Organism VS Engine

[Mistook]

Lately, it seems to be popping up on different threads, this concept of an "organic" story - one which is grown, as if from a seed, and which takes on a life of it's own. It seems the author of such a story is more of a caretaker, with a green thumb... pruning, watering, etc... and allowing the story to grow naturally. And if you like you could liken the organic story to an animal rather than a plant. The point is, it's a creature.

So I'm thinking that on the other end of the spectrum, there is the "mechanical" story - one which is designed and built, like a motorcycle or a watch - carefully calibrated and lubricated for optimum performance.

*So is mechanical necessarily inferior to organic?

*Is any story fully one or the other?

*Do different genre's lend themselves to one style over the other?

Discuss.

[sunandshadow]

If you happened to believe in directed evolution, would there be a difference? ;)

Personally I like to think of creating a novel as if I am a god designing and sculpting a living organism.

[azbikergirl]

If you happened to believe in directed evolution, would there be a difference? ;)

Personally I like to think of creating a novel as if I am a god designing and sculpting a living organism.

I much prefer this analogy -- living organism -- to the mechanical watch (or motorcycle) one. I'd hate to think the finished product seems 'mechanical.'

I sometimes write short stories by starting with only a vague idea and letting the story flow, but so far I haven't been able to write a novel that way. I need some structure -- not a lot -- just enough to know where I'm going with it (and to know whether I get there). Maybe one day when I'm more experienced I can write novels more 'organically.'

[Jamesaritchie]

I kind of like the analogy of organic/mechanical, at least the way you phrased it. I don't believe one form is necessarily better than the other, but they do strike me as producing different types of novels, and probably appeal to different types of readers.

I first thought there was a difference when I looked into the writing methods of my favorite writers and found all but one wrote the same way I do, which is what you call "organic." That made me wonder, so I still do the same thing. When I find a new writer I really enjoy reading, I look into the way he writes, and far more often than not, he will be an organic writer.

But I know other readers who have the reverse experience. This tells me there is a difference, but not one of better/worse. If this difference really is there, and I firmly believe it is, it's a matter of different strokes for different folks, different types of books for different readers.

I can't think of a genre where my favorite writers aren't "organic" writers, though there seem to be fewer "organic" writers in science fiction than most other genres. I don't read enough fantasy novels to have an opinion. Other than Rowling, I probably don't read a fantasy novel more than once a year, if that. But in western, mystery, techno-thriller, romance, mainstream, and literary, all but a couple of my favorite writers would fall into the "organic" class. And most of the "mechanical" writers I enjoy aren't heavily "mechanical." They write very brief outlines, plot lightly, and veer away form the outline often.

Now, this could be because there are so many more "organic" writers than "mechanical" writers, but this doesn't seem to be the case. From my exprience and study, something over half of all writers are "organic," but not enough to justify the numbers of writers I enjoy versus those I don't.

But as I said, other readers I've known who tried this had the reverse results, in that the majority of writers they like turn out to be "mechanical" writers.

This tells me it's probably a matter of taste, but it also tells me there is usually some difference in the finished product.

[Mistook]

I suppose a mechanical story always has a strong element of fate, driving the plot. There's some overarching point to be made, and so the characters are forced to illustrate it. They aren't exactly the masters of their destiny, something larger is driving the plot.

I think in a good story of this type, the character demonstrates their free will, by fighting against this fate, or doubting their purpose, the way a real person might, and part of the drama comes from that. But the payoff comes when they either accept their purpose and bloom, or reject it and die, or turn evil.

There's no getting around the "morality play" dimension of a mechanical tale. Even in something like Hitchhiker's Guide, where the characters are more or less helpless against the tides of beaurocracy, there's great laughs to be had, but the moral there is still clear - "Life is absurd, and the more seriously you take it, the bigger the fool you are."

Fountainhead would be a classic mechanical story. Every character is a caricature - an embodiment of some virtue or vice. The whole thing is designed to illustrate Ayn Rands philosophy, but since it's larger than life, it's still a compelling read... at least for a teenager. It makes you think.

DaVinci Code, I would say is highly mechanical. The whole point of the story is to posit this concept of Mary Magdaline as the mother of Jesus' offspring, and toss Catholic dogma on it's ear.

I guess to have a "good" mechanical story, the point your making must be something worth making - be it a new insight, or a defining metaphore for something that needs defining (like Orwell's 1984) - and the way the point is made must be entertaining, if not realistic.

[icerose]

I wouldn't say one is better or worse, it all goes down to personal preference. Me, I am definately an organic writer. I rarely ever outline anything and do very light plotting and such. There is a difference in the outcome of the book. Same goes with the writers attitude. If the writer is out to prove something, then you can really feel it in the tone of the book. At least I can.

Sara

[aruna]

I can't think of a genre where my favorite writers aren't "organic" writers, though there seem to be fewer "organic" writers in science fiction than most other genres. I don't read enough fantasy novels to have an opinion. Other than Rowling, I probably don't read a fantasy novel more than once a year, if that. But in western, mystery, techno-thriller, romance, mainstream, and literary, all but a couple of my favorite writers would fall into the "organic" class. And most of the "mechanical" writers I enjoy aren't heavily "mechanical." They write very brief outlines, plot lightly, and veer away form the outline often.

.

Interesting. I would love to find out how my favourite writers wrote their books; how do you research this? On the internet? Interviews in them media?
As for myself, I am definitely an organic writer. I ofetn have the feeling that the stories I write already exist, and all I am is a scribe.

[zornhau]

....there is the "mechanical" story - one which is designed and built, like a motorcycle or a watch - carefully calibrated and lubricated for optimum performance.

My approach to writing probably fits into this category. (I dislike the your term because a lot of visualisation is required for this approach.)

The following is IMHO, only:

>So is mechanical necessarily inferior to organic?
No, the results should be the same.

An "Outliner" seeks to produce the tight plot as or before they draft. An "Organic" achieves the same initially through cutting and revision, but eventually through experience and instinct.

>Is any story fully one or the other?
No. Most Outliners say that the outline changes with the writing. Most organics have some idea of what they're going to write, even if they keep it locked in their unconscious.

>Do different genre's lend themselves to one style over the other?
Different kinds of stories, I think, rather than genres.

Imagined not using an outline when writing about complex interactions between several characters, especially if their actions alter the setting, e.g. MilSF or a military thriller (e.g. Red Storm Rising)

[SRHowen]

If it makes a difference in the story or not--and I too prefer the organic story (write that way myself--and seem to favor authors who also do) it always makes a huge difference to those just starting out writing.

As all the threads, heated and cool arguments about it--better or worse, works or doesn't, the I don't see how you can write that way --on both sides of the coin. Writers get quite "emotional" about it.

I think some of it is frustration factor. They start out writing one way, most likely the way they were taught in HS or even earlier--or had pounded into their heads in places of higher learning. Outline, you must, or your story will suck. No, no, no, let the character's take the lead with all due speed.

So the new writer says OK, this is how it's done and off they go. When they meet with frustration, the wall, writer's block, a story that doesn't work, they search for why--and here is where many seem to land.

