From pantser to plotter? Or vice versa?

I've always been a panster. Sometimes when I get stuck I would do an outline, but I always wind up veering off and doing something different. For me, if I have it all layed out, it's harder to write because I have nothing new and interesting to put to it. Sometimes writing an outline can be good to get the story flowing further, but sometimes (like me for instance) is slows down the writing all together.

Everyone is different. Do whatever works for you. But ultimately, even with writing outlines and character ideas and all that, writing the book is what matters the most.

You know what I'd do? I'd seal up all those preparatory documents and start writing without allowing myself to consult them--on the theory that whatever really works sticks.

Then when the first draft is complete, I'd unseal those notes and see if I missed something good--on the theory that you can never have too many good ideas.

Best of both worlds, no?

When I first started writing a novel (been quite awhile ago), I had no idea how I was supposed to do it, so I consulted a book. The book told me that I needed characters bios and an outline, so I cudgeled my brain and came up with some sort of outline, with the whole plot divided into chapters. (I think there were thirteen.) The character bios felt like, well, like I was making things up (IOW, flat and unreal). But I plunged in and got to writing the story. Which proceeded to take a sharp right somewhere about chapter two and left the outline moldering by the wayside. And what I ended up with was way better, deeper, and more surprising than anything I was able to come up with for the outline.

It taught me a valuable lesson about the way my mind works. First, I'm terrible at thinking up plots in advance, and second, I only get to tell a story once. And since an outline is a story in abbreviated form, my brain considers it already told and has no interest in covering that ground again.

I write the way I read: to find out what happens next. Can't do it any other way.

One thing I've found is that the more I try to control things, the less I get done.

When writing Apologia (a fanfiction set in the Warframe universe), I had the unique experience of writing collaborative fiction with two of my friends, which meant that the three of us were sometimes writing the same events from different perspectives (the super important ones where all three MCs were present). Therefore, there were certain points that I set into stone before I began writing, points where I could let the characters do their thing.

First, I list off all the major plot points: MC makes a wrong turn and sees something that sets the plot in motion, side_character_17 dies in a train accident, MC's sister's neighbor's ex-boyfriend comes by late at night and burns said neighbor's house down with the neighbor in it, etc. Then, I figure out which of those points absolutely must be there (and I set a hard limit on this number to five at the very most) and write each of those points out. Finally, I look at threads that stick out from either end of those points and pants the rest of the story together.

I'm a pantser who sometimes writes up skeletal outlines for the known flashpoints and character blurb for each. I don't understand the concept of sitting down and outlining prologue to epilogue. It plugs me up just thinking about it.

When your character does something unexpected is the point where you say you have to backtrack to get things on track.

As a 'pantser', there is no 'on-track' beyond an awareness that what happens now -coupled with what has already happened on previous pages - determines what happens next. The entry of an unexpected character, or the unexpected action of an existing character is a wonderful moment -the time when the story comes to life - when a character steps up to the plate and the story heads in the direction the characters wish it to go. Listen and follow and see where they take you.

Good luck with your present venture into profiling, planning and plotting, and outlining.

That's not an approach that appeals to me at all, but it works for many folk and if it works for you, too, that's great..

Dona St Columb said:

I know there's a lot of debate about using those terms anyway, and that many writers are somewhere between the two, but I was just wondering if anyone has ever tried changing their method to the opposite, and if so- did it work out for you?

In the past I've always started with a basic idea + a character, and then dove straight in to writing, but inevitably, sooner or later I hit a wall, either when my character does something entirely unexpected, or I fall into a gaping plot hole, and then I do have to take a step back and do some rough on-the-go planning to get things back on track. Sometimes it's a quick fix but a lot of the time it's a real pain in the ass, and I end up questioning the story, the characters, my ability to write, and when I'm feeling particularly dramatic- the entire point of my existence. After which, I often find myself wishing I'd just plotted things out properly from the start.

I'm just embarking on a new WIP (eek!) and this time I've done entirely the opposite to usual- I've spent weeks kicking the idea around in my head, done character profiles, and written chapter-by-chapter outlines with excerpts of dialogue etc, so the whole thing is pretty much planned out from start to finish, which is...different!

Now literally the 'only' thing I have to do is write it, but I'm aware that this is going to be a very different process and experience to usual, and I'm wondering what drawbacks (if any) I might find to having done it this way.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences they'd like to share?

Click to expand...

