting the technique in different ways until one fits a particular person's way of thinking, but it's all down to luck and there's no fixed formula. 

Think of it in musical terms. Well structured linear thinkers' minds play the equivalent of perfect Bach but my mind continually plays complex jazz. It can't play Bach without adding all the improvisations. That shows in almost everything that I post on WF and every conversation that I have in real life. I have good reason to title myself "erratic" but it doesn't imply that I am disorganised. 

Bach compiled rules about which notes could follow which and what intervals and chords "worked" and which didn't, but since his time other musical forms have arisen and now we think in terms of the fractal dimension of a piece of music. In musical terms Bach's music is two dimensional and later forms move out into a third dimension. This isn't just a poetic way of describing the styles but hard mathematics. Feed the algorithm into a computer and you can set the style that you want it to generate on a dial. Literature is in no way my subject but I suspect that the same applies to it, that there's a whole spectrum of styles ranging from the highly formal to the downright zany. Just as a listener has a fractal dimension beyond which their perception of music changes from something well structured to random noise, so any reader probably has a threshold beyond which their perception of a story changes from something that they can appreciate to unintelligible nonsense. That has nothing to do with logic and organisation though, just complexity. 



who me? said:


> ====================
> 
> the only preconceived prejudice is by the pantsers
> 
> the data and evidence clearly shows that most successful writers plan to some extent, and some plan in detail, one in minute detail
> 
> one thing i know for sure is that crap writers have a chance to turn out acceptable material if they plan



I never intended to be a fiction writer, so couldn't possibly have had any preconceived prejudices. It was a completely alien subject to me when I wrote my novel in 2011. I only wrote it down because it was filling up my mind despite my best efforts to ignore it.

You are probably right that any crap writer can write something that sounds like Bach if they follow his rules, but then even a computer can do that. Jazz needs soul though and as for the blues ... well you probably know what they say about that.


----------



## Phil Istine

Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him?


----------



## Bishop

who me? said:


> the *data and evidence* clearly shows that most successful writers plan to some extent, and some plan in detail, one in minute detail



To what data and evidence are you referring?


----------



## PiP

Phil Istine said:


> Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him?



Who, Cran?


----------



## Phil Istine

PiP said:


> Who, Cran?



No, I was just thinking of the kids' story about Billy Goat Gruff eating the troll who lived under the bridge.  To me, this feels like it's beginning to enter trolling territory.  Any similarities between Billy Goat Gruff and any person, alive or dead, are purely coincidental


----------



## Darkkin

Gnomes and reindeer party, sunshine included free of charge!   'Cause sunshine makes everything better, (if you remember sunscreen...).


----------



## who me?

Phil Istine said:


> No, I was just thinking of the kids' story about Billy Goat Gruff eating the troll who lived under the bridge.  To me, this feels like it's beginning to enter trolling territory.  Any similarities between Billy Goat Gruff and any person, alive or dead, are purely coincidental


======================

a couple of the pantsers are certainly troll like
they cant explain how their method works
so they attack anyone who dares to ask how they could also be a successful pantser

many of them are very illogical 
but that goes without saying as it would take a certain mindset to dismiss planning over a 1000 monkey approach


----------



## who me?

Bishop said:


> To what data and evidence are you referring?


=============

asked and answered

read any book by a successful author about how to write
there are none that say to pantsit
hundreds maybe thousands with some variation of planning and plotting


----------



## Terry D

As promised earlier, I'll talk a bit about my writing process for my first two novels.

My inspiration for a book can come from many sources, but always comes in the same form; a brief phrase, or description which sets up some scenario that intrigues me. Something I feel compelled to explore. For my first completed novel, The Legacy of Aaron Geist, (by the way, there were two prior, uncompleted novels. Both of which were extensively outlined) the inciting idea came from my son. I was sitting at my desk one day wanting to start a new short story and my 12 year old son came into the room for a visit. I was stuck for an idea, so I would write about whatever he decided. He said, "Write a vampire story." I cringed. This was before Twilight, in the days after Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. The market had been saturated with vampire stuff, so I wasn't thrilled about treading that ground, but a promise is a promise, so I said okay. As he was leaving the room he stopped and added, "And set it in a cave." Now I was an avid spelunker when I was young, so the idea found a ready home in my imagination. Cave plus vampire was an idea I could work with. I started thinking about my caving days and a friend I did almost all my spelunking with. The idea of two young men exploring a cave and stumbling upon a vampire came to mind. It was a skeletal concept, but enough to get me writing. I opened the story with the two boys walking toward a cave entrance. The words came easily. But, soon the logical questions started to pop into my head: Most caves are well known to spelunkers, so why had no one ever 'found' this vampire before? How did the vampire get there? Why a cave? If I was going to tell this story, I was going to need to answer those questions and probably more. Too many questions for a short story -- this needed to be a novel. So, I started over, with the question of how the vampire came to be in the cave as my driving force. What resulted was about 120,000 words split between two time frames, the 1850s and present day. One the story of how an old-world Nosferatu came to be trapped in a cave in Southern Illinois, and the second the story of how two young cavers find him and suffer the consequences. Other than the two boys and the vampire, I had no idea of who was going to populate these two worlds until I needed them. I wrote myself into tight places, and wrote myself out of them (a lot like spelunking actually -- you often get into tight quarters and need to figure a way out on the fly).

My second book, Chase, had a far different genesis. I make notes of story ideas frequently. I call them Grombits. I have tons of them in notebooks all over the house, but most never get written into anything. One day a Grombit popped into my head and I wrote: A BOY AND A DOG, and then I forgot about it. Sometime later I was looking at my Grombits and saw that one and wondered, why A BOY AND _A_ DOG and not A BOY AND _HIS_ DOG? As I metaphorically scratched my head about that, another thought hit me; A BOY AND A DOG AND A SERIAL KILLER. Again, like when Zach said, "Set it in a cave," that last little thought tripped the creative trigger and I started to wonder how a boy, a dog (not his dog), and a serial killer could all come together. I started the book with the dog caged in a dark room with the killer and a cattle prod. After that it was all a matter of answering the questions of, why? How? Who? And, what next? One interesting (at least to me) part of Chase is the character of Noah Kreider, an FBI agent working with the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment unit. Long before I started Chase I had the idea for a book based on the question; "How would identical twins, raised in an abusive environment, develop differently given one small difference in their situation?" That idea languished in my head for a long time (until my current WIP), so, when I needed an FBI agent to be searching for the boy in Chase, one of those twins raised his hand to volunteer.

In neither book did I have any idea of the ending before I started writing.


----------



## Firemajic

Sam said:


> My writing process is ass on seat and fingers on keyboard.



:applause::star::star::applause::applause:





Bloggsworth said:


> I write what I write when I write it - The only planning involved is if I'm going to college and have to make sure I've printed out 20 copies for the group...




:star:
:applause::applause::applause::applause:





Terry D said:


> I'm 60+ thousand words into my current WIP and only have a vague idea of how it will end. I wouldn't want to know where I'm going -- it would spoil the trip. You see, I write for the pleasure of discovery. If I knew everything that was going to happen to my characters before I wrote it, I would be bored to tears. It would be like doing paint by numbers. There are a lot of writers who feel the same way, and many who need/enjoy the structure of an outline. It's really all about finding what works for you and doing that. I know that, for me, If I don't know where my story is going, my readers won't either, and we will both be surprised.
> .




:applause::applause::applause::applause:


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> =============
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> read any book by a successful author about how to write
> there are none that say to pantsit
> hundreds maybe thousands with some variation of planning and plotting


_
Stephen King's On Writing, Lawrence Block _(who actually did write for Writer's Digest for years) in his books_, Writing the Novel from Plot to Print, Spider Spin Me a Web, _and_ Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_.



> many of them are very illogical
> but that goes without saying as it would take a certain mindset to dismiss planning over a 1000 monkey approach




I know it's futile to talk about this, but, what the hell...

I'd like to see one quote where anyone has "dismissed" planning. I think all the real writers here have been consistent with their opinion that any writer should use the approach which works best for that person. If you mean 'pantsers' are dismissing planning for their own work, then perhaps so, but that is any writer's prerogative and certainly not illogical in the least.


----------



## Darkkin

Working at a bookstore, we've done a few fiction writing workshops.  The materials we've used have been for the recipe fiction.  The results have had the allure of cardboard.  There is nothing within the constructs of the material that inspires spontaneity or anything beyond the mundane.  It is by rote writing.  Hey, I got from point A to point B, never mind that all you did was tell the reader what your character was doing...(Yeah, for these folks taking up the challenge of writing, but hearing some of it is painful.  Finding something constructive to say, it really hones one's critique skills.)

On the flipside of this, we've also done workshops without safety nets.  Participants are given the barest essentials.  A lost item and two characters.  Go!  They decide what their item is, who their characters are.  And the results were almost the total opposite of here is your recipe now follow it verbatim workshops.  There is much more fluidity and a more honest tangibility to the writing.  The no stings is also the format is also the predominant form deployed by writers in my critique groups.  It is the difference between wild strawberries and the giant domesticated ones.  The giant red ones are pretty, but they don't taste nearly as good as the wild ones.