What if I had grown the story iinstead--what if I had outlined it like old Mrs. Bee told us in 8th grade? Then someone says no no no you can't do it that way you have to do this or you won't have a plot, your story will be aimless--someone else says, heck just let he characters talk to you and everything works out--I promise. Then all the other stuff gets in there, but if you don't outline how do you foreshadow, how do you---no no no--the characger's know, just write as you go.

Bout this time I imagine the writer is ready to smash the keyboard.

Back in when first took creative writing in HS, the teacher, a nasty bitter woman (but we won't get into that or why she was that way) was of the you must outline sort. She would assign stories and we had to have a package for her when we turned them in--outline, character sketches, a story bible, the whole plot it step by step thing--

So I set out to do that and found to my horror--although I was a wounderful oral story teller--hey, at family reunions little cousins flocked around me--following me until I told them a story--I could not do the assignments.

So sitting in front of my old Royal typewriter (manual if you must know) I wrote a story just like I woudl have told my little followers. WOW, the words flowed just like when I would sit under a tree and look for something and start talking--see that bird there, well he told me and off I went. I turned in the story and later the lovely teacher said where is the rest of this? She meant the outline and the mechanical package.

I said, isn't it there?

gotta love the teen mind.

You must have left it at home, bring it in tomorrow and I will only dock you one grade.

So home I went. Where I sat down in front of the green monster (that old Royal) and I typed up character sketches, plot lines, and time lines, and scene order--and so on--after the story had been written.

What this showed me was that no matter which kind of writer you are (and I think it does break down to --what kind of writer you are, not which way is better) all the elements of a story are there.

And you can be either kind of writer and write sucky stuff, or great stuff.

Shawn

[NeuroFizz]

What this thread is addressing isn't the finished product. It's the approach. There is no single path to "the goal." And there aren't two. A good story can come from any method of preparation, including none, meaning nothing written down before cutting loose at the keyboard. We all have different talents, and different ways to bring those talents out. With that said, it is helpful to look into how one's favorite writers prepare their stories. However, what we find shouldn't limit us as individuals. Study others' methods, but develop your own. Do what works.

[Aconite]

It appears to me, from some conversations with mystery writers, that mystery as a genre lends itself to the mechanical method. (Mind you, I've mostly talked with people who write historical mysteries. I don't know how much a difference that makes.) The need to know what was done by whom, how, why, and when, and what could and couldn't be known or done is so critical that you almost have to know it all in advance to write it well.

If either method is done well, the reader shouldn't be able to tell which was used to make the piece.

[Tirjasdyn]

I would think the mechanical would more of a formlaic type of story. Same plot same characters, over and over again. Moorcock, and David Morrell come to mind. While the former explores different themes within the same premise,the latter writers the same story over and over again, without variation on theme or much on the plot either. Morrell created Rambo. I was quick to discover that all his books were exactically the same, I could predicted the end of all of them just by reading one. Moorcock was a thrill to read. I had fun guessing what the current experiment was. I loved being disspointed by one theme only to find the theme I wanted to happen a book or two later. I still love the idea of "An Alien Heat" which I have never seen another writer pull off.

Their's good and bad in mechanical. Organic can be beautiful or very very ugly. Most writers fall into organic, I think.

Planning is possible for both I think. I think you leave more room for suprises too.

[zornhau]

I would think the mechanical would more of a formlaic type of story. Same plot same characters, over and over again.

Actually, I seem to recall Robert McKee arguing the reverse.

Organics can easily fall into the trap of writing what "feels right" without realising it's kind of familiar because it's the same as their last 12 novels. They unconsciously apply the same boilerplate outline - formula - to everything they write.

Outliners engage with shape of their story at the outset, so enabling them to avoid endless rehashings.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, I seem to recall Robert McKee arguing the reverse.

Organics can easily fall into the trap of writing what "feels right" without realising it's kind of familiar because it's the same as their last 12 novels. They unconsciously apply the same boilerplate outline - formula - to everything they write.

Outliners engage with shape of their story at the outset, so enabling them to avoid endless rehashings.

I think people who believe this have never, ever managed to write a novel in an organic fashion. It seems the reverse to me. My biggest complaint with outlined novels is that I nearly always find them predictable. Especially in mysteries. Time after time after time, when I'm able to predict the ending of a novel, that novel turns out to be an outlined novel.

I do think "organic" writers can fall into the trap of writing the same novel over and over, but I still find such novels far less predictable that most outlined novels. And it's a mistake to think outliners can't also fall into the trap of writing the same novel over and over. One of the reasons outlined novels bother me is because they all seem to have the same predictable pattern of events. But falling into this trap has much more to do with the writer than with the method.

In all honesty, I think it's rather lame to suggest organic writers wouldn't realize a new novel is just like their last twelve. You'd have to have amnesia for this to happen. Organic or mechanical, writers write the same novel over and over because they've stumbled over something that works, that sells, and they stick to the easy path. Writing the same novel over and over is a conscious choice, and writers using any method do this.

I don't care whether you write in an organic fashion, or whether you outline, coming up with something new, taking that chance when you've already proven you can do one thing very well, is tough for any writer. It's tough stepping away from a winning "formula."

A winning novel becomes what the publisher wants from you, and want the majority of readers want. That's the trap. Millions of fans buy the novels, so publishers ask for the same thng again, and readers want the same thing again, and writing the same thing again is usually easy.

It's also a mistake to think "organic" writers don't engage the shape of their story at the onset. I know people who think this have never written an organic novel. Doing so is the whole point of organic writing, or at least of "situational" writing, which is what King talks about, and what most of us do, I think. The entire shape of the novel is set up in chapter one, you can set up any shape you wish in those first few pages, and I find this produces novels that are far different than outlined novels, if you , the publisher, and readers actually want it different. They seldom do.

Which is one reason many pro writers have a couple of pseudonyms.

Outliners do not, in any way, avoid endless rehashings, any more than some organic writers do. This is a trap of the writer, the publisher, and readers, not of the method. And it's not really such a bad trap. A good number of organic writers, and a good number of outliners, have ridden this trap to fame and fortune.

My main complaint against outlined novels isn't that they are rehashed, however, this happens with any writers using any method. My main complaint against outlined novels is that I almost always find them predictable, no matter how different they are.

[Aconite]

James, I'd say that the predictability of an outlined novel is more a failing of the author than of the method. You could just as easily say that of the rambling, unfocused novels you've read, almost all of them were written organically. Using either method badly is going to give you a flawed product.

I find that since I started writing, almost all books are too predictable. I can see the setups, I recognize certain techniques, and see where they're going way too far in advance on important points. Whether they're mechanical or organic doesn't make much difference.

[Katiba]

I too would like to know how you researched this to the point where you feel comfortable saying something like, "My main complaint against outlined novels is that I almost always find them predictable, no matter how different they are."

I'm curious as to what your sample is - are you talking about a dozen writers, a hundred, or what? And could you give us some examples of the outliners so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not the results are 'predictable'? Surely there are thousands (or more) of successful and published authors who have never mentioned to anyone, on line or in interviews, how they write?
I'm sorry if I sound confrontational, but I get a bit offended at the idea, which seems very prevalent on these boards, that if you don't produce your work through some mysterious, organic procedure, it's somehow inferior and you're somehow less of a writer. Personally I think that there are all different ways of approaching writing, and I would need to see a much more rigorous study than what's been presented here before I would be prepared to believe that one of them is superior to any other.

