Forum: Author Hangout

I'm a pantser but I know the following before beginning:

1. main characters and their relationships

2. plot's conflict (what the protagonist wants and what's in the way)

3. inciting incident (what sets the conflict in motion)

4. plot's climax/conflict resolution

So I know the ending before I begin. Not with every "i" dotted and "t" crossed, but in general.

I find I do better if I either don't have 4, or have a fully plotted out story from beginning to end before I start writing.

If I don't have an ending in mind, I can follow the story where it naturally leads, and when I find an ending, I stop.

Or I can figure out the whole plot before I start, which is basically going through that process of working through the natural story flow from beginning to end in sketchy form without getting down into the details, and then start writing once I know not only where I'm going, but how I'm getting there.

But if I have a beginning and an end in mind when I start writing, but no middle, I often find that the natural progression of the story from that beginning doesn't lead to that end, and I end up meandering around trying to force things onto a track that leads the right direction, and ultimately stalling out and abandoning the work.

I think it comes down to whether you write a character-driven story or a plot-driven story. Characters can hijack a character-driven story and force a change in direction such that the ending is going to have to change. However, if the characters are mostly reacting to events going on around them that they have little to no control over, it's easier to get from beginning to ending with few detours.

I think it comes down to whether you write a character-driven story or a plot-driven story.

Agreed, but again, there's no reason you can't mix and match, adding character conflicts into an existing plot-driven story. Just because you have one doesn't mean the entire story ends with that single element.

Agreed. I find that if I'm working off an outline, I may as well write the damned thing from scratch. At least it's interesting for me.

Such things really don't exist. The ONLY reason to write from an outline is because your publisher requires one, meaning they can't trust you to have any clue where the story is going. And even in those cases, most authors (the successful ones, anyway) simply write the outlines once they've gotten most of the story written!

Anyone who actually start with a plot outline isn't writing, they're defining a plot outline for a homework assignment.

I know several authors who always do a detailed outline before they write the story. They don't understand how others can write without an outline.

So, does anyone here find them useful, beneficial or helpful? As I'd like to hear from the 'other' side.

The "free" time I can devote to writing is always in short supply so in the interest of not wasting what precious time I have, I outline. It usually starts with an idea I roll around in my head--often for several months. I work out the character motivations, the general plot, and the conclusion.

Once I think I have it in my head, I outline it on paper. This step is important to me because this is where I find out if I have a plot hole I'd failed to consider. Without the outline, I'd hit this wall in my writing and get frustrated or feel like I have writers block because I wouldn't know what comes next. I've cut way back on those frustrations just by spending this extra time on preparation.

When I outline, I start with broad, one sentence statements about what happens in each chapter. When I have each chapter identified, I further break it down by scenes. To get from point A to point B in the plot, I know I need a scene in which X happens, then a scene in which Y happens, etc.

To some of you it may seem like I'm sucking all the fun and spontaneity out of writing, but I promise you I still get that writer's high when a connection snaps into place. It could be a motivation I hadn't considered, a snappy comeback, or a piece of my plot puzzle that finally falls into place. Sometimes it's during the brainstorming phase, sometimes the outline phase, and sometimes the writing phase.

Speaking as a hardcore pantser, not to me. I just know that when I do that, now that I know the story, *I* would be bored bored bored with it. I know perfectly well that to some writers, that your method exactly suits their processes and how their writer-brains work. But not mine.

I'm in the middle ground here, having a basic plot outline (but nothing written down and no chapter-by-chapter details) doesn't limit me, but what keeps me going is when the characters take over the story and run with it. Then you just type as fast as you can before the characters run off to their next encounter, leaving you behind (often as you're falling asleep at night, requiring you to leap from your bed to record all the details before you forget them forever).

That said, it's when the 'characters' run off that the trouble often begins, as it's hard to tell just which trajectories are actually the characters, and which are me trying to force the characters into a particular direction.

I just know that when I do that, now that I know the story, *I* would be bored bored bored with it.