I've seen both processes in action, have written nonfiction, fiction, and poetry.  I've been to workshops, have lead them.  I actively critique, edit, and write.  I'm involved with numerous groups that do the same thing, whose members include everything from school aged hobbists to published authors to retirees writing their memoirs.  A book can only tell someone how something might be done, it doesn't show.  And not everything works for every person.  The writing is as unique as the writer and trying to explain an organic process to someone who starches their underpants isn't going to work.  Like the age old battle of showing verses telling.  Pantsing, organic writing is something that is shown and grown, not told.  It is a mindset, not a black and white plan.

- D. the T.


----------



## Bishop

Firemajic said:


> :applause::star::star::applause::applause:
> 
> :star:
> :applause::applause::applause::applause:
> 
> 
> :applause::applause::applause::applause:




Bold. Bold to go for the emoji-only response on a writing forum. I like it.


----------



## Bishop

who me? said:


> =============
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> read any book by a successful author about how to write
> there are none that say to pantsit
> hundreds maybe thousands with some variation of planning and plotting



All right... Let's try _On Writing_ by Stephen King, he's pretty successful:
_
I won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons: first, because our lives are largely plotless, even when you add in all our reasonable precautions and careful planning; and second, because I believe plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible. A strong enough situation renders the whole question of plot moot. The most interesting situations can usually be expressed as a What-if question: What if vampires invaded a small New England village? (Salem's Lot). What if a young mother and her son became trapped in their stalled car by a rabid dog? (Cujo).These were situations which occurred to me - while showering, while driving, while taking my daily walk - and which I eventually turned into books. In no case were they plotted, not even to the extent of a single note jotted on a single piece of scrap paper._

Still waiting on that "data and evidence".


----------



## who me?

Bishop said:


> All right... Let's try _On Writing_ by Stephen King, he's pretty successful:
> _
> I won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons: first, because our lives are largely plotless, even when you add in all our reasonable precautions and careful planning; and second, because I believe plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible. A strong enough situation renders the whole question of plot moot. The most interesting situations can usually be expressed as a What-if question: What if vampires invaded a small New England village? (Salem's Lot). What if a young mother and her son became trapped in their stalled car by a rabid dog? (Cujo).These were situations which occurred to me - while showering, while driving, while taking my daily walk - and which I eventually turned into books. In no case were they plotted, not even to the extent of a single note jotted on a single piece of scrap paper._
> 
> Still waiting on that "data and evidence".


=========

i read kings book
he is successful

his book tells you nothing about HOW to write 

it is mildly interesting but not suited for a text for a class in writing
or even for self study

if you think king told us how to write a la pantsing
then please provide a short summary here


----------



## Darkkin

Moment of random inspiration?  Well, one of my most profound was when I was nineteen, fresh out of the CICU from a major coronary.  I was angry at the world and I sure as hell didn't want to be in it at that point in time.  I didn't want to talk to or deal with people so I kept my headphones in, my music running constantly even while I was at the table.  At the time, I was a sophmore in undergrad, renting a room in a private residence with kitchen privilages.  My landlady happened to be a big time quilter and her sewing machine sat on the dining room table.  It was a Husqvarna. 

 Those letters kept bouncing around in my head in time to Brian Tyler's _Summon the Worms_ from the score to _Children of Dune_.  What I ended up with was a singing stone called _Qvaishini_ and a foundation mythology for the realm that followed.  The ancestors of my _Darkkin_.  My Elshiki battled for their realm and rights, released the rage I had for the world and through those journeys I honed my writing skills.  I learned to channel my seething emotions into a constructive format.  I took the annoyance, the anger, the metaphors and made them literal.

I learned how to shift to quantum dreamer mode (as one of my professor's termed it).  And I finally unleashed the one thing my screwed up brain was good at.  Writing without a plan...Chaos theory and butterfly effect.  Storylines, characters...The connections coming together as easily as rain merging with the ocean.  How do you explain that to someone?  How do you apply a matrix to such an amorphous thing?  It started not with a thought, or even a word, but two letters.: qv...

And as far as pantsing goes, either you can do it or you can't.  King is right when he says a little planning is inevitable, but life is unscripted.  Inspiration can come from the smallest thing.  It isn't a skill you can bottle and sell.  A lot of it comes down to basic instinct, talent, and drive.  There isn't room or time for overthinking or plotting when it comes to pantsing.  You are in the character's mind.  They are an extension of the writer and you have to write on the fly and roll with whatever your brain throws at you.

It is also why editing is a critical part of the writing process.  Get it written, then go back and tweak...


----------



## JustRob

In my experience when someone can't find the solution to their problem it may well be that they are looking in the wrong place. Just lately I often have to apply that principle when I can't find my glasses.

Pantsing is not a technique specific to writing but simply a way of using the full potential of one's mind. Hence any books on the subject are more likely to be found amongst those on self-improvement, not writing. No doubt books that explain how to write well focus on techniques that are specific to that activity. Of course planning in general is also a key skill required to make the most of life, but it's a far easier thing to teach formally and career writers are presumably always looking for ways to maintain their income.

By the way, on the subject of precisely defining the terms used, what is a "successful writer"? Is there any singular objective to be met by writing against which success is measured? I used the term "career writers" above because it does imply a more narrowly defined objective.


----------



## Phil Istine

JustRob said:


> By the way, on the subject of precisely defining the terms used, what is a "successful writer"? Is there any singular objective to be met by writing against which success is measured? I used the term "career writers" above because it does imply a more narrowly defined objective.



Indeed, "success" is subjective.  I am a successful writer because I enjoy it and believe I will improve with practice.  However, no-one has ever paid me as much as a penny piece for my efforts.


----------



## JustRob

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they waggle their ears. I've seen people do it, so know that some can, but I've never seen an explanation of how to do it. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books. Perhaps there's a yogic meditation technique involved. I suspect that my brain is not fully cooperating with my efforts because it knows that I have no sincere intention of succeeding. I suppose that's true of many things in life, that if we search for them without the true desire to find them then we are unlikely to.


----------



## bdcharles

JustRob said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they waggle their ears. I've seen people do it, so know that some can, but I've never seen an explanation of how to do it. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books. Perhaps there's a yogic meditation technique involved. I suspect that my brain is not fully cooperating with my efforts because it knows that I have no sincere intention of succeeding. I suppose that's true of many things in life, that if we search for them without the true desire to find them then we are unlikely to.



Aha! I can help you here. The thing to remember is: there are no muscles in your ears, so it's a different set you must use. The muscles you want are on the outside edges of your eyes and around the tops of your cheeks. Imagine you are trying to stretch your eyes wide, the way you might a grin. Try that. That should get your ears a-wagging. It's an interesting case, because the observed output is quite separate from the skills that go into making it happen.


----------



## JustRob

bdcharles said:


> Aha! I can help you here. The thing to remember is: there are no muscles in your ears, so it's a different set you must use. The muscles you want are on the outside edges of your eyes and around the tops of your cheeks. Imagine you are trying to stretch your eyes wide, the way you might a grin. Try that. That should get your ears a-wagging. It's an interesting case, because the observed output is quite separate from the skills that go into making it happen.



Thanks. I suspected that it was something like that from watching others do it, but seeing how others do something and replicating their methods can be different things. Perhaps pantser writing isn't a simple monkey-see-monkey-do task.

Back to the topic then.

As I bought a book that was recommended reading prior to attending a writing course that was cancelled, I now seek justification for my expenditure. At least I got my payment for the course refunded. Apparently this writing lark predominantly involves expenditure rather than income for many of us.

The book is _The No Rules Handbook for Writers _by Lisa Goldman published by Oberon Books ISBN 978-1-84943-111-8 (just to up the number of hard facts in this thread). Lisa is a theatrical director as well as a writer, so she applies her advice to two quite different types of writing, literary and script. She also takes into account the requirements of both freelance and commission writing. She has been involved with theatrical productions that have been nominated for all of the major UK playwriting awards and actually won some of them apparently, so she isn't necessarily herself what might be called a successful writer but she works extremely closely with them on a daily basis. As a producer and director she is obviously concerned with the hard commercial aspects of writing, so one would hardly expect her to come down on the side of pantser style writing. However, of the forty common rules of writing that she tackles in her book number six is "Write an outline before you write." She gives examples of the problems that pantser writers face in the theatrical and screen-writing world where up front costs can be very high compared to those in modern book publishing, but nevertheless enthuses about the need for this type of writer. Flicking through the pages of the chapter on rule six I see that mind-mapping is mentioned as one alternative to outline creation. As I mentioned earlier one would not expect a book on writing to go into the details of something like mind-mapping specifically as it is a general technique used in many contexts and covered fully in more appropriate publications.

Incidentally, when I used mind-mapping to choose the name of a character in my trilogy it came out literally as "James T. Kirk" which was most unfortunate. I still have the diagram that I used and there is no mention of any similar character in a TV series in it. In fact a key component was the King James Bible, a far more significant literary work. By some even more unfortunate coincidence my character was the captain of a timeship flying to unknown destinations across eventuality. Oops!