[Mike Martyn]

[QUOTE=zornhau]Actually, I seem to recall Robert McKee arguing the reverse.

Organics can easily fall into the trap of writing what "feels right" without realising it's kind of familiar because it's the same as their last 12 novels. They unconsciously apply the same boilerplate outline - formula - to everything they write.

QUOTE]

Ain't it the truth, Ain't it the truth!

I've done a rough draft of novel one and I'm working on novel two;

1. Novel one has as a m/c a man in his mid forties who is alone, embittered and has walked away from his great success, ditto novel two;

2. Novel one has two 13 year old boys as m/c s, Novel Two has one 13 year old boy as m/c but I give him a side kick and a girlfriend. In novel one both young m/c's don't have fathers. One has run off and the other is killed in a car accident, in novel two the father of the young m/c falls off a cliff, exit dad stage left;

3. In novel one Lovecraftian supernatural evil dudes are attempting to break into our world, in Novel Two, extra demensional organo- mechanical evil dudes are atempting to break into our world.

And so it goes!


I've set the first one in 1962 and the second in 2007. Do think anyone will notice the similarity?http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Jamesaritchie]

I too would like to know how you researched this to the point where you feel comfortable saying something like, "My main complaint against outlined novels is that I almost always find them predictable, no matter how different they are."

I'm curious as to what your sample is - are you talking about a dozen writers, a hundred, or what? And could you give us some examples of the outliners so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not the results are 'predictable'? Surely there are thousands (or more) of successful and published authors who have never mentioned to anyone, on line or in interviews, how they write?
I'm sorry if I sound confrontational, but I get a bit offended at the idea, which seems very prevalent on these boards, that if you don't produce your work through some mysterious, organic procedure, it's somehow inferior and you're somehow less of a writer. Personally I think that there are all different ways of approaching writing, and I would need to see a much more rigorous study than what's been presented here before I would be prepared to believe that one of them is superior to any other.

The research is a simple matter of everytime I read a book, I then try to find out as much about the writing method of the writer as possible. Doing so usually isn;t difficult. Do teh research for yourself. It's the only way you'll see what I mean. Everytime you read a book, rate it, and remember whether or not you found it predictable, which means how often trhoughout the book did you guess what was coming next. Then look into the writer's method of writing.

I can't do your research for you. We're different readers. But the books I've read that I've been able to see the ending coming, have almost inevitably been outlined novels.

It's really silly, but it alwasy comes down to somebody saying things like"some mysterious, organic procedure." The ONLY people who claim this kind of writing is mysterious, organic, or anything else, are those wgho can't or don;t write this way. No one who actually writes this way will ever make such a claim because it shows a complete lack of understanding about how novels are written in this manner.

There is nothing at all mysterious about it. The term "organic" is not my term. I know better. It's a method or writing that's based, I think, on oral storytelling, and it's a method that depends on knowing what good story structure is, what good characters are, and what a good story is. Far from being mysterious, its a dscipline, and it's done by many of teh very best writers. It has been for hundreds of years.

Nor did I say it was superiour. But it is different, and when I find a mystery novel predictable, it is almost inevitably an outlined novel. I never said it was scientific research done at bell labs, but I can say it works this way for me at a better than nine to one ratio.

Now, I don't know how many thousands of writers there are who have never mentioned to anyone how they write. Nor do I care. But there are darned few bestselling writers who aren't interviewed endlessly about how they write, and the ONLY writers I research are the ones I have personally read, which usually means they are writers who sell very well, and who are interviewed endlessly about their writing methods. Many of them have also written many articles and how-to books dealing with their writing methods.

If there are hundreds or thousands of suuccessful, published writers who don;t talk about how they write, you'll have to let me know who some of them are. In twenty-five years I've found exactly one writer out of thousands who kept quiet about his writing methods. That writer was William Faulkner.

If there are others, please let me know who they are. Surely tehre are some, but I have yet to find any of them.

And, of course, any writer who has reached the staus of classic writer has probably had a hundred books written about him, and most of these books deal heavily with writing methods. In college lit, we not only read classic novels, but spent long, long hours digging into the lives of the writers.

I also read Writer's Digest, The Writer, Writer's Journal, Byline, and Poets & Writers. I've read archives of Writer's Digest and The Writer going back fifty years. All these have articles by hundreds or thousands or writers that talk about their writing methods. I also read books on literary criticism. I also read as many how-to books as I can find, which also deal with writing methods. I also read as many biographies and autobiographies as possible, if they are about or by writers.

If there is a successful writer anywhere who doesn't love talking about his writing methods, or who doesn't write about his methods, or who hasn't been interviewed about his methods, I have yet to find him, William Faulkner aside. It was pretty easy before the internet came along, and now it's usually a snap. Seriously, pick a writer, any writer, you enjoy reading and see how long it takes you to learn his writing methods. There's nothng most writers enjoy more than talking about how they write their books, and nothing critics, reviewers, and fans ask more than "How do you write your books?"

So, no, there are definitely NOT hundreds or thousands of successful wirters who don't talk about their methods. If there have been a dozen since time began, I'd be astounded.

I suppose I'm talking about several hundred writers, probably more, though who keeps an exact count? I tend to read from two to four novels per week, sometimes more, and I've averaged this for nearly forty years. One year I read five hundred novels, though most were fairly short, the 60-70K kind you can read in three or four hours, tops.

I started looking up writing methods when I first began writing, and I've been doing it for many, many years.

And simply put, you do judge whether or not novels are predictable everytime you read one. But whether or not I can predict an ending doesn't mean you can or can't, and whether you can or can't doesn't mean I can.

I can only tell you that I, like a great many other readers, do sometimes see the ending of a novel coming, or see other events coming throughout the novel. That's just a fact. It does not mean you can do the same thing. And, primarily in mysteries, when I can predict the ending, or events along the way, I find that novel has been outlined. That's just how it is, like it or not.

But I never said one method was superior. I simply said I think they produce different kinds of novels, and when I do look into methods, I find that I enjoy those who write without outlining far more often than I enjoy those who outline. This, too, is simply a fact. And, yes, in every single instance it has been easy finding out how a writer writes his books. It in no way means one way is better than the other because there are just as many readers who prefer those writers I dislike, and who dislike many of the writers I love. Stephen King certainly has far more than his share of critics, after all. Just because I think he's a great writer does not in any way mean I'm right, or that thousands of readers won't disagree with me.

But time and time again, when I find a writer I really enjoy, that writer does not outline or plot. That's just how it is.

Which also doesn't mean I hate all outlined novels. Robert B. Parker outlined all his early novels, and I loved them. At some point, I believe when he was writing the Raymond Chandler novel Poodle Springs, the sequel to The Big Sleep, he stopped outlining because he wanted to write the same way Chandler did. I can't tell any difference at all between his outlined and non-outlined novels.