I can appreciate that. Writing is work and we either need passion or a paycheck to keep our butts in front of the keyboard. If passion for a project runs out then the words stop flowing. I think I keep my passion going because I still find new ways to amuse myself even after all the outlining. For example, in the one story I have posted here I amused myself by coming up with a supervillain whose power was to turn into a pile of goo (named Gooon) and another that was a genius, telepathic rat wearing a lab coat. (I might have a juvenile sense of humor.) That didn't come out in outline, it was just part of the creative process during writing and it amused me mightily.

Writing is work and we either need passion or a paycheck to keep our butts in front of the keyboard. If passion for a project runs out then the words stop flowing. I think I keep my passion going because I still find new ways to amuse myself even after all the outlining.

I'll NEVER sell many, as my plots end up overly complicated and take quite a bit of focus to understand.

Yeah, but they still filmed 12 Monkeys. So anything's possible.

If you think Monkeys is strange

First, understand that when I first watched that movie, I'd just come out of a coma and was on some serious meds. I watched it a dozen or so times because I couldn't recall the story afterward, and assumed I'd kept falling asleep during it. A couple months later, I watched it and realized that the story was pretty challenging to identify.

Which is ironic, as with my anthology series, I start with a twist then write the story around that. And the most challenging part is trying to keep the twist in plain sight, but not obvious to the reader.

I still get that writer's high when a connection snaps into place. It could be a motivation I hadn't considered, a snappy comeback, or a piece of my plot puzzle that finally falls into place.

So... What do you do when you are outlining and didn't these ideas are popping up? I find myself writing them into the outline, and that makes it to unwieldy. What do you do?

I think there's a typo in there that's making it hard for me to parse your question. If you're asking what do I do with all the cool ideas I have during or prior to the outline stage, mostly I just hold onto them in my brain.

If it's a cool idea I think I'm going to forget then maybe I'll summarize it in one or two sentences to jog my memory later. I don't try to capture whole cool scenes during outlining because I lose the passion to write out the "connective tissue" and actually complete the story. I write the scenes in sequence such that reaching the scene I've been looking forward to writing is its own reward.

The mental tricks we writers have to do to ourselves are kind of funny, aren't they?

Yup. Weird typo. Thanks for getting the gist right!

I've been writing more, afraid I'd lose it, but then the bulk of what I've written screws up the outline. Also, I get ideas that, while affecting a few scenes in the book I'm working on, really have relevance for future books. But, I think I need to head more in your direction. Limited notes, and trust myself for the creative juice when it is actually time to write the scene!

I write the scenes in sequence such that reaching the scene I've been looking forward to writing is its own reward.

Once I think I have it in my head, I outline it on paper. This step is important to me because this is where I find out if I have a plot hole I'd failed to consider.

Anyone who actually start with a plot outline isn't writing, they're defining a plot outline for a homework assignment.

Bullshit.

Now, putting a plot outline down on paper? Maybe not. But a number of writers actually know what various trigger events in a story are going to be in order to move the plot along. Sticking slavishly to a plot outline (even if just in one's head) isn't great, but again, if you aren't writing a character-driven piece (and the characters only have a couple degrees of freedom, rather than the capability to derail the story) you're ok.

Bullshit.

Now, putting a plot outline down on paper? Maybe not. But a number of writers actually know what various trigger events in a story are going to be in order to move the plot along.

Actually, that describes me to a 'T', except I do the entire outline in my head, and often allow it to sit for months at a time, as I evaluate how to proceed (and how to process it). What's more, by NOT creating a written chapter-by-chapter outline, and merely by using 'waypoints' in the story plot, you're not artificially restricted in where the story might go (for better or ill).

Typically, the very first things I'll write are: 1) the story description and 2) the character list, though sometimes, if I'm not sure the story will pan out, I'll also write 3) a couple 'test chapters' to see if the story actually has any legs or not.

But you may also have a point about the plot/character-driven stories. Of those who DO use story outlines (either written or not), are your stories plot or character driven? It may be that character driven stories are allowed a bit more freedom than character-driven ones are (or versa/visa?)