That aside, I think this book justifies what I wrote earlier, that if one can't find what one seeks then maybe one is looking in the wrong place. If I encountered a book with relevant content so indirectly without specifically searching for it then I must assume that others exist. I have no great interest in writing techniques as such and do not normally buy books on the subject, so it seems odd that the one book that I did buy should mention what Lisa consistently calls "automatic writing" rather than "pantsing" throughout it if they are so hard to find.

P.S.

If you Google the identifying details that I gave above you can read the relevant chapter in Google Books for free apparently. As I said, Lisa isn't a career writer as such.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> =========
> 
> i read kings book
> he is successful
> 
> his book tells you nothing about HOW to write
> 
> it is mildly interesting but not suited for a text for a class in writing
> or even for self study
> 
> if you think king told us how to write a la pantsing
> then please provide a short summary here



:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Why? No answer anyone provides is going to satisfy you. King does write about his writing process in his book, you should read it, you obviously have not. 'How to write?' is like asking how to sculpt, or how to play a violin. The basics can be taught: SPaG, tense, POV, basic story structure, etc. But a writer doesn't become a writer -- in the sense of achieving a level of communication which transcends, to varying degrees, that of those who aren't 'writers' for the purposes of this conversation -- simply by applying techniques. 'How to write' is a blending of technique and intuition. Of mechanics and instinct. Of skill and of talent. An author 'writes' when she/he translates the images in his/her head (and make no mistake, the last repository for ideas -- even for those who plan extensively -- is between the writer's ears) to words on a page. How that is accomplished is unique to each individual. A pantser's method for writing is exactly the same as a planner's, wonderfully, uniquely individual.

The only difference between pantsing and planning is how the author chooses to manage ideas. It has nothing to do with the actual act of creation. A writer knows this. That's why, "How do you write?" is such a superfluous question.


----------



## Sam

^ 

This. 

Unfortunately, it would appear who me? suffers from the typical argument from ignorance fallacy: "I can't possibly see how it could be successfully done, therefore it cannot be done."

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


----------



## Firemajic

I am a Glassblower.... [ please don't.. do not PM me the jokes about glassblowers, I have heard them allll]
when I started, I read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on, about 
1: Technique
2: Procedure 
3: How to succeed 
4: Blah Blaaaah blaaaaaah......
I tried ALLLLLL ofIT.... however, the one thing I did not get from a "How To" book was... experience , passion and creativity....passion... passion..

soooooo, I threw away my "How To" books.... light my torch, picked up a glass rod and stuck it in the flame.... what a %$#%&^# disaster, I did it again, I got burned, I cut myself and I bled... shit! THIS is Hard WORK!!! 
BUT...by now, I am committed, I am hooked and nothing is going to stop me now! Hell no! I went back to my work bench, spent days, weeks, months... burning, cutting myself and one day.... OOOOoooo my GAWD!!!! I made something!!!!! It was beautiful! I was on FIRRRRRRE!!!!! I offered it for sale.... no one bought it, so it went into MY private collection.... I went back to my studio, I made more... sometimes, people PAY MEEEE!!!!! yeah... 
oh... wait... I think I posted in the wrong %$#&^%$ thread... sorrrry....ale:


----------



## Terry D

Sam said:


> ^
> 
> This.
> 
> Unfortunately, it would appear who me? suffers from the typical argument from ignorance fallacy: "I can't possibly see how it could be successfully done, therefore it cannot be done."
> 
> *There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.*



By all accounts, Shakespeare was a pantser. I'm just sayin...


----------



## JustRob

Sam said:


> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.





> "So what do we do?"
> 
> "Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well."
> 
> "How?"
> 
> "I don't know. It is a mystery."
> 
> (Shakespeare in Love)


----------



## Bishop

who me? said:


> i read kings book
> 
> his book tells you nothing about HOW to write










Those two statements are in direct conflict. If you read his book, you'd know that the line before the section "On Writing", reads: "What follows is everything I know about _how to write good fiction_." (Emphasis mine -- see, when I make a claim, I not only put in a source and credit it, but I also emphasize it and make it clear that my emphasis is my own so that I'm not distorting my source. Your turn.)

Soooo... According to King, it's a book on _how to write good fiction_. 

I'm _still_ waiting on any form of evidence or data to support your claims. I've given some to support mine, and you've failed to refute it so... Still waiting on you.


----------



## who me?

Bishop said:


> and he may know about writing fiction
> 
> but he did not tell the reader HOW to write anything
> that book was useless for the HOW of writing TAO too
> 
> 
> Those two statements are in direct conflict. If you read his book, you'd know that the line before the section "On Writing", reads: "What follows is everything I know about _how to write good fiction_." (Emphasis mine -- see, when I make a claim, I not only put in a source and credit it, but I also emphasize it and make it clear that my emphasis is my own so that I'm not distorting my source. Your turn.)
> 
> Soooo... According to King, it's a book on _how to write good fiction_.
> 
> I'm _still_ waiting on any form of evidence or data to support your claims. I've given some to support mine, and you've failed to refute it so... Still waiting on you.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> ^
> 
> This.
> 
> Unfortunately, it would appear who me? suffers from the typical argument from ignorance fallacy: "I can't possibly see how it could be successfully done, therefore it cannot be done."
> 
> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


============

Sam suffers from illogical thinking. 

I did NOT say it can NOT be done. 
I said that I do not understand HOW it can be done. 

I have asked others to explain HOW it is done
so it could be considered for use in teaching writing. 

No pantser has ever explained HOW their method works. 
Conclusion has to be it is just the 1000 monkey approach.  
Is one person worth 1000 monkeys?  Like a picture is worth 1000 words.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:
> 
> Why? No answer anyone provides is going to satisfy you. King does write about his writing process in his book, you should read it, you obviously have not. 'How to write?' is like asking how to sculpt, or how to play a violin. The basics can be taught: SPaG, tense, POV, basic story structure, etc. But a writer doesn't become a writer -- in the sense of achieving a level of communication which transcends, to varying degrees, that of those who aren't 'writers' for the purposes of this conversation -- simply by applying techniques. 'How to write' is a blending of technique and intuition. Of mechanics and instinct. Of skill and of talent. An author 'writes' when she/he translates the images in his/her head (and make no mistake, the last repository for ideas -- even for those who plan extensively -- is between the writer's ears) to words on a page. How that is accomplished is unique to each individual. A pantser's method for writing is exactly the same as a planner's, wonderfully, uniquely individual.
> 
> The only difference between pantsing and planning is how the author chooses to manage ideas. It has nothing to do with the actual act of creation. A writer knows this. That's why, "How do you write?" is such a superfluous question.


===============

King wrote a philosophical essay on his experience with writing. 

I saw nothing that could be used to teach anyone HOW to write.


----------



## who me?

JustRob said:


> Thanks. I suspected that it was something like that from watching others do it, but seeing how others do something and replicating their methods can be different things. Perhaps pantser writing isn't a simple monkey-see-monkey-do task.
> 
> Back to the topic then.
> 
> As I bought a book that was recommended reading prior to attending a writing course that was cancelled, I now seek justification for my expenditure. At least I got my payment for the course refunded. Apparently this writing lark predominantly involves expenditure rather than income for many of us.
> 
> The book is _The No Rules Handbook for Writers _by Lisa Goldman published by Oberon Books ISBN 978-1-84943-111-8 (just to up the number of hard facts in this thread). Lisa is a theatrical director as well as a writer, so she applies her advice to two quite different types of writing, literary and script. She also takes into account the requirements of both freelance and commission writing. She has been involved with theatrical productions that have been nominated for all of the major UK playwriting awards and actually won some of them apparently, so she isn't necessarily herself what might be called a successful writer but she works extremely closely with them on a daily basis. As a producer and director she is obviously concerned with the hard commercial aspects of writing, so one would hardly expect her to come down on the side of pantser style writing. However, of the forty common rules of writing that she tackles in her book number six is "Write an outline before you write." She gives examples of the problems that pantser writers face in the theatrical and screen-writing world where up front costs can be very high compared to those in modern book publishing, but nevertheless enthuses about the need for this type of writer. Flicking through the pages of the chapter on rule six I see that mind-mapping is mentioned as one alternative to outline creation. As I mentioned earlier one would not expect a book on writing to go into the details of something like mind-mapping specifically as it is a general technique used in many contexts and covered fully in more appropriate publications.
> 
> Incidentally, when I used mind-mapping to choose the name of a character in my trilogy it came out literally as "James T. Kirk" which was most unfortunate. I still have the diagram that I used and there is no mention of any similar character in a TV series in it. In fact a key component was the King James Bible, a far more significant literary work. By some even more unfortunate coincidence my character was the captain of a timeship flying to unknown destinations across eventuality. Oops!
> 
> That aside, I think this book justifies what I wrote earlier, that if one can't find what one seeks then maybe one is looking in the wrong place. If I encountered a book with relevant content so indirectly without specifically searching for it then I must assume that others exist. I have no great interest in writing techniques as such and do not normally buy books on the subject, so it seems odd that the one book that I did buy should mention what Lisa consistently calls "automatic writing" rather than "pantsing" throughout it if they are so hard to find.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> If you Google the identifying details that I gave above you can read the relevant chapter in Google Books for free apparently. As I said, Lisa isn't a career writer as such.