I'm a plotter, 100%.

For novels, I use a modified snowflake method.

I've tried pantsing a couple of times, and I've never finished anything longer than a flash piece without at least a summary of where I'm going. The two novels I started without an outline are languishing in my junk drawer with no prospect of being revisited in the future.

I'm a total pantser--in my head, that is. I work out the story by running it mentally from start to finish, including chapter breaks and punctuation, before I sit down at the keyboard and fix it into text. Ideally, I do this once to kill any false starts and dead ends, and then again to make sure the story is cohesive and has a satisfying ending. No, I won't remember every detail and yes, sometimes things change later. I do often jot down plot points so I don't forget them by the time I get to that part, but I don't do a formal outline and have no need of character sheets.

The creation stage can take months, but I think it speeds up the writing significantly--plus I don't have to worry that I'll put months into writing something that won't go anywhere.

The one year I tried NaNoWriMo, it was with an unfinished idea. I wanted to see what would happen if I pantsed it. Killed it dead.

Plotter here.
Writing is a lot like traveling. Some people plan their route carefully to be sure they see all they hope to along the way. Others just walk out their door and wander, discovering things as they go. More than likely, there are a lot of people who do a bit of both.

With pantsing, I thing you run the risk of your story line wandering off and falling off a cliff - resulting in dead half finished novels in your drawer. I also think there is like to be more editing involved with pantsing... if your MC stabs someone with a knife in chapter 7, you may need to go back and make sure you mention that he carries a knife back in chapter 4.

With plotting, some of the magic of discovery might be lost. You're not surprised by what happens as your plot evolves. There is also the risk that your story will come across as too structured, and feel mechanical.

There are pros and cons to each way.

I don't use any fancy app for my outlines, just a word doc and an ordered list.
At the beginning, I know who my MC is, and maybe a few of the others (not all yet), and I know where I will start and where I will end.

<tangent>Where to start is one of the more difficult aspects of writing for me. I have the story in my mind, but it's usually in the shape of a knot, and the process of writing is to untangle the knot. To do that, I need to find the end, or the beginning of the string or rope.</tangent>

Starting from here, before getting to there I have to get half way there. Sort of a Zeno thing. There are steps involved, and I introduce list items for the major ones with these usually becoming chapters. Then I go through the arc and define what needs to happen in each chapter. By the time this process is over, I usually have about a page worth of list items for each chapter. Then when getting down to the actual writing, each chapter becomes like a short story.

For characters, as I discover them while doing my outline I create another list in another word doc. Each character will have a name and description of course, but I also like to add in mannerisms and favored phrases and slang they may use. I also write a bit of a back story for each. Wealthy or poor family of origin, personality traits etc. This process helps me get to know each one.

Seems like a lot of front work, but I like doing it this way.

ETA: plotting also allows me to even out where the action is in the book.

I haven't consciously gone from one extreme to the other, but my method is definitely fluid depending on the needs of the project and what's working for me.

I'd say I'm a low-key outliner in general. I go into a story with a solid idea of the main plot, how it's going to end, and a few key scenes, but I don't plan out everything and my plot often evolves once I start writing. How much my story actually ends up diverging from my original plan really depends.

In the past, I've been really strict about writing from start to finish and not jumping around. But with this novel I've been writing whatever part I feel inspired to work on, and I feel like that approach is mostly working. I still can't just jump into a random scene very well, and this isn't a perfect approach because I still have to go back at some point and work on the parts that are giving me trouble, but I've found that working with my muse has helped me avoid too much writer's block.

I try to be flexible and not be too stubborn about defining what type of writer I am.

I consider myself a pantser. But last year with NaNo, I did more "official" planning, and found that I liked it. I always have a fair idea in my head of how the story is going to go. I know where the characters are going to end up, I'm just not sure how they're going to get there.

For NaNo, my characters were on a cruise, which immediately gave me structure. I listed all their ports of call, in order, how long they were in each port, and what excursions they were going to go on. I put each of these things on an "index card" in Scrivener. I was still free to follow my characters around and see how they interacted, but it was kind of nice to know where they were heading next. I was afraid it would dull the creative process, but I didn't find that to be the case at all.

So for my current project, I set up index cards in Scrivener and I have snippets of scenes -- now I should point out that I *always* have snippets of scenes, I just keep them in my head. Essentially what I'm doing is moving stuff from my head onto my Scrivener corkboard. I don't think my actual process has changed, other than having something physical to look at.