I knew an author who was contacted by a Penguin imprint when Fifty Shades was selling like crazy. They asked her to write a novel like that. This author wrote the novel in collaboration with another author. They wrote the detailed outline and then divided up the chapters.

Now that makes sense, but again, that's the outline as a limiting factor, preventing one author from taking the story and running off with it. With two, you'd have to ensure the work was equally divided to prevent that from happening.

The reason the end should be known is so you don't meander. Everything you write should lead to that ending.

In every story, the protagonist has a want.

Sometimes it's a want. Sometimes it's a need, as in something as basic and primitive as survival.

And sometimes the protagonist just wants to be left alone, but trouble/conflict comes looking for him.

And sometimes the protagonist just wants to be left alone, but trouble/conflict comes looking for him.

But seriously, what you're describing is the character's 'calling', where there's a task, the character doesn't think he's suited or even qualified for the task, but belatedly comes to realize that he's the only one who can see the entire picture—typically because he has a unique perspective the others lack.

That's one way of doing it, but not exactly what I was thinking about.

Think of this. MC: a young wealthy recluse. A trust fund kid with no real interest in the world at large.

The villain of the piece want's the MC's money and hires assassins to kill the MC.

The MC is not at all well suited to the task ahead of him, but he is thrust into a situation where the options are: defeat the assassins and the main villain, die trying, or just roll over and die.

That's one way of doing it, but not exactly what I was thinking about.

Think of this. MC: a young wealthy recluse. A trust fund kid with no real interest in the world at large.

The MC is not at all well suited to the task ahead of him, but he is thrust into a situation where the options are: defeat the assassins and the main villain, die trying, or just roll over and die.

In the Greek Comedy/Tragedy, when the conflict is resolved it's a comedy; when not it's a tragedy.

No. The conflict is still resolved in either case, but just because a conflict is resolved doesn't guarantee that the protagonist wins. In fact, the very concept of a 'tragic hero' is a protagonist who succeeds, only by personally sacrificing himself in order to achieve their goal.

Stick with the plan, or write something better?

One of the best literary ideas I've ever heard is: if a story doesn't work out, don't revise it, throw the entire thing and start again with a new story. Otherwise, you're only patching an acknowledgedly flawed story, whereas a new book will focus on a more refined set of conflicts, rather than a single overly simplistic one.

And trust me, I've wasted YEARS trying to rewrite or endless revise older (somewhat flawed) books, and the entire enterprise typically ends in utter failure. It's easier to write an entirely new book (typically 2 to 8 months) than it is to rewrite or reconstruct an older one (more typically 12 to 36 months).

For me, a story is more compelling if it resolves the central conflict.

In every story, the protagonist has a want. The conflict is whatever is preventing the character from that want. Resolving that conflict for good or ill is the plot. If the conflict is resolved and the story keeps going then a new conflict needs to take its place or the story loses purpose.

I think there's a BIG difference between having an idea where the story is going, and simply abandoning all control and simply following your characters around. The second is a writer (i.e. someone who writes) whereas the first is a novelist (i.e. they don't just write, they construct complete novels, including pacing, anticipation, conflict development, subplots, subthreads and inner conflicts. The first just writes until they get too tired of the same old shit to continue, the other ends when the story is DONE!

There's a big difference between knowing what you're doing and just pretending you know.

If my MC decided he was going to grab an axe and start killing people

You would be a hack writer. Because he was hacking people with his axe.

You would be a hack writer. Because he was hacking people with his axe.

Unless he was a hackneyed authors, in which case he'd only hack people's knees (those who 'kneecap' someone would THEN put a small metal cap on it, to help hold the remains in place).

@StarFleet Carl

But they all sought him out, because of his Axe Body Spray.

This strikes me as a false dichotomy, or perhaps almost everyone goes in the first category.

That was the 'false dichotomy' comment; most writers who are 'pantsers' still have guardrails and don't abandon all control.