=================

I have read things she wrote on the subject but not her book, yet.


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ===============
> 
> King wrote a philosophical essay on his experience with writing.
> 
> I saw nothing that could be used to teach anyone HOW to write.



I'm afraid I can't find the "stop digging a hole -- you're at Australia by now" smiley. 

I'll have to put in a requisition order.


----------



## who me?

JustRob said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they waggle their ears. I've seen people do it, so know that some can, but I've never seen an explanation of how to do it. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books. Perhaps there's a yogic meditation technique involved. I suspect that my brain is not fully cooperating with my efforts because it knows that I have no sincere intention of succeeding. I suppose that's true of many things in life, that if we search for them without the true desire to find them then we are unlikely to.



=====================

people can often do things they can't explain

but you can't use that approach to teaching others

NIKE!  is not going to satisfy the Dean when you propose a new course.


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ============
> 
> Sam suffers from illogical thinking.
> 
> I did NOT say it can NOT be done.
> I said that I do not understand HOW it can be done.
> 
> I have asked others to explain HOW it is done
> so it could be considered for use in teaching writing.
> 
> No pantser has ever explained HOW their method works.
> Conclusion has to be it is just the 1000 monkey approach.
> Is one person worth 1000 monkeys?  Like a picture is worth 1000 words.



Both Terry and I have both explained how our methods work. 

But you're not interested in any of that. All you're interested in is creating arguments. Not to worry, however, someone like you can't outrun the hammer for long.


----------



## who me?

Sam said:


> Both Terry and I have both explained how our methods work.
> 
> But you're not interested in any of that. All you're interested in is creating arguments. Not to worry, however, someone like you can't outrun the hammer for long.


==============

nobody has explained how pantsing can work other than 1000 monkeys can do it

you are lying about me and dissing me with your comments

i do care about HOW it can be done
i am not interested in arguing
i am interested in developing a uni level course that teaches HOW to write that is beyond the SPAG and literature the english dept teaches now 

if you ever posted the HOW pantsing works then either i missed it or you were one of teh ones who admit you really do plan to some extent

i sense that the pantsers are very defensive because they can not explain the how part so it could be taught to others


----------



## Darkkin

You want an individual's process that 99.9% of the population is not going to understand.  It is instinct, not something that is taught.  It's having enough sense to know you're on the right track without a road map.  Some of it is also innate talent.  It isn't something everyone can do.  Basically it boils down to less whine, more write.

And you have beaten this poor horse into glue, you're stuck in your own quamire.  And just because you can't do something doesn't make an entire forum of writers wrong.  Knowing the basic mechanics of writing is usually about as far as most people care to go.  Beyond that it is pretty much up to the gumption and drive of the individual.  There isn't a course on dedication and follow through.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ===============
> 
> King wrote a philosophical essay on his experience with writing.
> 
> I saw nothing that could be used to teach anyone HOW to write.



Which only reaffirms my belief you've never read the book. The first half of _On Writing_ is an autobiographical essay on King's life and writing career. The second half goes into some detail on his ideas about how to write, including a detail examination of how he edits his own work using one of his published stories as a template. 

Don't like King? Don't agree with him? How about someone else? How about one of the greatest science fiction/fantasy writers of all time, Ray Bradbury. Here's an excerpt of an interview with Bradbury by Booksellers magazine in 1997 (emphasis mine):

See, I live like Federico Fellini. He was a good friend, and he said -- and it's one of my favorite sayings -- 'Don't tell me what I'm doing; I don't want to know.' Get your work done. Then, after it's done, you find out what you did. But you can't know ahead of time. So, therefore, the unconscious act turns into creativity. All of a sudden, you have a book, a novel. I try to warn young writers: For Christ's sake, stop being an intellect. Get your work done. Don't worry about what you're doing. *Don't plan anything. Just do it. Throw it up. Throw it up, and then clean up.* I was at a bookstore last night and a book clerk there said, 'I'm having trouble with a novel I'm writing. I do this, I do that.' *I said, 'Stop that' -- no outlines, no plans. Get your characters to write the book for you. Ahab wrote Moby Dick, Melville didn't. Montag wrote Fahrenheit 451, 1 didn't.* If you let your characters live, and get out of their way, then you have a chance of creating something individual."

Now I know you don't believe in 'characters writing themselves', but it happens. It happens when a writer is immersed enough in his creation that a channel opens into his subconscious -- where the real writer lives and is working all the time -- and all the road blocks our conscious mind likes to put up fall away for a time. If that's never happened to you, I feel sorry for you, I really do. Of course it is the writer's own mind doing the work, but it is a part of the mind which has been living with the character night and day. A part which knows the character better than the conscious mind could ever hope to. It doesn't always happen for me, but when it does, I produce my best stuff. And it happens more easily, and more frequently, when I plant my butt in my chair on a regular basis and just write. The conduit between my subconscious and my fingers stays clearer with regular use.


----------



## Phil Istine

Darkkin said:


> You want an individual's process that 99.9% of the population is not going to understand.  It is instinct, not something that is taught.  It's having enough sense to know you're on the right track without a road map.  Some of it is also innate talent.  It isn't something everyone can do.  Basically it boils down to less whine, more write.



That's right.  Explaining gut feeling to someone who has to plan everything in microscopic detail is like trying to describe red to someone who has been blind from birth.
Me?  I can pants it for less complex stuff but sometimes need to jot down brief notes ahead of writing things that are more involved.  I don't doubt for a moment that many can wing it with the more complicated writing.  I hope to join them one day.


----------



## Ptolemy

Bishop said:


>



Let's be honest here, this is probably the most accurate image to be used in relation to this thread.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Unrelated, but just in case, remember 'the multi-quote option' is your friend.


----------



## Bishop

who me? said:


> nobody has explained how pantsing can work other than 1000 monkeys can do it



You're the only one bringing up the 1000 monkeys comparison, which is a false equivalency. A single, educated mind typing at a keyboard is not just typing random letters and keys, they're typing a story. The 1000 monkeys isn't even a literary motif, and it isn't even "1000 monkeys". It's called the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and has a straightforward mathematical proof. It's a mathematical concept in the field of probability. It has nothing to do with literature.



who me? said:


> you are lying about me and dissing me with your comments



Show a specific instance of him lying about you, or abandon the claim.



who me? said:


> i do care about HOW it can be done



You're saying this, literally in a post where you said "nobody has explained how pantsing can work". And yet, people have. Including Stephen King.



who me? said:


> i am not interested in arguing



I know, you're interested in making unsubstantiated claims and misguiding people about their own writing methods. 



who me? said:


> i am interested in developing a uni level course that teaches HOW to write that is beyond the SPAG and literature the english dept teaches now



Universities do not need a course on writing taught by someone who cannot even understand basic grammar, let alone taught by someone who cannot find or cite a single source to back up his claims. Which is further insane, because most universities only accept curriculum that has text(s) and peer-reviewed research backing up those methodologies. 



who me? said:


> if you ever posted the HOW pantsing works then either i missed it or you were one of teh ones who admit you really do plan to some extent



Nope, you saw it, you just ignored it or tried to distort it to suit your narrative.



who me? said:


> i sense that the pantsers are very defensive because they can not explain the how part so it could be taught to others



We're defensive because this forum was built to help new writers. New writers who often come here for advice in seeking their own voice and method for writing. When someone comes here and spews toxic, half-coherent drivel about how there's only one correct method of writing a story, it can be disheartening for people who are trying to learn in a different way. We're here to act as a bastion of hope for people who need real guidance, and we don't allow people like you to come in here and lay claim that yours is the only way, and anyone else is wrong.

Now. If you want to put your big boy (or girl) pants on and act like an adult, you can start by typing in complete sentences with forethought, reason, and citation to back up your claims. Or you can sit back down and leave the advice giving to those who actually consider what they say before they say it.


----------



## NeenaDiHope

The only information I feel I can contribute to this very tumultuous conversation is this:
When I start a project I have an idea of who my characters are, what their personalities are and an idea that starts me off. 
From here I sit down and begin to write and as I write I have a "movie" playing in my head that happens as I write. 
I have no idea where the "Movie" will go and it changes as I make changes to my work. I have no idea when or how it will end.
My mind strings one idea to another and so on until I have a finished work. 
Yes I have to go back and make changes, fix plot issue, and rearrange a bit so the it flows properly. 
The only planning I have before I start are the characters looks, personality, race, name, and profession or use. 
I have to do some research while writing from time to time to make sure that what I have written is feasible. I do write fiction and even though I can make it as outlandish as I like, I prefer to at least have basic objects be as close to real life as I can. (Weapons, buildings, normal everyday objects, etc.) 
I'm am not sure if this process can be taught, there is no quantifiable guide to my writing process. 

