Forum: Author Hangout

You misunderstand what I do.

Sorry. I remember you stating that earlier and forgot the precise details (I think it was someone else who stated they finish each chapter before continuing at the same time you talked about your process, so I likely conflated the detailed).

Of course, the less planning up front the more rewriting later.

Yeah, that's assumed. But then, you're also better able to incorporate the later material for better prepping your readers (i.e. beyond simple foreshadowing) beforehand.

Which is a damned good reason to not send chapter 2 and chapter 6 to the proofreader until you've finished chapter 17. It's also a reason to not polish chapters 2 and 6 until you have inserted the information that you might need there.

That's also the best reason for getting a content editor involved early in the process. Before, I had him editing at the same time as my other editors, and often it would produce significant changes to the already-edited chapters (since proofing takes considerably less time than content editing, which often takes multiple passes).

When I was actively writing. I could go one of three ways.

The first was how the Freya Cycle was created. I used the Shantaram Story Architecture that I had adapted to short stories. In it, you had themes, symbolism, I.E. art critic shit.

The second was a set of bullet points that covered the major points I wanted to hit w/ any cool dialogue I thought up. I would revise as I wrote. The characters would flat refuse to cooperate if they didn't like what I wanted them to do. This was The Better Than the Jackpot stories. Amy just would not co-operate and Tiff was insistent that as much as she wanted to she was not going to have intercourse with Dan for any reason.

The third way was to just sit down and write. Check for spelling and grammar then post. This was the BIQ's. I did have to do the math on the kids birthday to get the story to work but other than that it was straight pantsing.

Point is any style will work as long as you work it.

The first was how the Freya Cycle was created. I used the Shantaram Story Architecture that I had adapted to short stories. In it, you had themes, symbolism, I.E. art critic shit.

I'll have to check that out, as I take a similar approach, often writing out (yes, these I do write out, as I again refer back to these documents to keep the story on track as it evolves) the theme, the overall conflicts, and each character's individual internal conflicts (once again, this helps keep the slow, discussions about what happened and what the next stage is compelling, as the characters often argue different positions before finally agreeing on a single approach). Thus it's not so much 'art critic shit', as it helps you in constructing the story in the first place (the art critic shit comes later, when they try to 'deconstruct' the story to fit into their particular models, to argue the story dovetails with other, completely unrelated stories).

While authors have historically relied upon those elements, they frequently argue voraciously over whether the literary analysis of their work holds water, or is a leaky sieve, unable to hold up on its own.

The first was how the Freya Cycle was created. I used the Shantaram Story Architecture that I had adapted to short stories.

Ah, the Shantaram Story Architecture isn't a specific technique for writing stories, but is merely a description by the author of how he organized this one story. It's insightful, but I'd thought it was an organized technique, with items to review, as I was hoping it might contain a few items I may have missed attempting the same things on my own.

If nothing else, it would be handy having a label to apply to this approach, simply so others could look it up when we mention it.

I thought it was a technique so I treated it as one. It actually worked out pretty good for me. Lol

I thought it was a technique so I treated it as one. It actually worked out pretty good for me.

It works as one, but generally, to be considered a 'literary' technique, someone has to sit down, plot out the components, interview various authors to get their input on the requirements, gets published in a recognized literary magazine (cough, cough, 'rag') and is recognized as a literary technique by published authors (i.e. pops up immediately with a Google Search, though "Mary Sue" fits that category, based only on a single fanfic piece from 1977).

But as I said, I use a similar approach, and truth be told, we discussed the issue, and as with many literary techniques, I believe you went looking for references to follow and only found that single source, as I don't know of any specific 'named' literary technique for it. Given that, it's a decent place to turn.

You're correct. I found basically a description of the process by the author and went from there. He is one of those reformed criminal types who rather than trying to be somebody's guru per say gave it as a gift. When he noticed he was getting overly famous basically said not happening and pulled the plug. Any literary rag should be proud of it. ;)

In general terms, I don't have a story, plot, or other device in my concious mind at the beginning. To date it's always been a meditative exercise to me. Writing a coherent procedure or technical document requires almost slavish devotion to the analytical approach. That doesn't lend itself well to creativity.

Like others here, I don't write from an outline. Instead I work from 'plot points', where I know certain things need to occur at a particular stage (though what chapter they land in isn't predetermined.

However, I don't write any of it down. Instead, I'll sit on a story, often for months at a time, considering approaches to the story until I firm up the events in the story (again, way-points rather than details). But the only things I'll actually write down is the story description (as referring to it helps me keep the primary conflict of the story as my primary concern) and the cast list (since those details are often essential to maintain throughout the story).

From my perspective, every writer who claims to be a writer has their own approach. As such, I don't think there is a right or wrong approach to it.

You're right about that, but it is handy comparing notes about the writing process, in case we can pick up something we can use ourselves, or in the worst case, we decide our approach isn't working as well as we'd hoped.