I'll definitely concede that, as I'm know to go off the rails in the comments occasionally. And I've also had a few stories where the protagonists drifted a bit--though as I've long maintained, that's typically a hallmark of writer's block--when your characters get up and walk out rather to do what you're asking them too. That's a sign to sit down, figure out which specific acts they object to, and then start again, adjusting the specific trigger chapter. It doesn't take long to fix, but it often takes LONG time identifying that you have a problem in the first place.

Definition of panzer

'Pantser' is a quasi-literary theory where supposedly some authors write 'by the seat of their pants', as opposed to the 'Plotters', who detail every stage of the story from beginning to end. Personally, I don't really believe in either, as the model is entirely too simplistic and artificial, but it is a great way to pigeonhole specific authors!

Its a punny world. (full of puns). If it were a puny world it would be
"pu·ny
/ˈpyo͞onē/

Strange, as I've always pronounced it as "pee(long-e)u(long-u)n-ee(long e)".

But actually, "punny" is closer to "bunny" than it is to "puny", as the long u essentially makes it into a two-syllable word (though it's actually pronounced as one, as if saying it so fast you mash the two together in one shortened version).

If the End is a butt, you could add some anal action.

If someone's butt is sitting on your face, then it's hard to think of anything else, so yeah, their End is definitely on you Mind.

Does writing on a site like SOL encourage "pantsing"?

I've often thought that the 'post each chapter as you write it' helps (but doesn't directly lead to it), as the author gets an idea and runs without, but never doubles back to add the necessary foreshadowing and development to justify the action. It hardly happens in most cases, but when it does, it's fairly noticeable.

It's easier to organize your story and keep the plot tight when no one can actually see its development, just the end result once it's been cleaned up and squared away. In that case, it's less about pantsing or structure and more about clean-up and revisions.

But again, the whole 'pantsing' vs. 'structure' is more about publishers anyway, as they get incredibly nervous if they can't tell where-the-fuck the author is heading. Seeing a tight plot outlines eases their mind, but does little to move the needle in the story. But then, for those who write according to an established formula, all they really need to change are the background details, setting and a bit of dialogue and they're off and running.

My morning shower is where my ideas express themselves so I suspect my subconscious has a lot to do with my inspiration.

Obviously, interesting plots are important, but once an author has a character act in such a way that they can't adequately explain (just to move the plot in a particular way), it takes me right out of the story.

There's no argument there. The readers have to care about the characters. If not, the plot doesn't matter. If they don't care, the conflict doesn't matter because the reader won't care if the character succeeds. And since plot = conflict, if they don't care about the character overcoming the conflict, therefore, they don't care about the plot.

To me, your characters are more important than your plot. After all, you can't have a plot if you don't have characters.

Instead of trying to rank the importance of plot and characters, (which seems rather pointless) why not think in terms of a triangle?

The 'fire' triangle has oxygen, fuel & heat as the necessary components, remove one and there is no fire.

A story triangle has characters, plot and setting, take away one and the story fails.

I once read someone saying that whether you write plot-driven or character-driven, when it's done the reader doesn't know which approach you took.

problems of a character-driven story

Cmsix had truck driver heroes. And the stories are about what happened to them, so they were character driven stories.

cmsix was notorious for writing himself into a corner, but his yarns and characters were so frickin' entertaining, you just didn't care. For the most part, he was true to his characters too.

Cmsix had truck driver heroes. And the stories are about what happened to them, so they were character driven stories.

Now that is fair. It's one of the potential problems of a character-driven story. The way I try to combat that in my writing is by going back over what I've written and performing frequent continuity checks. If a plot seems sloppy, I try to clean it up if I can. Story arcs can really suffer too sometimes, but I find if you try to keep your stories moving, you can overcome a mediocre story arc with an interesting over all plot and some decent action and/or intrigue.

Obviously, you need a plot (and a setting) to have a story, but you can take a character and put him anywhere and in any situation and as long as you know what the character will do, it doesn't matter if the author plotted it before the character was created or not.