I am not sure if this information is helpful in any way but It is all I have to offer.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ==============
> 
> nobody has explained how pantsing can work other than 1000 monkeys can do it
> 
> you are lying about me and dissing me with your comments
> 
> i do care about HOW it can be done
> i am not interested in arguing
> i am interested in developing a uni level course that teaches HOW to write that is beyond the SPAG and literature the english dept teaches now
> 
> if you ever posted the HOW pantsing works then either i missed it or you were one of teh ones who admit you really do plan to some extent



I doubt your claim to be developing any sort of coursework. Your writing in this thread doesn't hint at that level of education.



> i sense that the pantsers are very defensive because they can not explain the how part so it could be taught to others



Most of the folks here you are calling 'pantsers' have no need to be defensive. We have published, and sold writing, or have been productive members of this community for long enough that most members will accept our credentials. However, your _bona fides_ have yet to be established (in spite of numerous requests). 



Phil Istine said:


> That's right.  Explaining gut feeling to someone who has to plan everything in microscopic detail is like trying to describe red to someone who has been blind from birth.



Excellent point, Phil


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> I doubt your claim to be developing any sort of coursework. Your writing in this thread doesn't hint at that level of education.
> 
> Most of the folks here you are calling 'pantsers' have no need to be defensive. We have published, and sold writing, or have been productive members of this community for long enough that most members will accept our credentials. However, your _bona fides_ have yet to be established (in spite of numerous requests).
> 
> Excellent point, Phil


======================

you can doubt anything you want to
that wont make you corrrect

such a statement is a logical fallacy
as I *AM* developing a course

so far all the pantsers who have replied seem defensive
most are smart enough to realise they dont know how their method works so dont reply at all 

I have sold and been published in national publications from washpost to writers digest 
I made a living writing full time for a few years
All jobs I had required some writing to stay employed

I have no need to prove anything to you 
and your continued dissing with logical fallacies alluding to some bona fides that i have no need to prove to you is irrelevant


----------



## who me?

NeenaDiHope said:


> The only information I feel I can contribute to this very tumultuous conversation is this:
> When I start a project I have an idea of who my characters are, what their personalities are and an idea that starts me off.
> From here I sit down and begin to write and as I write I have a "movie" playing in my head that happens as I write.
> I have no idea where the "Movie" will go and it changes as I make changes to my work. I have no idea when or how it will end.
> My mind strings one idea to another and so on until I have a finished work.
> Yes I have to go back and make changes, fix plot issue, and rearrange a bit so the it flows properly.
> The only planning I have before I start are the characters looks, personality, race, name, and profession or use.
> I have to do some research while writing from time to time to make sure that what I have written is feasible. I do write fiction and even though I can make it as outlandish as I like, I prefer to at least have basic objects be as close to real life as I can. (Weapons, buildings, normal everyday objects, etc.)
> I'm am not sure if this process can be taught, there is no quantifiable guide to my writing process.
> 
> I am not sure if this information is helpful in any way but It is all I have to offer.


=========================

that has some aspects of how i would write a novel

and you do do some planning 

the movie in the mind is a form of brainstorming to be creative
i would not waste time documenting it by writing
but instead jot down notes to remind me of scenes and what happened
so i could line up the dominoes for the best story before i did any writing

then i could concentrate on the wordsmithing knowing the story was solid
and not have any distractions of creating planning or guiding the story while actually writing it 

big question would be how do you know it will  string together a logical compelling story
if you never organise your thoughts and fill in holes while removing irrelevant side trips 

i would expect it harder to revise reams of verbiage than to shuffle 3x5 cards on a table top to get the scenes to flow well


----------



## who me?

Bishop said:


> You're the only one bringing up the 1000 monkeys comparison, which is a false equivalency. A single, educated mind typing at a keyboard is not just typing random letters and keys, they're typing a story. The 1000 monkeys isn't even a literary motif, and it isn't even "1000 monkeys". It's called the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and has a straightforward mathematical proof. It's a mathematical concept in the field of probability. It has nothing to do with literature.
> 
> Show a specific instance of him lying about you, or abandon the claim.
> 
> You're saying this, literally in a post where you said "nobody has explained how pantsing can work". And yet, people have. Including Stephen King.
> 
> I know, you're interested in making unsubstantiated claims and misguiding people about their own writing methods.
> 
> Universities do not need a course on writing taught by someone who cannot even understand basic grammar, let alone taught by someone who cannot find or cite a single source to back up his claims. Which is further insane, because most universities only accept curriculum that has text(s) and peer-reviewed research backing up those methodologies.
> 
> Nope, you saw it, you just ignored it or tried to distort it to suit your narrative.
> 
> We're defensive because this forum was built to help new writers. New writers who often come here for advice in seeking their own voice and method for writing. When someone comes here and spews toxic, half-coherent drivel about how there's only one correct method of writing a story, it can be disheartening for people who are trying to learn in a different way. We're here to act as a bastion of hope for people who need real guidance, and we don't allow people like you to come in here and lay claim that yours is the only way, and anyone else is wrong.
> 
> Now. If you want to put your big boy (or girl) pants on and act like an adult, you can start by typing in complete sentences with forethought, reason, and citation to back up your claims. Or you can sit back down and leave the advice giving to those who actually consider what they say before they say it.


============================

until someone actually explains how pantsing works the 1000 monkey analogy is the only logical conclusion i can come up with to explain it

read his posts
he lies about my skills and what i am trying to do and by claiming he explained anything
as well as dissing me 

stephen king explained nothing.  i read his book.  it does not tell anyone how to write using any method.

i am making substantiated claims
but my purpose was to ask a question to obtain information on how pantsing works
nobody , especially king,  has explained HOW it works

my students at the uni need a course on HOW to write
and there you go dissing me by implying my grammar is bad
i have a masters cert in english
and not wasting my time polishing informal web posts to suit trolls

i have not seen anything except meaningless claims
i have ignored nothing except the antagonism of the pantsers

if you want to help new writers
then help me come up with a course on HOW to write for uni students
and stop dissing me claiming that i dont understand pantsing when nobody here can explain it logically

your further insults only go to prove you are a troll without any interest in helping anybody


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ============
> 
> Sam suffers from illogical thinking.
> 
> I did NOT say it can NOT be done.
> I said that I do not understand HOW it can be done.
> 
> I have asked others to explain HOW it is done
> so it could be considered for use in teaching writing.
> 
> No pantser has ever explained HOW their method works.
> Conclusion has to be it is just the 1000 monkey approach.
> Is one person worth 1000 monkeys?  Like a picture is worth 1000 words.



I have, in this very thread, but I suspect you aren't going to read it/don't care at all. 

You are nothing more than a gadfly. Your entire reason for being on this forum is to incite argument and sow chaos. At this point, you are barely concealing your patently obvious animus towards anything that is written sans a 100-page plan, but yet you continue to not only refuse to provide evidence for anything you have claimed, you ignore the evidence from a number of best-selling authors who espouse pantsing, on the basis that it doesn't suit your specious narrative. 

I've encountered many people like you, all of whom displayed the same bias and spite towards a method they clearly cannot comprehend, so you're not in any way unique.


----------



## Darkkin

who me? said:


> ======================
> 
> you can doubt anything you want to
> that wont make you corrrect
> 
> such a statement is a logical fallacy
> as I *AM* developing a course
> 
> so far all the pantsers who have replied seem defensive
> most are smart enough to realise they dont know how their method works so dont reply at all
> 
> I have sold and been published in national publications from washpost to writers digest
> I made a living writing full time for a few years
> All jobs I had required some writing to stay employed
> 
> I have no need to prove anything to you
> and your continued dissing with logical fallacies alluding to some bona fides that i have no need to prove to you is irrelevant




You don't have to...Or more to the point CAN'T...Source citing of your credentials should be easy enough.  Post the links to your articles as they are published in major periodicals.  You haven't even done rudimentary research, let alone complied a coherent thesis.  I critique and edit senior theses for five colleges in my area and even the roughest of those have had better foundations than any of your posts.  Practice what you preach because writers, (actual writers), know the difference between solid, honed skill and unsubstantiated bullshit.

To put it bluntly, you're mad because the forum members have dared to have independent thoughts that don't align to your 'guaranteed' method, which if these posts are any indication is sorely lacking.


----------



## Terry D

who me? said:


> ======================
> 
> you can doubt anything you want to
> that wont make you corrrect
> 
> such a statement is a logical fallacy
> as I *AM* developing a course



For which university? Who is your department head? It shouldn't be hard to validate your credentials, which would give your arguments much more weight.



> so far all the pantsers who have replied seem defensive



Okay. Copy a defensive statement for me.



> most are smart enough to realise they dont know how their method works so dont reply at all



Here's an idea to settle this with data. Open a poll here and ask the membership to weigh in on if readers of this thread believe this question has been answered reasonably. 



> I have sold and been published in national publications from washpost to writers digest
> I made a living writing full time for a few years
> All jobs I had required some writing to stay employed



So you keep claiming without a shred of evidence. As I said before, just show me a by-line in Writer's Digest, or any other publication.