I can, in fact, think of several writers who outline that I like immensely. And I didn't even say that finding a mystery predictable lessoned my enjoyment of it. If I read mysteries for the mystery, I'd never read them a second time, but I've read hundreds of mysteries a second or third or fourth time. I've read everything John D. MacDonald, Lawrence Block, Robert B. Parker, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Raymond Chandler, and Dashiell Hammett ever wrote, and I've read it all over and over again. I've even read most of Agatha Christie more than once.

But, really, how many times does something have to happen before you feel comfortable stating it as a fact? I'be been reading mysteries since I was eight or nine years old, and I'm 51 now. I doubt there's been more than ten weeks in all those years when I have read at least one novel, and most weeks I've read several. I read more books during school years than many read in a lifetime. I pretty much always carried a book wherever I went, even as a kid. I've read a LOT of books. Many, many times mroe that it takes for me to tell what kind of novels and what kind of writers I enjoy reading most, and nine times out of ten, probably more than nine times out of ten, I like novels by writers who do not outline.

There are several writers who outline that I enjoy very much. I do not think one method is necessarily superior to the other. But it is extremely easy to learn how pretty much any writer goes about writing his or her novels, and for whatever reason, by a very wide margin, the writers I enjoy most do not outline and do not plot, and that's just how it is.

But that's just me. For me, it's perfectly valid and simply not an arguable point. I've read far too many novels, and looked into the writing methods of every last writer, to leave any doubt at all in my mind.

Your milage will almost certainly vary, and it will be just as valid for you. Different readers enjoy different types of writers, different types of novels.

[zarch]

And the award for longest post of the year goes to......

[scribbler1382]

John D. outlined? Huh. He doesn't seem the type. Just shows to go ya, I guess.

[sunandshadow]

There is nothing at all mysterious about it. The term "organic" is not my term. I know better. It's a method or writing that's based, I think, on oral storytelling, and it's a method that depends on knowing what good story structure is, what good characters are, and what a good story is. Far from being mysterious, its a dscipline, and it's done by many of the very best writers. It has been for hundreds of years.

Aha! That makes everything make sense! I am horrible at oral storytelling, I generally find written versions of oral stories boring, I like complicated multi-strand books with lots of worldbuilding and introspection where everything gets tied up into a stunningly neat knot at the ending - the kind which are best created by plotting them out before hand.

[Mistook]

If the organic type story has it's roots in live storytelling, then I'd say that the mechanical type has it's roots in myth making.

I think even before there's an outline, every mechanical story sets out to explain a known phenomenon. The points of plot, therefore must match up with facts that already exist, and the rest of the story is interpolated between plot points.

For example... you might want to invent a story to explain the origin of the moon, and it's behavior. Whatever you come up with must address things like... phases, it's rising and setting. You'll have to allow for solar and lunar eclipses, and you'll probably want to explain the backdrop of the zodiac... etc.

So nature itself suggests the plot, and gives you the boundaries for your outline, and you work in the details, making sure at every step, that everything works, and nothing contradicts.

I think modern conspiracy theories work exactly this way, but to a much finer degree. If you want to tell a story about how the mafia was truly behind the assasination of JFK, everything has to be precise, and the facts dictate the limits of your story.

So, in my opinion... simply outlining a story doesn't make it mechanical, in the sense that I'm using the term. A mechanical story will have an outline, yes, but what makes it mechanical is the need to have everything fit together "just so" in order to work at all.

[ted_curtis]

So what if you're an outliner, but you create the outline in an organic fasion. What does that make your writing? Maybe a cyborg...

I think we're looking at two sides of creativity and pretending they're more different than they are.

Ted

[Mistook]

So what if you're an outliner, but you create the outline in an organic fasion. What does that make your writing? Maybe a cyborg...

I think we're looking at two sides of creativity and pretending they're more different than they are.

Ted


Yeah, the middle way would be the bionic story. I think most real novels fall somewhere in that catagory, but for the sake of argument, I still think it's useful to draw distinctions.

Organic writers do plan things. Mechanical writers do allow things to follow their own course. But if you can recognize the two (and possibly more) approaches, you can figure out where and when they will work best for you.

My overall story is quite mechanical. It is plot driven, and I try to work in a lot of symbolism, but obviously I can benefit from making the characters and situations as "life like" as possible.

But some day I may try my hand at the organic approach, and let a story tell itself, but I can always rely on my mechanical ingenuity to keep it from rambling.

[maestrowork]

organic not= rambling

mechanical not= plot-driven

[Mistook]

organic not= rambling

mechanical not= plot-driven


Again, for the sake of discussion:

In a worst case scenario, "organic" will be wild, rambling, and pointless, while "mechanical" will be cardboard, formulaic, and a morality play.

In a best case scenario, "organic" will be lifelike, poetic, and insightful, while "mechanical" will be thrilling, intriguing, and inspiring.

If it suits the discussion better, we could talk about the organic and mechanical aspects that are present in all stories. Again, I don't think one is superior to the other, or that writers come in only two flavors. But it's a good excercise, I think, to differentiate along these lines.

[zornhau]

If the organic type story has it's roots in live storytelling, then I'd say that the mechanical type has it's roots in myth making.


Utterly disagree.

Live story telling tends to use narrative summary, and rarely uses quoted speech. Really, it's much closer to outlining.

In outlining, you tell the story to yourself and often your informal writing partner(s) in greater and greater detail:



Phase 1: Pub Pitch


There's this man - a woodcutter. <Gulps beer> He comes home to find his home has gone! Wife, children, granny. All utterly vanished.... I said utterly vanished! Jeez! Do they have to have that dukebox so loud? So, he goes to the wisewoman...

Phase 2: Starbucks Oral Narrative
John's a woodcutter. Everyday, he goes... yes, the latte's mine, cheers - into the woods and cuts wood for the charcoal burners until it's too dark to swing his axe. Then his feet carry him home just in time to catch his children as they fall asleep. <slurp's coffee> Only, tonight, instead of taking him to his welcoming threshold, his feet take him to a bare patch in the clearing where his cottage should stand.

What can he do? The only person who can possibly help him is Psycho Wendy, the aging half-crazed suspected werewolf who lives high in the Sinister Crags...

Phase 3: PC Outline
JOHN returns home to find his cottage vanished. Perhaps the MAD WENDY, the wisewoman can help? However, she's (i) a dangerous suspected werewolf, and (ii) lives high on the side of Maiden's Plummet (see sketch map)...

Phase 4: PC Draft
John shrugged out the kinks in his spine and shouldered his axe....

Phase 5: Pub Pitch revisited
<Gulps beer> Woodcutter's are boring. But suppose John was a wolf-hunter? That would give Mad Wendy a reason to hate him. ..


Outlining isn't a cynical scientific exercise. Rather, it's away of sending little feelers into your story's future until you find one you like.EDIT: A friend of mine just pointed out that story tellers still have to get their story from somewhere! The fireside bit is really just a form of publication.

[NeuroFizz]

The research is a simple matter of everytime I read a book, I then try to find out as much about the writing method of the writer as possible. Doing so usually isn;t difficult. Do teh research for yourself. It's the only way you'll see what I mean. Everytime you read a book, rate it, and remember whether or not you found it predictable, which means how often trhoughout the book did you guess what was coming next. Then look into the writer's method of writing.