Dona St Columb said:

Now literally the 'only' thing I have to do is write it, but I'm aware that this is going to be a very different process and experience to usual, and I'm wondering what drawbacks (if any) I might find to having done it this way.

Click to expand...

Not sure whether this is a drawback for you, but I find plotting to be too restrictive when it comes to actually getting the writing done. My characters feel wooden and shoe-horned, and there's no mystery to the story (sometimes I discover what the story is by actually writing it).

I do like to outline, but I use it to get myself out of a rut. I'll look ahead and write outlines for the next few chapters, then I have a goal to aim for. But I couldn't write the whole story like that, as for me, discovering the story and characters in that story is the journey I'm taking when I write the book. Sometimes I'm delighted by what I discover, and I like to think that comes across in my writing. I'd miss that, if I followed a strict outline.

BethS said:

I write the way I read: to find out what happens next. Can't do it any other way.

Click to expand...

That kind of sums it up. I know where it starts, I might have a few things in my head that ought to happen, and if I'm really lucky I have a vague idea of where it ends - what people call a story arc, although mine are usually no more than a squiggle with a bit of curve to it. Every attempt at plotting has ended in disaster.

Bufty said:

When your character does something unexpected is the point where you say you have to backtrack to get things on track.


As a 'pantser', there is no 'on-track' beyond an awareness that what happens now -coupled with what has already happened on previous pages - determines what happens next.

Click to expand...

I think that depends on what sort of pantser you are. Yes, characters do the unexpected, which is fun, but I find that I do backtrack, because if I do have some vague idea of where I'm going and a character has the poor grace to muck it up, I need to fix it - either the character needs to have a nasty accident to deflect the damage, or somehow the consequences of them "going off script" need to change. Sometimes a character does something utterly wacky because I'm writing too late at night, or had a crappy day, and they just do something plain stupid that I can't even begin to reconcile when I re-read it a few thousand words later. That definitely has to get fixed, no matter how many thousand words go in the bin.



I do outline in moments of desperation, but nothing more than what's coming in the next few thousand words, or because I have the writing done but it doesn't make sense and so I do a retrospective outline to figure out how to re-arrange things.

DancingMaenid said:

I try to be flexible and not be too stubborn about defining what type of writer I am.

Click to expand...

Yes. Put this at the top of your list of good advice. We're all different, and if you get through anything in life without changing, you're either a genius, or missed the point, and 99.99+% of us aren't in the genius category. Try planning, try pantsing, find the right mix that works for you, and if it's not working for a particular project, trying something different again.

Pantser to plotter here, too. I've found that every additional hour of planning work saves me several times that in time spent on the first draft and time spent tightening said first draft later on.

indianroads said:

With pantsing, I thing you run the risk of your story line wandering off and falling off a cliff - resulting in dead half finished novels in your drawer.

Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who wings it, I hear that a lot from people who have tried winging it. Could be a couple of reasons for it. One is that they write too fast. They miss the subtle signposts along the way and go flying off the road because they write, write, write to get that first draft on the page. I know if I did that I'd have a mess on my hands. I have to take it slow, feeling my way along. Revising as I go helps me do it.

The other factor is that I think anyone who writes seat-of-the-pants style needs to be an instinctive storyteller (you can argue about whether such an ability is innate or learned or a combination of the two). Anyone who has that ability is not going to take the story off a cliff; rather, they will see story arcs forming as they write, and those arcs will point out the direction.

Bottom line, writing organically, discovering the story as you go, winging it, pantsing it--whatever you want to call it--is, for most writers who do it this way, an intensely thoughtful style of writing, even if some (or a lot) of the thinking happens in the back brain before it ever becomes conscious thought. And if it's a style that can be learned, it's learned purely through experience.

Outliners have their own gifts. They can plan out a whole story in advance, which is something I can't do. Some even (as someone else in this thread mentioned doing. Was it Marlys?) have the amazing ability to do this purely in the head, from beginning to end. I can't imagine being able to do that.

In the end it doesn't matter how a story is written. All that matters is whether it's a good story. And part of learning to write is figuring out what works for you, and you alone.

I may be thrilled at discovering new faces on stage and finding out where a character wishes to go but I am always in control and I have the last word.

No character is allowed to leap on stage and 'muck things up' as you put it, but strange as it may sound I have not yet encountered a character whose actions have 'mucked things up' even though they may introduce new elements or possible paths. I like to think that's because what has happened so far has led inevitably to what is now happening.