> I have no need to prove anything to you
> and your continued dissing with logical fallacies alluding to some bona fides that i have no need to prove to you is irrelevant



Establishing your credibility is irrelevant? That's interesting. Your entire position is based on a claim of expertise in writing, but you expect people to take you seriously without a single shred of evidence? You are, of course, under no obligation to prove anything to me, but your continued dodging of questions regarding your credentials renders your position tenuous, at best, and laughable at worst.


----------



## Darkkin

This feels like one of those situations when the bully gets mad at the smart kid for not doing their homework for them...Here's my plan.  Now write it exactly how I want it.  If you don't, if you have a contadictory thought, it means you have the writing ability of a monkey.


----------



## NeenaDiHope

who me? said:


> =========================
> 
> that has some aspects of how i would write a novel
> 
> and you do do some planning
> 
> the movie in the mind is a form of brainstorming to be creative
> i would not waste time documenting it by writing
> but instead jot down notes to remind me of scenes and what happened
> so i could line up the dominoes for the best story before i did any writing
> 
> then i could concentrate on the wordsmithing knowing the story was solid
> and not have any distractions of creating planning or guiding the story while actually writing it
> 
> big question would be how do you know it will  string together a logical compelling story
> if you never organise your thoughts and fill in holes while removing irrelevant side trips
> 
> i would expect it harder to revise reams of verbiage than to shuffle 3x5 cards on a table top to get the scenes to flow well




The "Movie" doesn't unfold before I write it, it plays out as it is written. There is nothing to jot down. I don't sit and watch it play out in my head then write down "what I've seen". It is created scene by scene based on what my mind creates as I write. I write (cause) the movie plays out (effect) not the other way around. 

As for knowing if it is a logical compelling story, to be honest, I have no clue until I go back and read it. My mind runs linear within the story. I generally don't have to tweek it much because it comes out in a natural order. 

Do I rewrite based on not liking a particular scene, yep all the time. 

As for revising, it's usually only a matter of moving a few things around and making sure that it reads well. Do I write myself into a corner, yes sometimes but I just back up a paragraph or even a chapter, read my last and let my mind run free in a different direction. 

Think flash fiction just on a larger scale. 

As for planning the only things I plan out are my foremost characters, everyone else is made up as the story moves along. The setting I usually have in my mind to start and of course the basic idea for the story. 

I am by no means a professional writer I am a novice at best. If I had to sit down and outline a story and try to think of every aspect of my plot before I wrote it I would not be able to do it. My mind puts scenes and characters in sequence as I go.

I would be forever lost if I tried to write from flash cards, a layout or story board. To me it would be like writing on a fill in the blank form. That would completely squash my ability to be creative. 

Just the views of a novice.


----------



## gohn67

To quote Terry D from another thread:



			
				Terry D said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt you are a teacher. A teacher, especially at the University level, would never research a syllabus on an on-line forum, and they would certainly never ask such an undefined question if they had any real intent on using the responses. I won't waste my time wading through another of your argumentative quagmires, and I would recommend other members avoid it as well.


----------



## Bishop

who me? said:


> until someone actually explains how pantsing works the 1000 monkey analogy is the only logical conclusion i can come up with to explain it



I've just explained above that there is no 1000 monkey analogy. It's called the Infinite Monkey Theorem and it's a mathematical theorem discussing the ramifications of probability in a situation with infinite time. It posits that in an environment with infinite time, anything that is probable, even to the smallest degree, will eventually happen. 

What does that have to do with how someone writes?



who me? said:


> read his posts
> he lies about my skills and what i am trying to do and by claiming he explained anything
> as well as dissing me



Never said he wasn't "dissing" you. Stop crying about people "dissing" you and start actually making rational, backed-up arguments and people won't "diss" you anymore.




who me? said:


> stephen king explained nothing.  i read his book.  it does not tell anyone how to write using any method.



Then you must have read his book with your eyes closed. Because the academic community read the same book, and that's why it's required reading in many creative writing courses. Including at the university I attended and achieved a B.A. in English with a concentration in British Literature.



who me? said:


> i am making substantiated claims



Since you clearly don't know what "substantiated" means: 

Substantiate - Verb - to establish by proof or competent evidence.

Allow me to substantiate that definition by linking you to the Merriam-Webster entry: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate 



who me? said:


> my students at the uni need a course on HOW to write
> and there you go dissing me by implying my grammar is bad
> i have a masters cert in english
> and not wasting my time polishing informal web posts to suit trolls



I wasn't implying your grammar is bad, I was observing it from the posts you've typed here. Also, you're not a university teacher, and what is a "masters cert"? If you mean a Masters Degree, that'd be one thing, but... "cert" is not something that a university grants. Was it given to you by a Nigerian Prince?



who me? said:


> i have not seen anything except meaningless claims



Probably because you've only actually been reading your own posts.



who me? said:


> i have ignored nothing except the antagonism of the pantsers



Actually, you've directly addressed the antagonism of the pansters every time we antagonize you. And I'm not going to stop until you start answering my questions directly, so be ready for that.



who me? said:


> if you want to help new writers
> then help me come up with a course on HOW to write for uni students
> and stop dissing me claiming that i dont understand pantsing when nobody here can explain it logically



If you have a "masters cert" in English, why do you need the help of the internet to craft a course?



who me? said:


> your further insults only go to prove you are a troll without any interest in helping anybody



Yes, the multi-year member of the writing forum with a decorated record, over four thousand posts, and the general respect of his peers and the title of "Advanced Mentor" is truly a "troll without any interest in helping anybody". 

I'm actually kinda having fun with this, so please continue to respond. Maybe I am a troll? Yeah, probably.


----------



## Terry D

^
Can I 'like' this twice?


----------



## aj47

Terry D said:


> ^
> Can I 'like' this twice?



Give the gift of reputation ...


----------



## Terry D

astroannie said:


> Give the gift of reputation ...



Good call. As long as I've been here, I continually forget adding reputation.


----------



## Terry D

Sorry about the consecutive post, but I want to say something to all my fellow, serious, WF members. As much fun as this discourse has been, I'm backing out. I'm doing this because I don't want a potential member glancing at this thread and getting the impression WF is a place where members 'gang-up' on people who disagree with us. We all know what's really going on here, and we know what will eventually happen. But I don't want to be the person who writes that last post which prompts a response resulting in the inevitable. I've made my point here. Time to roll on.


----------



## who me?

Terry D said:


> Sorry about the consecutive post, but I want to say something to all my fellow, serious, WF members. As much fun as this discourse has been, I'm backing out. I'm doing this because I don't want a potential member glancing at this thread and getting the impression WF is a place where members 'gang-up' on people who disagree with us. We all know what's really going on here, and we know what will eventually happen. But I don't want to be the person who writes that last post which prompts a response resulting in the inevitable. I've made my point here. Time to roll on.


===================

You should tell that to the others who are defensive because they cannot answer one simple question.

When they can't, they prefer to use personal attacks instead of just ignoring the question. 

I am still interested in teaching HOW to write. 
I have a lot of material that has been published.  And I will be distilling that for use in a class on HOW to write. 


I have academic curiosity and intellectual honesty so I want to understand how so many people who ignore all the advice that successful professionals have written in many books and articles and on their web sites actually use.

Pantsing is a mystery to me.  It is starting to sound like some sort of inside joke.  Or just an excuse used by wannabee amateurs.  
Maybe it is analogous to pornography.  Like that supreme court justice said:  he can't define it but he knows it when he sees it.
Perhaps pantsers can't explain it but they can somehow do it.  Good for them.  That is not a teachable method.


----------



## Ptolemy

who me? said:


> ===================
> 
> You should tell that to the others who are defensive because they cannot answer one simple question.
> 
> When they can't, they prefer to use personal attacks instead of just ignoring the question.
> 
> I am still interested in teaching HOW to write.
> I have a lot of material that has been published.  And I will be distilling that for use in a class on HOW to write.
> 
> 
> I have academic curiosity and intellectual honesty so I want to understand how so many people who ignore all the advice that successful professionals have written in many books and articles and on their web sites actually use.
> 
> Pantsing is a mystery to me.  It is starting to sound like some sort of inside joke.  Or just an excuse used by wannabee amateurs.
> Maybe it is analogous to pornography.  Like that supreme court justice said:  he can't define it but he knows it when he sees it.
> Perhaps pantsers can't explain it but they can somehow do it.  Good for them.  That is not a teachable method.



Nice Potter Stewart reference.


----------



## Sam

who me? said:


> ===================
> 
> You should tell that to the others who are defensive because they cannot answer one simple question.



I have a coupon here for a free checkup with Specsavers. It would behoove you to avail of it. 



> When they can't, they prefer to use personal attacks instead of just ignoring the question.



Says Mr Personal Attack, himself. 



> I am still interested in teaching HOW to write.
> I have a lot of material that has been published.  And I will be distilling that for use in a class on HOW to write.



Where is this fascinating 'material' published, pray tell? You haven't shown one shred of evidence that you have _ever _been published anywhere. I wonder why that is? 



> I have academic curiosity and intellectual honesty so I want to understand how so many people who ignore all the advice that successful professionals have written in many books and articles and on their web sites actually use.