Hi, James

I respect your opinion, and your extensive research. And, I was going with it until you started using the repetitive phrase, "That's just the way it is." You lost me right there. Your study is not, in the least, scientific. From a scientific standpoint, it is a biased evaluation from the start. The way you have your research set up, there is little doubt it will support your view.

Please don't go ballistic. You have significant insight on this matter, based on an extensive reading list and an enviable evaluation of the writing styles of the authors from your list. But, what you have presented is nothing more than a highly informed opinion, which is, again, useful to this discussion. Please don't try to pass it off as more than what it is--YOUR highly informed opinion.

Sorry, but THAT'S just the way it is.

If you want to set up a controlled scientific experiment to test your theory, I'd be glad to give you some of the parameters that are necesseary to make it a quantifiable, statistically tested, and non-biased evaluation.

[aruna]

Aha! That makes everything make sense! I am horrible at oral storytelling, I generally find written versions of oral stories boring, I like complicated multi-strand books with lots of worldbuilding and introspection where everything gets tied up into a stunningly neat knot at the ending - the kind which are best created by plotting them out before hand.

How about this, then: I also like this kind of book: complicated multi-strand, multi-layered etc. And it's the kind of book I write. And I am awful at oral story-telling. And: I am an organic writer. I don't outline at all. I sit down, and write, and it all comes to me in a steady, unplanned flow, and no matter how complicated, it all works out in the end, it all ties up in a neat knot. Sometimes everything is so tangled I have no idea how it will work out; but I just contiue and somehow, the solution comes.
In spite of what james says, I would always describe the process as mysterious, almost magic. I don't know "how to do it", other than turning to my muse and asking for a story. It just happens. I don't plan for it, I don't control it. One day, I know I have a story to tell, I sit down, and write it. Regarding it as a mystery, and so keeping up an attitute of humility and wonder at the process, is the most esential part of it. At least for me.

[Julie Worth]

How about this, then: I also like this kind of book: complicated multi-strand, multi-layered etc. And it's the kind of book I write. And I am awful at oral story-telling. And: I am an organic writer. I don't outline at all. I sit down, and write, and it all comes to me in a steady, unplanned flow, and no matter how complicated, it all works out in the end, it all ties up in a neat knot. Sometimes everything is so tangled I have no idea how it will work out; but I just contiue and somehow, the solution comes.


Yes, exactly! Organic tastes so much better. There's so much more intricacy, so much more plot. Organic words read so sweet and seamlessly! Mmmmmm.

[aruna]

Yes, exactly! Organic tastes so much better. There's so much more intricacy, so much more plot. Organic words read so sweet and seamlessly! Mmmmmm.

It's like stepping on to a magic carpet, and being taken for a mystery tour... I am as eager to know what happens next as the reader!

[zornhau]

Alas, I can see this thread has become another lemming fest.

Yes, exactly! Organic tastes so much better. There's so much more intricacy, so much more plot. Organic words read so sweet and seamlessly! Mmmmmm.

You simply don't know that.

You are confusing product with production method, and love of your own words with the desire of the reader to revel in your disconnected bon mots.

As I recall, Tolkien was a detailed outliner. Are you really telling me his words taste worse than those of Stephen King, a vociferous non-outliner?

When last I checked, SL Viehl was an outliner. She's both good, and horribly prolific. There are others.

To the original poster:
The main reason you aren't seeing a lot of outliners jumping in here is because they're too busy writing their novels to waste time on artistic hand-waving.

[zornhau]

It's like stepping on to a magic carpet, and being taken for a mystery tour... I am as eager to know what happens next as the reader!

This, really, is where the difference lies, and why non-outliners get upset with outliners.

Some people just find the Organic process more fun than the process of outlining.

That's fair enough. Just please remember that that doesn't give you the monopoly on artisitc integrity! Outlining has its own rushes as you wrestle and shape the concept into a story.

[icerose]

Maybe I am just weird, but I use what works.

I have written a couple of stories using an outline and not really straying from it. And I have written a couple of stories with no formal planning. I don't really see the difference between them in my own work. I don't see how one is better than the other, I just use what works for that story. Do I feel less or more connected to my outlined stories than my non? No. They are their own unique stories. I don't see where all this anger comes from with either side. Each writer has their own methods, who cares? I use disjointed and split methods each book written in a different way then the next. Those who have read all my finished works have even told me I have a different voice for each novel. Is that good or bad, I don't know? Its just me.

Sara

[aruna]

the Organic process more fun than the process of outlining.

That's fair enough. Just please remember that that doesn't give you the monopoly on artisitc integrity! Outlining has its own rushes as you wrestle and shape the concept into a story.

As it happens, I also enjoy this part of writing. After the exhileratioon of creating the story, comes the shaping o fit, which is very disciplined, full of twrestling with words, scultping the story. I love this part of it just as much, believe me!

[zornhau]

As it happens, I also enjoy this part of writing. After the exhileratioon of creating the story, comes the shaping o fit, which is very disciplined, full of twrestling with words, scultping the story. I love this part of it just as much, believe me!

I'm not surprised. Really this is all a false antithesis.

Outliners are no more than Organics who kicking off a project with a very terse first draft.

Organics are just Outliners with very, very detailed outlines.

[Julie Worth]

Alas, I can see this thread has become another lemming fest.



You simply don't know that.

You are confusing product with production method, and love of your own words with the desire of the reader to revel in your disconnected bon mots.

As I recall, Tolkien was a detailed outliner. Are you really telling me his words taste worse than those of Stephen King, a vociferous non-outliner?

When last I checked, SL Viehl was an outliner. She's both good, and horribly prolific. There are others.

To the original poster:
The main reason you aren't seeing a lot of outliners jumping in here is because they're too busy writing their novels to waste time on artistic hand-waving.

Your words, they taste so bitter. All the sharp angles of an outliner!

[aruna]

Your words, they taste so bitter. All the sharp angles of an outliner!

I found that comment a bit below the belt, myself.
I prefer to see it more as right-brained, left-brained processes; quite different from one another, and never the twain shall meet. We actually THINK differently, and thus we create differently. For a long time, the "outline first" theory held sway; teachers in schools believing that the tools of analysis are the tools of creation, which they are not. My son used to be a great storyteller when he was very young but was constantly directed to "outline, outline, outline" at school, which killed off his enthusiasm entirely. It seems now - judging by the responses here - that we non-outliners are gaining ground, and that's a good thing.

[Julie Worth]

It seems now - judging by the responses here - that we non-outliners are gaining ground, and that's a good thing.

Yes, we shall rule! All we need now is a plan.

[NeuroFizz]

(1) Different isn't synonymous with bad. (2) The strict definition of organic is "carbon-containing." (3) What exacty is an outliner? Someone who jots down a list of potential scenes? (4) How about someone who does the same thing without writing it down? (5) On this broad continuum of preparation styles, where is the line drawn between those who outline and those who don't? (6) Does all this matter, or is it just chest pounding?

It seems like people on either extreme of the continuum are on endocrine highs, touting their style as the only true way to pure literature. Neener, neener.

(7) Does all this help beginning writers who may be looking to this thread for advice?

Try this: Pound keys instead of chests. And do what works.

[Julie Worth]

What exacty is an outliner? Someone who jots down a list of potential scenes?