Likewise, the characters have match the plot, and the setting. You can't pick up a German Panzer unit and drop them into San Francisco during the 60s, or Manhattan during the 90s.

Or a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

Or a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

Obviously not a rule in this case, but it's amusing.

When I hear, "great character", or "excellent plot" used to describe a story I'm immediately reminded of 'the curate's egg'.

As has been stated already, skilful world-building isn't enough without it being populated by believable characters. Those two elements alone won't make a good story if nothing really happens.

The 'triangle' therefore makes more sense.

To me the perfect story keeps the tired reader awake, the uneducated and erudite equally entertained whilst appealing to both sexes, it challenges the old and inspires the young.

Not an easy thing to achieve, but a worthy target to aim for.

Not an easy thing to achieve, but a worthy target to aim for.

World-building is kind of an exception to the rule. Still, you eventually need to populate that world with something interesting, or people will lose interest, lol.

I recall Eddings' work being referred to as 'travelogs' - lot of world building, with developed (although usually stereotypically so) characters.

You can write an entire story with no clearly defined ending, by simply throwing characters into situations and watching how they will react. It can be a compelling story if the author has their characters act (or react) believably (based upon the way he/she had previously drawn them).

This works IF the reader 1) cares about the character(s) and 2) cares about the situation.

In modern literature (not the broader sense, but in the bookstore category) you can write a novel about someone making a sandwich. To those of us in genre fiction (or, at least to me) that doesn't make for a very compelling book. A pantser story with compelling characters but a weak conflict may coast for a while on the goodwill of readers who are invested in the characters, but eventually they'll lose interest if the stakes don't rise. Whereas the danger of plotted stories are characters who seem to act out of character just to fit plot.

Both of these problems can be easily fixed in revisions, but when publishing serially and you can only go forward then they are really magnified.

I think you can come up with a compelling plot with suitable conflict, at least I think I do (or at least, so I'm told, lol). The trick remains to avoid forcing your characters into doing something that they wouldn't normally do (without reasonable justification), just so the author can get to a certain point in the story. That is where you start losing readers.

The key isn't ignoring the plot restrictions, it's learning to recognize when your characters go 'off-script', and then reining them back in. That's easily as important as recognizing when the plot goes off-script, such as when a transporter suddenly appears in the middle of a story without being previously introduced and set up.

A lot of the time, writers overlook one simple fact: people (and thus characters) don't always have the options to do things - if the characters are insisting to do something that would screw up the plot, outside influences that make those actions impossible are reasonable sometimes. Yes, in some instances it'd be a reverse deus ex machina (or, the unending sea of little blue-skinned pikemen, or a tentacled horror indicating to the characters "not this way") but unless you're writing high fantasy where the characters are all equivalent to recognized diplomats and thus free to go where they will and do what they will... it's not that hard to force them to act in a certain way, and have them bitch and moan about doing something other than what they wanted so the readers don't.

Reconsidering it after having slept on it, I think the bigger distinction isn't 'characters going stray' as it is bad endings. It's a recognized fact, in a large number of bestselling main-stream published stories, that certain authors just write poor or, at best, middling endings. That's actually more common (at least in the mainstream publishing world) than stories where the characters 'spoil' the ending.

While a bad ending can sour readers on a particular author (i.e. it's more likely to hurt sales of their next book), it typically doesn't limit the success of that book, as the controversies over the ending often fuel intensive discussions over how excellent the book was until the unsatisfactory ending!

CW- Respectfully, I don't agree. As an author, if you clearly define your characters and relationships in your mind, you don't need a plot outline to determine how these characters would react to a certain situation (and how it would affect their relationships).

get accused of that a lot in one series, but the thing is I had been dropping hints prior to that happening for quite a while beforehand.

Like that the first girlfriend in school was really a slut. She did love the main character in her own way, but once he left the area she reverted to how she was before.

Then another who years later seemed to come up out of nowhere and leave him. Got a lot of grief for that, but for many chapters before stated that she did not think he was pushing himself enough.

Part of the issue was that I was just trying to cover too large of a time period.