# Outline is not necessary. Here's why...



## Addison (Oct 15, 2013)

If found this article and thought it could be useful for anyone who either doesn't outline or has found outlining hasn't really helped.

http://www.writersdigest.com/online...ithout-an-outline?et_mid=641764&rid=239076697

Enjoy!


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 15, 2013)

I wrote _Librarian_ by the seat of my pants. I am outlining _The Heretic's Challenge_. I already feel better about _Challenge_ than I ever did (or do) about _Librarian_.

Does this mean outlining is for everyone? No. I am not one of those who stands On High and says, Thou Must Doest It This Way! But it's worth giving a try, especially since it costs nothing.


----------



## Sanctified (Oct 15, 2013)

What the author is really saying is, "Don't use a formula for your stories," while pointing out that status quo, the introduction of a problem, escalating tension and climax are more important than three acts that may or may not have those things.

He's also warning against putting Chekhov's gun in the story without firing it. That's crucial advice regardless of nether you're outlining or not.

Basically, he's giving some solid advice, and someone (probably a web producer or editor at Writer's Digest) slapped that SEO-friendly, listicle-style headline on top of it to attract clicks. Because, you know, on the web we love distilling everything down to "six easy steps" and "one weird trick that (X) doesn't want you to know!"


----------



## Guy (Oct 15, 2013)

Good article. I always hated the way a lot of people make creative writing a story sound like assembling a book case. It's way more art than science. I especially like the point that more action does not equal more tension. I see that mistake in movies a lot. They just keep piling on more and more action until I get exhausted and stop investing any emotion in it. After a while I just say, "Aw, to hell with it" and check out.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 15, 2013)

When I was a kid in school, I hated that the teachers wanted us to write outlines down before we started our writing assignments. I always felt written outlines were superfluous because I already knew what I wanted to write for the final assignment. I could do all the planning in my head.

Come to think of it, almost all my successes with writing short stories have depended on mental planning too. I don't bother to write the outline down because I can already visualize what's going to happen ahead of time. Furthermore, if I keep all my planning in my head, somehow it feels much more malleable than if I write it down on something tangible. It's not quite pantsing since it does require a clear idea of where I want to take a story, but it's still very different from what most people would call outlining.

Now if only I could try this approach on a whole novel...


----------



## Captain Loye (Oct 15, 2013)

Guy said:


> Good article. I always hated the way a lot of people make creative writing a story sound like assembling a book case. It's way more art than science.



I'm about to hand in my post-graduate dissertation in plant ecology, and I can tell you, sometimes there's more art than science in science too !

I liked this article, it is certainly food for thought. I'm still not sure what approach works for me. So far in my writing I've been mostly mentally planning with some world-building on paper, but I am planning on hitting up NaNoWriMo next month and I've wondered whether better outlining might keep me more focused and help me get words on paper.

I have a feeling that like most things, there is a continuum between no outlining and complete outlining - most people probably work best somewhere around the middle...but that's based on nothing but my arrogant assumptions


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 15, 2013)

Captain Loye said:


> I have a feeling that like most things, there is a continuum between no outlining and complete outlining - most people probably work best somewhere around the middle...but that's based on nothing but my arrogant assumptions



To me, someone saying "Outlining isn't necessary" is just as wrong as someone saying, "You must outline."

Writing is an art, and each artist is different. Some like a lot of outlining, some like almost none, and as you say, most are probably somewhere in the middle.

But making such an absolute statement right out front probably tends to alienate more than it draws in. So what if Successful Author X writes each book solely by the seat of his tweed pants? Equally Successful Author Y writes a detailed outline down to the I. A. 1. a. i. headings, so there goes the theory that outlines are useless.


----------



## Sanctified (Oct 15, 2013)

Writing is art, but it's also work. Those perpetual "I'm becoming a writer" types think that one day a muse is going to bless them with a masterpiece, and that there's some sort of mysterious element to writing.

That's not how it works. From The War of Art:

“The sign of the amateur is overglorification of and preoccupation with the mystery. The professional shuts up. She doesn't talk about it. She does her work.” 

Somehow as a society we've developed these romantic notions about writing, but the bottom line is you've got to sit your ass in a chair and do the work. Again, the article doesn't actually advocate writing without any preparation or game plan, it's warning against taking the three-act structure too literally that storytelling becomes a formula.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 15, 2013)

My outlines are mental...but I spend a lot of time going over each scene and twist bit by bit, plus...