I think the real difference is between writers who know where they're going and those who don't. Those who know are in danger of forcing characters to do unnatural things, while those who don't are in danger of getting lost. But if you're looking for unpredictability, not knowing where you're going is definitely superior.

[Pencilone]

I wrote my first draft without an outline as I felt that an outline was inhibiting for me at the time.

Now I'm making a detailed outline as part of the reviewing/revising process in order to make an order in the mess and solve inconsistencies, character redundancies, etc.

It's most likely that I will discard as unuseable the first draft made without an outline, and I will start writing from the outline that I have just made.

So what am I in your view? Organic writer or outline writer?

[aruna]

(1) Different isn't synonymous with bad. (2) The strict definition of organic is "carbon-containing." (3) What exacty is an outliner? Someone who jots down a list of potential scenes? (4) How about someone who does the same thing without writing it down? (5) On this broad continuum of preparation styles, where is the line drawn between those who outline and those who don't? (6) Does all this matter, or is it just chest pounding?

It seems like people on either extreme of the continuum are on endocrine highs, touting their style as the only true way to pure literature. Neener, neener.

(7) Does all this help beginning writers who may be looking to this thread for advice?

Try this: Pound keys instead of chests. And do what works.

1) nobody said different was bad. However, I did say that non-outliners are gaining ground now, which is a good thing - good, in the sense that we no longer have to feel we are doing something wrong. I didn't start writing fiction until I was in my late 40's, simply becuase I believed the only way to write was to outline first, and I knew I couldn't.
2) thanks for the strict definition
3) Somebody who plans his/her novel in advance, knows where it is going, uses a blueprint.
4) Sometimes, I have a "vision" of a scene that is several chapters further on, and I feel it is going to happen. I haven't planned it; it just feels like a natural development, and so i keep it in mind. It's not written in stone (not that any oultine is written in stone), but usually that IS what happens. So I would say, no, if you don't write it down but keep it as a vague idea in your consciousness, it doesn't count as outlining.
5) there's no line; some are in the middle. When I saw never the twain shall meet I am speaking of the two extremities.
6) Yes, it does matter to the writer who is insecure and trying to find what works best for him/her. I don't see any chest pounding here.
7) Yes, it is helpful. As I said earlier, for over half of my life I was under the impression that to write a novel you first had to write an outline. Every teacher of English seems (or seemed) to think so. If someone had told me it is not necessary, you can just plunge in and start swimming, I'd have started much earlier.

Finally, someone did tell me. I picked up Dorothea Brande's book Becoming a Writer, and never looked back. My first book was published a few years later. So yes, this thread might help a beginning writer to identify the way various writers approach their work, and to figure out what works best for him/her.

[NeuroFizz]

I think the real difference is between writers who know where they're going and those who don't. Those who know are in danger of forcing characters to do unnatural things, while those who don't are in danger of getting lost. But if you're looking for unpredictability, not knowing where you're going is definitely superior.

Hi, Julie

My point is this--a writer can make a very detailed outline and still NOT know where the story is going. It depends on what kind of information is in the outline and how flexible the writer is in letting things play out as the writing progresses. It is impossible to generalize by putting writers into one of two camps. I think it is counter-productive. When I started writing, I needed structure to help me get going, although most of what I jotted down was abondoned as the writing gained life. Now, I go back to jotting down notes when I get stuck, even though the notes may or may not come through in the final writing. So, what does that make me? An outliner? An "organic?" Should it be important? My method of preparation is all over the map. It's the final product that is important, and that can't be pidgeon-holed based on black-and-white categorization of methods of preparation.

Two points on your response--are you saying that only people who outline are in danger of forcing characters to do unnatural things, and only those who don't outline are in danger of getting lost? There is the danger in this statement--in taking a black-or-white approach to something that is unpredictable at best. Being able to write realistic characters while not getting lost is a product of the writers skill and creativity, not her/his method of preparation.

Your argument about not knowing where you are going as superior in terms of unpredictability is a circular argument. By the very nature of not knowing where you are going, the result will be impossible to predict. But, again, we're talking about approach here. A heavy outliner can be just as surprised at how a story ends up as someone who doesn't outline. An outline is nothing more than a very rough first draft. I'd put my money on this: A clever outliner is just as able to surprise the pants off a reader as a clever non-outliner.

[hpoppink]

It's most likely that I will discard as unuseable the first draft made without an outline, and I will start writing from the outline that I have just made.

So what am I in your view? Organic writer or outline writer?
I understand your point: did the first draft count as pre-outline, or does the outline count as post-organic draft.

I would think that you'll need to do that other draft from your outline before you can accurately answer this question.

If the outline changes your story significantly, such that you feel the new draft is different enough to be the initial iteration of the tale you want to tell, then I would argue that your freewriting was just that, a prelude to an outline.

If the outline merely helps you rewrite (meaning it's essentially the same thing you brought out with the initial draft, just more clearly written), then I would call that your second draft. The outline was a device to help you get going on this second phase.

(I used this latter outline approach while writing papers in college. I never considered that first draft wasted, or a pre-outline. The outline was a tool; the draft was my wood; the rewrite was where I did the carving.)

[NeuroFizz]

1) nobody said different was bad. However, I did say that non-outliners are gaining ground now, which is a good thing - good, in the sense that we no longer have to feel we are doing something wrong. I didn't start writing fiction until I was in my late 40's, simply becuase I believed the only way to write was to outline first, and I knew I couldn't...

Thanks, Aruna. I didn't pose the questions for specific answers. My point is, it doesn't matter how you define the terms. It's better to avoid them. I object to those who say preparation method A produces one kind of fiction, and preparation method B leads to the following plot or characterization limitations...

The information you provided from your own experience, and the value (TO YOU) of not outlining is just exactly what this thread does need, and IS a tremendous help for beginners. Bravo. The tread doesn't need unsubstantiated statements that point out perceived shortcomings of any preparation technique.

[Julie Worth]

I think the tone of many of the comments here point out another difference between the two types of writers: Outliners seem to take offence at the idea that non-outlining might be better. They react defensively, perhaps because it’s scary, this not knowing where one is going. The non-outliners, on the other hand, are comparatively blasé. Many actually admire the outliners. They sometimes wish they could work that way, but alas, because of mental wiring, or because of some early drug experimentation, they can’t. So they toil on without a map. They don’t have the comfort of getting where they’re going, but it’s no small recompense to get someplace new and unexpected and wonderful.

[NeuroFizz]

I think the tone of many of the comments here point out another difference between the two types of writers: Outliners seem to take offence at the idea that non-outlining might be better. They react defensively, perhaps because it’s scary, this not knowing where one is going. The non-outliners, on the other hand, are comparatively blasé. Many actually admire the outliners. They sometimes wish they could work that way, but alas, because of mental wiring, or because of some early drug experimentation, they can’t. So they toil on without a map. They don’t have the comfort of getting where they’re going, but it’s no small recompense to get someplace new and unexpected and wonderful.