You are the furthest thing from an academic. You cannot even construct a proper sentence, but you expect me to believe that you're an academic? I wasn't born yesterday, buster. 



> Pantsing is a mystery to me.  It is starting to sound like some sort of inside joke.  Or just an excuse used by wannabee amateurs.



Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## bdcharles

@who me, to try and put a line under it, I think that to be a pantser you must be a daydreamer or at least have an active imagination you can readily call up. My question to you is: is that you? Do you have that? It's fine if the answer is no, but I would say that is the essence of the elusive pantser. Then you just write what your imagination supplies. That's about as much by way of conscious method that I can think of. The rest would seem to come from the subconscious so basically anything you can do to access that will probably help. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## PiP

*I am locking this thread for 24 hours to give everyone time to take a breather.*


----------



## J Anfinson

I write facing east using a three-pronged Swedish keyboard with mind-sensing capability. Oh, and I'm naked and covered in lotion.


----------



## Bishop

J Anfinson said:


> I write facing east using a three-pronged Swedish keyboard with mind-sensing capability. Oh, and I'm naked and covered in lotion.



Can confirm, have the footage.


----------



## Schrody

J Anfinson said:


> I write facing east using a three-pronged Swedish keyboard with mind-sensing capability. Oh, and I'm naked and covered in lotion.



Pictures, my dear colleague, or it didn't happen...



Bishop said:


> Can confirm, have the footage.



How much do you want for it? :lol:


----------



## Cran

I wouldn't bother, Schrody. There's nothing to see, at least until the Swedish _au pair_ shows up with the handcuffs and the birch, but then the picture gets all shaky so you still can't see anything.


----------



## JustRob

Should have used a Steadicam ... although it bruises more than a birch.


----------



## Schrody

Cran said:


> I wouldn't bother, Schrody. There's nothing to see, at least until the Swedish _au pair_ shows up with the handcuffs and the birch, but then the picture gets all shaky so you still can't see anything.



Aw, shoot, everybody saw it but me! :lol:


----------



## bobo

Dear me, 18 pages of shadow fighting 
WHEN do you think the steak will be seasoned and finished ??


----------



## Aquarius

I write.


----------



## Darkkin

I look both ways to make sure nothing is on fire and then disappear into the depths of my head.  The words that result are merely my echo.


----------



## Sam

I perform an arcane ritual and sacrifice a goat to the goddess Sheba.


----------



## bobo

Yum-yum, goat 
- when will it be served ?? 
I can be Sheba for as long


----------



## JustRob

I psychal in circles until I reach a beginning and then write the first story/poem/joke/censored item/apology/shopping list/letter of resignation/application to join the foreign legion (Well, most of you here are foreigners to me probably.) that comes into my head. I currently have a puncture in my psychic cycle though, so I've leant it on this post for now and am walking pedantically pedestrianly into the future but not necessarily in the write direction.

I shall now return to reading _Through the Looking Glass _in preparation for the local education centre course on it and _Alice in Wonderland _tomorrow, but you might have guessed that. How could anyone question how or where pantsers' stories originate?


----------



## Cran

I just look for someone to ban. The paperwork is phenomenal.


----------



## bobo

Cran said:


> I just look for someone to ban. The paperwork is phenomenal.



It seems 'me too' has some experience in banning, that's at least what is spelled out under his alias - but that perhaps is your work ??


(clique to view


----------



## JustRob

Cran said:


> I just look for someone to ban. The paperwork is phenomenal.



The travelling must be as well if you have to serve the writ personally, or do you use carrier pigeons / heavy bombers?


----------



## Phil Istine

Sam said:


> I'm afraid I can't find the "stop digging a hole -- you're at Australia by now" smiley.
> 
> I'll have to put in a requisition order.



LOL.  I missed first time around 

Thank gawd this charade was halted.  I didn't expect it to last quite so long, but there wasn't anything decent on telly anyway.


----------



## Cran

bobo said:


> It seems 'me too' has some experience in banning, that's at least what is spelled out under his alias - but that perhaps is your work ??





JustRob said:


> The travelling must be as well if you have to serve the writ personally, or do you use carrier pigeons / heavy bombers?



Now, you know we do not discuss moderation of our members on the open forums. We prefer letting troublemakers find out the hard way.


----------



## bobo

Took a look at the infraction rules - whou, several 
Peace restored :encouragement:
Thanks Cran-berry :-({|=


----------



## LadyF

This has always been interesting to me. So here is how I get organized:

*1. Setting - knowing where we are:*
I start with developing a fantasy world in my mind. I create maps. I gather hundreds of pictures from Pinterest and Tumblr to illustrate my world and its cultures. When the world is ready, as if you are boiling eggs:
*2. Throw in some Characters:*
What works best for me is creating characters on the basis of ideas sprang during roleplaying. This helps a lot, because the characters are actually developed by different story tellers, so they are more believable and unique. Then by all means:
*3. Stir trouble: create a conflict:*
Each character has a compelling need, good if they even struggle against each other. Every character must want something the entire time.
*4. Scenes: *
Try to list the possible situations the characters may encounter. For instance: "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl." Make a logical sequence of these. 
*5. Spill. Everything:*
Just start writing from the first sentence, and trust in God for the next. Try to follow you little plan, but don't be afraid to modify as the story blossoms. Write your entire first draft. 
*6. Leave aside for one week. *
Let the sunshine in. Do different stuff, get inspired. Return to your work with clear mind, pure hands and hot heart.
*7. Please your audience:*
Think of who is going to read your book - and translate your first draft into his language. For example, if you write a non-fiction book for teenagers call it: How to Score Chicks, not How To Seduce Women. Make sure you take the reader by hand and slowly and deliberately lead him to the resolution of your book.
*8. Writing Buddy:*
Find someone to edit the book together with. It's best to work paragraph by paragraph. 
*9. Polish it:*
Put the finishing touches to your masterpiece. You must have a feeling of content from the accomplishment. Work on the book until it makes you happy.
*10. Write a sequel:*
Seriously. This sells.


----------



## JJBuchholz

I make a brief outline with point-form notes and such, depending on the length of the short story. The plan includes descriptions of the following: Title, Setting, Plot, Characters, and Locations.

-JJB.


----------



## Penless

I've not written much. so far I've been winging it. I try to edit as little as possible as I write. 

My current strategy is:
1. Spew out a huge quantity of words. 
2. Retroactively impose structure. 

But I don't think this is the way to craft great works.

A great work has an idea, moral, or emotion the author wants to convey. 
And that should be discovered before pen touches paper, and every part of the novel should be constructed to accomplish that goal.
'What characters and relationships will help convey X'
'How will my character's journey convey X'
'What setting will best help convey X'

that kind of thing.

But I'm still struggling to make my writing cohesive. A masterful macro structure < enjoyable scenes, for me at the moment.


----------



## JustRob

Penless said:


> A great work has an idea, moral, or emotion the author wants to convey.
> And that should be discovered before pen touches paper, and every part of the novel should be constructed to accomplish that goal.



One might think so, which is why I struggle with the concept of "literary fiction", which appears to be great literature purely for its own sake with plot, morals and all else subsidiary to that objective. Or do I have the wrong idea about what literary fiction is? Can a truly great writer succeed just by "winging it"?

Also, winging it is also wringing it out of one's subconscious. One may not consciously know where a story is heading at the outset, but the story evolves progressively as it is written. This is on a par with a painter's way of working, first with vague broad sweeps and general ideas and then adding subsequent layers and finer details until the message in the picture becomes clear. X-ray scans of old masters expose the evolution of a painting in a way that analysis of published literature cannot. 

I started to write my novel not because I had a clear idea of the story but because so much of it was already in my mind that I couldn't analyse it. I had to write it down simply to clear my mind to perform that analysis. In computer programming we talk about top down and bottom up design and there are advocates of both methods. I think that writers may also see writing in similar terms. As to what works best, in computer programming it is usually evident how well anything works, but readers' minds are not predictable computers, even though some writers might think that tried and tested methods will as often as not succeed with many of them. That's why I suspect that there is such a creature as the pantser reader, who just reads to discover where it will lead without any preconceived expectations. That type interests me.


----------



## Penless

JustRob said:


> One might think so, which is why I struggle with the concept of "literary fiction", which appears to be great literature purely for its own sake with plot, morals and all else subsidiary to that objective. Or do I have the wrong idea about what literary fiction is? Can a truly great writer succeed just by "winging it"?



I think a work can be very enjoyable without any guiding objective. 
I think that a reader can even find benefit in such a work. 
But any value will be created by accident. I don't like to rely on accidents. 

I think there's a key difference between value and enjoyment.
A valuable novel enriches the reader's mind; inspires them with new ideas, emotions, or teaches a valuable lesson.
An enjoyable novel needs only engage the reader and give them gratification as they progress. 

An enjoyable novel is an ephemeral pleasure, like food, tv, games, sex, and drugs. 
A valuable novel is a permanent pleasure, like the sense of accomplishment you get from finishing a new program and seeing it work, or winning a competition, mastering a new piece of music, etc. 