The strangest thing I find about writing organically is how things that happen late in the tale turn out to be clearly linked to comments/phrases or fore-shadowings that took place much earlier and long before the 'late' action/event was even contemplated.

Mark HJ said:

I think that depends on what sort of pantser you are. Yes, characters do the unexpected, which is fun, but I find that I do backtrack, because if I do have some vague idea of where I'm going and a character has the poor grace to muck it up, I need to fix it - either the character needs to have a nasty accident to deflect the damage, or somehow the consequences of them "going off script" need to change. Sometimes a character does something utterly wacky because I'm writing too late at night, or had a crappy day, and they just do something plain stupid that I can't even begin to reconcile when I re-read it a few thousand words later. That definitely has to get fixed, no matter how many thousand words go in the bin.



.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

The strangest thing I find about writing organically is how things that happen late in the tale turn out to be clearly linked to comments/phrases or fore-shadowings that took place much earlier and long before the 'late' action/event was even contemplated.

Click to expand...

Yes. I think this is where the sub-conscious plays a role, because it remembers you put those things there, and it knows what to do with them, even if you didn't (at the time).

BethS said:

Bottom line, writing organically, discovering the story as you go, winging it, pantsing it--whatever you want to call it--is, for most writers who do it this way, an intensely thoughtful style of writing, even if some (or a lot) of the thinking happens in the back brain before it ever becomes conscious thought. And if it's a style that can be learned, it's learned purely through experience.

Click to expand...

I agree with this!

Personally, any time I find myself at a point where I don't know what happens next, I pause and think. Sometimes I'll come up with an idea, flesh it out a little, and realize that it's not right, after all. And when taking a story in a new direction, I'm mindful of how I can work off of what has already been set up. I'm not going to suddenly have a character get abducted by aliens if there haven't been any aliens in the story so far--or if I do like the alien idea, I focus on how I can work it into the novel organically.

For me, I do feel like not enough planning can sometimes cause my stories to "go off the rails," but all I really need is a foundation to build on. Looking back, my projects that fell apart just didn't have sound premises. There was nothing to work from.

BethS said:

Outliners have their own gifts. They can plan out a whole story in advance, which is something I can't do. Some even (as someone else in this thread mentioned doing. Was it Marlys?) have the amazing ability to do this purely in the head, from beginning to end. I can't imagine being able to do that.

Click to expand...

Not so amazing, really--it's an outgrowth of the way I've always put myself to sleep, and I've met other people who came to writing in the same way. Ever since I was three or four, I've told myself stories in my head to keep my mind quiet enough to sleep, every night picking up where I left off the night before. Some stories kept me entertained for months or even years. Most petered off into nothing, but some had to stop because they came to a good ending. Oddly, while I always wanted to be a writer, I never connected this to writing--it was for my own personal amusement. Wasn't until I was ~40 that I realized I should try writing them down and see if other people might like them.

In the end it doesn't matter how a story is written. All that matters is whether it's a good story. And part of learning to write is figuring out what works for you, and you alone.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I think threads like this are valuable to show the range of what works, and give people ideas of what they might try if their current method isn't going so well.

I pantsed my first short stories, then started sketching my first attempts at longer fiction, and by the time I wrote my second full-length novel I was an utter plotter. But no character outlines, ever. Atmosphere and character I let develop organically. The plot's major points are set in stone, but the nuances of interaction and the little situations that happen around the major plot points develop organically during writing.

Broadly speaking, although I may know how the plot goes from start to finish, it's only by chapter 3 or 4 that I start discovering what the book's atmosphere is, and what type of personalities the characters have. This, plus the joy of fiddling with prose, is more than enough to maintain interest in spite of "knowing what happens". Because I don't know "how it happens" until I write it, and it's there that my motivation lies.

Conversely, Dean Koontz published 50 plotted and outlined books, and then got fed up and went full pantser on his 51st--Strangers--and only then stopped being the "fairly successful paperback guy" and rocketed to "hardcover bestselling guy with the exact same number of sales as Stephen King*", so who knows. Maybe if we outliners do this long enough and regularly enough, we'll all end up "neo-pantsers" or "post-outliners" like Mr. Koontz.

___
*Although the competition only truly began in 1986, with Strangers, at the time of King's zenith, which certainly says something.