Hi again, Julie

My last say on this* (hold down the applause). I get testy when I see unsubstantiated generalizations, such as those trying to separate writers into two opposite-minded (and stereotypical) categories. Nothing more. If you think I'm one of the defensive ones, I consider myself to be much closer to the non-outlining extreme (sorry, but I just can't bring myself to use the term organic--my hang-up). Some time ago, I would have placed myself on the other side of the broad continuum, but then again, my first was an historical, so the research forced a great deal of note taking. And yet, that story took on a life of its own beyond anything planned. I'm defending a need to not argue about this whole thing, because it is so subjective. I like the idea of telling personal stories of how using a preparation technique helped one's writing but without trying to extend that personal story into sweeping generalizations about writers as a whole.

So, one last time. The agrument over outliners versus non-outliners (which I'm sure will continue) tells us what kind of organizers (preparers, initiators) we are, not what kind of writers we are. The dichotomy, if you insist there be one, tells about a person's approach to writing, not about how the finished product comes out.

*I'll really try.

[maestrowork]

Whatever works best for you....


Some people need to have everything planned. They need to have charts and notes and diagrams and outlines and everything laid out exactly how the story is going to be built. They need the blueprint and specs, down to the detailed measurements. And if they have the skills, the house will be spectacular.

Some people don't like to stick to a schedule or an itinerary. They want to explore and be surprised and see where the journey takes them. And if they're good, it might be one hell of a trip!

If you're a poor planner, don't try to outline and plan out the whole thing and fit your characters in pre-defined situations and tell them exactly what they should do...

If you don't appreciate spontaneity, don't try to wing it without a plan or outline...

Personally, I like to use both methods. I like to know where I'm going and what general direction I am taking. But I also like to be surprised -- I like it when my characters take me on a detour. It's unexpected and exciting. But eventually, I'd have to say, "Hey guys, we should get back on the highway soon if we want to get to the west coast." And I want to make sure that we don't end up in New York.

[Julie Worth]

Hi again, Julie

I get testy when I see unsubstantiated generalizations, such as those trying to separate writers into two opposite-minded (and stereotypical) categories. Nothing more.


I don’t disagree that I’m generalizing. If you look at the 16 Myers-Briggs types, there are probably people here from every one of them, and even those 16 are generalizations. Still, examining the issues in black and white can be helpful. Two decidedly different approaches. Pick the one that works for you. But if you’re just starting out, and you’re struggling, maybe you've picked the wrong one.

Whichever works best for a particular writer, it will always be true that, if the writer doesn't know what's going to happen, neither will the reader. It's harder for the outliner to achieve this innate unpredictability. Not to say she can't. But it will take more work.

[CalicoBean]

Personally, I like to use both methods. I like to know where I'm going and what general direction I am taking. But I also like to be surprised -- I like it when my characters take me on a detour. It's unexpected and exciting. But eventually, I'd have to say, "Hey guys, we should get back on the highway soon if we want to get to the west coast." And I want to make sure that we don't end up in New York.

Ha! Funny you should say this Ray. Just yesterday I had the tremendous pleasure of meeting one of my favorite authors -- Garth Nix -- who was in San Antonio on a tour for his latest book. (Mr. Nix is an Australian writer & deservedly a big name in young adult fantasy). In a Q&A session he was asked about his writing process. He takes notes and ruminates on a story for about a year, then sits down and writes a chapter-by-chapter outline. He said he sometimes questions himself on the usefulness of the outline since he diverges from it so frequently while writing the first draft, but he's decided it's worth his time because it helps him with the structure of the book and captures what he calls landmarks, places like your west coast where he wants to be at certain points in the book. He's willing to let himself discover new characters and other details in the chapters between those landmarks. Your process sounds much the same.

On the question of writing processes -- outlining or plunging ahead -- I agree that the answer for each writer is whatever works. The challenge is discovering the best process for you. I'm nearly finished with my first book, and the writing of it has taken me too long (three years, most of that without a day job, a ridiculously long time!!!) I'm intending to tinker with my process to try to write my second more quickly. We'll see how it works.

[maestrowork]

[He] sits down and writes a chapter-by-chapter outline. He said he sometimes questions himself on the usefulness of the outline since he diverges from it so frequently while writing the first draft, but he's decided it's worth his time because it helps him with the structure of the book and captures what he calls landmarks, places like your west coast where he wants to be at certain points in the book. He's willing to let himself discover new characters and other details in the chapters between those landmarks. Your process sounds much the same.

Almost exactly the same, except I don't do the whole chapter-by-chapter outline. If I'm working on something, I'll probably outline maybe 10 scenes down the road. Then I find myself diverging from that outline anyway... but I agree with him, that it's important so I have structures and general direction, even if my characters and situations do take me somewhere else.

I also have landmarks, but I call them set pieces. I'd like to hit my set pieces at certain point. Sort of like, from here to San Jose, I'd like to stop by San Antonio somewhere along the trip... that keeps me on track. I may not eventually end up in San Jose, but shoot, I know I won't be heading toward Vermont!

[Mistook]

My, what a train wreck this turned out to be. Thanks for playing, everybody.

[Sharon Mock]

Outliners seem to take offence at the idea that non-outlining might be better. They react defensively, perhaps because it’s scary, this not knowing where one is going. The non-outliners, on the other hand, are comparatively blasé. Many actually admire the outliners.

To be fair, I would not describe "Outlining is no better than not outlining -- but if you outline, I probably won't like your novel" as "blasé". Yet this is precisely what James Ritchie has said.

I have yet to write a working draft of a novel without at some point creating an outline. I have yet to start writing a novel with a completed outline in place.

Do whatever works, I say. But please don't assume your work is tight and well-constructed just because you used an outline. Don't assume your work is eloquent and unpredictable just because you wrote it by the seat of your pants. It's your strengths and weaknesses that will decide the sucess or failure of your work, not the method you used to get it finished.

(Unless you tried a method that goes against your grain. Do whatever works.)

[zarch]

I do a double-take every time I see the title of this thread because I think it says org. . . uh, nevermind . . .

[icerose]

I do a double-take every time I see the title of this thread because I think it says org. . . uh, nevermind . . .

*blush*

Glad to hear I am not the only one who does this

ROFL

[Mistook]

I do a double-take every time I see the title of this thread because I think it says org. . . uh, nevermind . . .


Erm... did you mean to say, ORGASM?

Yeah, let's all go back to freshman year biology and fail to understand the meaning of the term "organism". That'll be real representative of all the self-professed geniuses on this forum. Last I checked, nobody had an IQ below 300, yet everybody turns into Beavis and Butthead when faced with the word "Organism"

Did I once extend beyond the reaches of high school intelligence on this thread? We don't even know that I have an IQ beyond high school, and yet the comparison of an organism to an engine, and the meaning of those terms is completely lost on everybody. All you can do is boil it down to some stupid argument about outlining, which was never the premis, and then there's the occcasional stupid joke about "organic" fruit or about orgasms. Thanks everybody for proving that this forum has zero sophistication.

I wonder why everybody whines about not getting published. Hmmmm it's such a huge mystery?

I have a few other fancy words I'd like to give y'all.

[scribbler1382]

<hands over a funnel and some raid> This should kill the bug up your ***, nicely. :)

Seriously, nobody was taking a shot at you. I thought the same damn thing when I saw the subject line. It's natural human nature and has NOTHING to do with maturity or IQ.