I think winging it will more often produce an enjoyable novel than a valuable one. 


I am a wing-it writer. But I don't think it's the right approach to reliably produce consistently great work.
You might polish up a jewel every once in awhile, but it will be a long, labourous, hit-and-miss process. 

Whereas the structured writer already knows the shape of what he wants to create; he can select the most suitable stone and tools from the beginning. 

I think the wing-it approach feels more personal and closer to the characters as they evolve. Like you're there with them, nudging their development this way or that. 
Whereas the structured approach is like being a god looking down on the world from outside, planning history and interactions, and building your characters like machines to serve a purpose. 


I think structured writing is the better choice for more experienced writers, but winging it is more accessible and fun.
I figure beginners can afford to wing it for the first few years until their prose is developed and they have a few million words of experience as a foundation.


----------



## Sam

Penless said:


> I think a work can be very enjoyable without any guiding objective.
> I think that a reader can even find benefit in such a work.
> But any value will be created by accident. I don't like to rely on accidents.
> 
> I think there's a key difference between value and enjoyment.
> A valuable novel enriches the reader's mind; inspires them with new ideas, emotions, or teaches a valuable lesson.
> An enjoyable novel needs only engage the reader and give them gratification as they progress.
> 
> An enjoyable novel is an ephemeral pleasure, like food, tv, games, sex, and drugs.
> A valuable novel is a permanent pleasure, like the sense of accomplishment you get from finishing a new program and seeing it work, or winning a competition, mastering a new piece of music, etc.
> 
> 
> I think winging it will more often produce an enjoyable novel than a valuable one.
> 
> 
> I am a wing-it writer. But I don't think it's the right approach to reliably produce consistently great work.
> You might polish up a jewel every once in awhile, but it will be a long, labourous, hit-and-miss process.
> 
> Whereas the structured writer already knows the shape of what he wants to create; he can select the most suitable stone and tools from the beginning.
> 
> I think the wing-it approach feels more personal and closer to the characters as they evolve. Like you're there with them, nudging their development this way or that.
> Whereas the structured approach is like being a god looking down on the world from outside, planning history and interactions, and building your characters like machines to serve a purpose.
> 
> 
> I think structured writing is the better choice for more experienced writers, but winging it is more accessible and fun.
> I figure beginners can afford to wing it for the first few years until their prose is developed and they have a few million words of experience as a foundation.



Who is 'you'? 

I tend to be very cautious about ascribing my limitations or methods to someone else. 

For you, it may seem as though planning is something a structured writer does, but I am a very experienced, structured writer and I don't plan. Yet, I am able to "polish the jewel", as you say, quite more often than I end up polishing a turd. 

Again, this is one the things that rankles me about this topic. Great writing is not born of planning or pantsing; it's born of skill. And you don't suddenly become less skilled because you chose a different method. 

Skill is skill. Those with a high enough amount of it adapt to any and all circumstances.


----------



## JustRob

Penless said:


> I think a work can be very enjoyable without any guiding objective.
> I think that a reader can even find benefit in such a work.
> But any value will be created by accident. I don't like to rely on accidents.
> 
> I think there's a key difference between value and enjoyment.
> A valuable novel enriches the reader's mind; inspires them with new ideas, emotions, or teaches a valuable lesson.
> An enjoyable novel needs only engage the reader and give them gratification as they progress.



Writers don't teach unless readers choose to learn. From the writer's viewpoint inspiration within the reader's mind is virtually accidental, just as the enjoyment may be. Our writing is often just the catalyst, so the primary components must already be present. I am reminded of a story that our neighbour told us about an exasperated curator in an American civil war museum. When he asked a group of young people what they thought about a film of Abraham Lincoln's life that he had shown them they replied, "There wasn't much sex in it." The psychology of reading is dictated by readers, which is why I am content to be the mentor for beta readers.

I have tried to avoid passing comment on the true nature of "accidents" as I am currently reviewing my perception of these phenomena. Whether that will result in any benefits to others depends entirely on them. I just write stuff on the subject.

P.S.
In my working career much of my success could be ascribed to my off-piste, outside-of-the-box ideas. As Sam has indicated, one develops sound skills and then looks for what may virtually be accidental opportunities to apply them. In computer circles people who do this are called hackers, in the respectful sense. Being prepared doesn't involve planning specific projects as such, not in the way that some suggest. In my later years I met an old school friend who had had a phenomenally successful career. When I asked him how that happened he said, "I got lucky." Well yes, that was half the story, I have no doubt, but an important half, just as the other half must have been. So, get skilled and then get lucky, or even vice versa.


----------



## Glatteis

Sam said:


> Great writing is not born of planning or pantsing; it's born of skill.



Neither Rowling [Harry Potter], James [50 Shades of Grey] nor Collins [Hunger Games] are particularly skilled writers but they still sell. In fact, they write with a style I'd more associate with a slightly or rather scatter-brained teenager writing for fellow teenagers. There are parts which are obviously pantsing for they are so slapped together, so mismatched, so what the heck is this twit blubbering about you'd think they wrote it while impaired. On the reverse skilled writers such as King, Benchley, & Crichton are not so slap-together writing this while so drunk I'm lucky I don't fall out of my chair stylized. A number of their works follow a preset plan as obvious by how any deviation from this pre-set plan is not really touched upon beyond fleeting mention. 

Now you are right in a way, great writing takes skill. But skilled writers have techniques & they don't really deviate. That's how you can tell stories "written" by other people that known authors have merely stuck their name onto because the style of writing is different. 


As for your prior comment polishing a jewel/diamond*, _anyone_ can polish a jewel/diamond. It's making a jewel/diamond out of coal [that turd] which takes real skill. 


*the saying is diamond in the rough & you polish it. Not any old jewel to both you & Penless.


----------



## Sam

Glatteis said:


> Neither Rowling [Harry Potter], James [50 Shades of Grey] nor Collins [Hunger Games] are particularly skilled writers but they still sell. In fact, they write with a style I'd more associate with a slightly or rather scatter-brained teenager writing for fellow teenagers. There are parts which are obviously pantsing for they are so slapped together, so mismatched, so what the heck is this twit blubbering about you'd think they wrote it while impaired. On the reverse skilled writers such as King, Benchley, & Crichton are not so slap-together writing this while so drunk I'm lucky I don't fall out of my chair stylized. A number of their works follow a preset plan as obvious by how any deviation from this pre-set plan is not really touched upon beyond fleeting mention.
> 
> Now you are right in a way, great writing takes skill. But skilled writers have techniques & they don't really deviate. That's how you can tell stories "written" by other people that known authors have merely stuck their name onto because the style of writing is different.
> 
> 
> As for your prior comment polishing a jewel/diamond*, _anyone_ can polish a jewel/diamond. It's making a jewel/diamond out of coal [that turd] which takes real skill.
> 
> 
> *the saying is diamond in the rough & you polish it. Not any old jewel to both you & Penless.



It is precisely what you said: 

"Skilled writers have techniques which they don't deviate from". 

My technique -- and one, I might add, I've been using for twenty years -- is to let the story build naturally without a plan. It is a technique favoured by greats such as Robert Ludlum, who is still to this day the number-one bestselling thriller author of all time, and therefore I take umbrage with the notion that pantsing = bad and planning = panacea for all writing ails. 

As I said above, I've been doing this for a long time. There is no guarantee that using a plan will make someone a better writer, nor is there any evidence that pantsing will either, so what else could it be if not skill? Yes, people sometimes make it big without any discernible skill; that isn't evidence of skill being unnecessary, but of the fact that sometimes s**t sells by the trough-load.


----------



## JustRob

Glatteis said:


> Neither Rowling [Harry Potter], James [50 Shades of Grey] nor Collins [Hunger Games] are particularly skilled writers but they still sell.



Two hundred posts and no end in sight. I'm starting to look for new diversions in this thread. For example, in another thread I might question the grammar in that sentence. Apparently there are mixed views about the wisdom of using "neither" in a selection from three and, given that such a selection reduces the choice to just one, I would expect the verb and subsequent noun to be singular. I thought I'd just mention it to break the tedium. This thread is about what makes for good writing and currently how much acquired skill contributes to that in particular, isn't it? A skilled writer doesn't have to plan to use it; it just happens, not just in the grammar but in structure, continuity, characterisation, etc.

Sam's right about what sells by the trough-load as well.


----------



## Phil Istine

JustRob said:


> Two hundred posts and no end in sight. I'm starting to look for new diversions in this thread. For example, in another thread I might question the grammar in that sentence. Apparently there are mixed views about the wisdom of using "neither" in a selection from three and, given that such a selection reduces the choice to just one, I would expect the verb and subsequent noun to be singular. I thought I'd just mention it to break the tedium. This thread is about what makes for good writing and currently how much acquired skill contributes to that in particular, isn't it? A skilled writer doesn't have to plan to use it; it just happens, not just in the grammar but in structure, continuity, characterisation, etc.
> 
> Sam's right about what sells by the trough-load as well.



Maybe 'writing process' could be a prompt option in July's LM Fiction Challenge.


----------