[Mistook]

<hands over a funnel and some raid> This should kill the bug up your ***, nicely. :)

Seriously, nobody was taking a shot at you. I thought the same damn thing when I saw the subject line. It's natural human nature and has NOTHING to do with maturity or IQ.


Well, to tell you the truth I saw that same thing, but I guess my underwear's in a bunch because the thread didnt' pan out the way I thought it would. I guess I didn't, or couldn't define my terms well enough to keep this thing out of the tar pit.

Then again, maybe in the course of this whole outline debate, I've gleened a little keener insight into the whole issue of "organic" VS "mechanica"... none of such insights I'm prepared to share at this time, for fear of uttering a loaded term such as "plot".

Anyway... thanks for giving me a quick out from my explosive rant. Sometimes I forget this is a public forum.

[zornhau]

Gosh.

I'm getting confused here.

Is it possible to consciously construct a story such that it's unpredictable for the reader?

[zarch]

Not one that's unpredictable for ALL readers. But is predictability synonymous with bad? I don't think it has to be. In fact, tragedies are almost always predictable for the audience to some degree. Effectiveness doesn't always lie in twists and turns (I'm talking less about suspense and more about literary). I, for instance, don't put down a book just because I think I've figured out the ending. And if I finish the book and was right about the ending, that's not how I measure its merit. I ask myself is it a good story? Does it have colorful characters? And most importantly, did I experience the range of emotions that the author intended for me to experience?

Is it nice to be able to fool everyone and have a surprise ending? Sure, of course. But again, for me it isn't the most important thing about a book.

And sorry about my previous comment regarding "organism" looking like org...ah, never mind again.

[zarch]

Of course you can purposefully create unpredictability. It's your book, after all. My point is simply this: if you aim for a surprise ending, and you have, say, a thousand readers, chances are somebody's going to guess the ending. That is, unless the ending is just completely out of left field. For example, giant yellow-spotted monkeys swoop down and kidnap your main character, only to return her to Earth with a tendency to tell bad jokes.


For ME, whether a novel is predictable or unpredictable isn't THAT important.

[azbikergirl]

Some books are set up simply enough to enable a reader to predict the outcome. For instance, Indiana Jones is looking for the Holy Grail, and he wants to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis. We know at the beginning that he'll succeed. We watch the movie anyway because the adventure is in the how, not the whether.

My novel has a predictable outcome because it's based on the MC's goal at the beginning. How he gets there, and what happens along the way is what makes the story interesting (and not predictable). I can say that about a gazillion other novels I've read.

Possibly a story is UNpredictable because it starts with the MC not knowing what he/she wants, and things start happening. I wonder if the MCs in these stories are largely reactive vs proactive. Can't think of any examples off the top of my head to say one way or the other.

[arainsb123]

I like the analogy with which this thread was opened, and in most cases would argue that the organic process produces better novels than the mechanical. Many novels I've read which, though competent, failed to grip or were too tangled with excess subplots, were written based on detailed outlines.

On the other hand, wildly successful and entertaining works like those in the Harry Potter and Song of Ice and Fire series were written based on rather detailed outlines, so this statement is by no means universally true. And heavily organic authors like Bradbury sometimes end up with a finished product that, although technically beautiful and based on a strong idea, fail to do much more than simply state that idea; with the discipline of an outline lacking, it is easier to fail to sufficiently extrapolate upon the opening premise or idea.

Looking at my bookshelf, the authors whose work I really cherish
-- Harlan Ellison, Bradbury, Stephen King -- don't outline. I'm not sure about the methods of other favorites, such as Octavia Butler, Greg Bear, and Orson Scott Card.

My own experience with outlining is that if I do it too early, the story will either remain eternally unfinished, or will turn out subpar. However, for the two novels I've finished and revised and which I'm still proud of, I often would scribble down ideas for the next day or two in my journal at the end of a day's writing, and in both cases used the discipline of an outline to more effectively end the projects, writing up a sentence-per-scene outline for the last fourth or fifth of the novel.

[RLSMiller]

Uh, I think people are confusing outlining with formulaic writing. Just because someone outlines, it doesn't mean it will be any less 'fresh,' or whatever you want to call it. As someone said earlier, you shouldn't even be able to tell the difference between an outliner and non-outliner if both have written to a high standard. If you saw a painting with sloppy strokes all over it, then you'd blame the painter, not the paintbrush.

A good outliner makes the story feel natural and organic - they don't dump their characters in unrealistic or predictable scenes just to satisfy the criteria of the outline.

A good non-outliner will have an organic story that has all the tightness and cogency that outliners are said to benefit from.

It's all about the skill of the writer, not the methods themselves. Sure, both methods lend themselves to a certain way of writing. Frequently outliners are mechanical, and some non-outliners ramble with no focus or direction. But this is just poor writing.

There are many ways to use an instrument. You can't say one method produces better stories than the other. That's just not fair, no matter how much research you do. Things aren't that simplistic.

[Anne Lyle]

I think what the OP is trying to get at is the difference between writers who know their craft and apply it (mechanical) and ones who just write spontaneously, without any knowledge of the "rules" (organic).

A good mechanical writer will know their craft so well that they use the tools creatively, whereas a poor one will only be able to apply simple, crude techniques. On the plus side, this is a skill that can be learned, given time. Relying on sheer talent, on the other hand, is very hit-and-miss! There's a word for people who are good at "organic" writing: genius. The rest of us use craft to compensate :)

[Cassidy]

"Possibly a story is UNpredictable because it starts with the MC not knowing what he/she wants, and things start happening. I wonder if the MCs in these stories are largely reactive vs proactive. Can't think of any examples off the top of my head to say one way or the other."

this is interesting. no idea if it's true for anyone else of course but it describes the first book i wrote pretty well. totally spontaneous, wasn't even sure if i was writing a short story or a novel, no idea what was going to happen, and yup-- things start happening to my (reactive) protagoniost. i still don't outline but i do think more about the characters and story before i start. makes for less revision, i find.

(edited-- i can't find the original post now- am i just not awake yet or did it get deleted?)

[RG570]

I refuse to make a distinction between "organic" and whatever else it is.

When you write a story, no matter what "method" you choose, you're still making conscious, deliberate decisions about what to do next, unless you're doing automatic writing. That Hegelian idea that the story is something outside us that we have no control over and just try our best to transcribe is at best superstition.

I would love to see a double blind test to see if people could really pick out outlined novels from "organic" ones.

They won't, because it's the same process. It's called "writing".

[FennelGiraffe]

I think what the OP is trying to get at is the difference between writers who know their craft and apply it (mechanical) and ones who just write spontaneously, without any knowledge of the "rules" (organic).

A good mechanical writer will know their craft so well that they use the tools creatively, whereas a poor one will only be able to apply simple, crude techniques.

I wonder if part of the issue is that if you start out writing spontaneously (organically) but later become aware of craft and consciously attempt to use it, then you are likely to go through a phase of feeling as if you are doing something very mechanical and unnatural. The quality of your work may even suffer. It's very easy at that point to feel like you had been better off before, and that thinking about technique is counterproductive. With enough practice, though, it should become internalized and integrated into your 'natural' writing process.