...most of my work is on the short side.


----------



## Guy (Oct 15, 2013)

Captain Loye said:


> I'm about to hand in my post-graduate dissertation in plant ecology, and I can tell you, sometimes there's more art than science in science too !


I did a thesis for my MA in history, and while outlines were useful for that because scholarly writing is much more structured and formal than creative writing, I still chafed at them. The only reason I did one was because I was required to. When I do an outline, I prefer to keep them general to give me flexibility, but scholarly writing has to be very, very specific. My committee had to occasionally rein in my (to them) more florid passages. It was especially difficult to restrain my novelist's impulses considering how passionate I am about my topic. One trick my committee chair (quick salute to Dr. Ritchey) taught me that I found useful was something called a reverse outline, and I think it would apply to creative writing just as well as scholarly writing. It's outlining what you meant to say after you've written a rough draft. I found it worked very well to clarify points, but outlining things before I ever typed a word is something that I have trouble with. I work better when I get something down and then play with it because often the only way I'll get an idea is when I see what I've already got and that can spawn new questions, possibilities and lines I can follow.


----------



## Addison (Oct 15, 2013)

I'm a SOPer myself. I only outline if I'm stuck and when I'm done with the first draft so I have an easier time revising and editing.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 15, 2013)

Guy said:


> One trick my committee chair (quick salute to Dr. Ritchey) taught me that I found useful was something called a reverse outline, and I think it would apply to creative writing just as well as scholarly writing. It's outlining what you meant to say after you've written a rough draft. I found it worked very well to clarify points, but outlining things before I ever typed a word is something that I have trouble with. I work better when I get something down and then play with it because often the only way I'll get an idea is when I see what I've already got and that can spawn new questions, possibilities and lines I can follow.


I rather like this idea of reverse outlining. I should try it myself.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 15, 2013)

Guy said:


> Good article. I always hated the way a lot of people make creative writing a story sound like assembling a book case. It's way more art than science. I especially like the point that more action does not equal more tension. I see that mistake in movies a lot. They just keep piling on more and more action until I get exhausted and stop investing any emotion in it. After a while I just say, "Aw, to hell with it" and check out.



My opinion about this is that you don't necessarily need loads and loads of action, but you do need something happening to advance the plot. Sometimes writers may mistake that for just killing a bunch of folks. 

To me tension could be a husband that just discovered his wife in bed with another man and he just sits at the edge of the bed saying nothing while the two lovers get dressed. What's he going to do? What's he thinking? These are things that readers should be interested to learn. 

To address the article, I do think outlining is an important tool for writers...if it works for them. I don't believe in forcing anything just because someone tells you to. However, if you've struggled for years as a pantser and just can't seem to finish anything, trying an outline may not be a bad idea. I think some believe outlining has to be this super-structured thing. It doesn't. It can just be simple notes for a writer to follow without any in-depth Roman numeral style breakdowns. For example, for my purposes I write a "Scene List" which is just a series of things I want to happen in my novel. They leave room for "rabbit trails" as the article suggests and I often change things on the fly. Having that structure though helps me a lot in knowing where I'm going. For me outlining is like having a road map somewhere. It just makes it easier to get where you're going. But you could just start walking out of your house right now with no idea where you're going and still have a great story to tell depending on where the path takes you.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 15, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> For example, for my purposes I write a "Scene List" which is just a series of things I want to happen in my novel. They leave room for "rabbit trails" as the article suggests and I often change things on the fly. Having that structure though helps me a lot in knowing where I'm going. For me outlining is like having a road map somewhere. It just makes it easier to get where you're going. But you could just start walking out of your house right now with no idea where you're going and still have a great story to tell depending on where the path takes you.



That's pretty much what I'm doing with _Challenge_. I've pretty much broken up the book into four sections and I know what I want to happen in each section and how to bridge between them.


----------



## Helen (Oct 16, 2013)

Guy said:


> It's way more art than science.



I dunno.

When you see people construct stories on white boards. When you analyze stories and see just how meaningful every word, action, motif is.......there's a lot of science in it.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 16, 2013)

^^ When it comes down to actual storytelling, that's art. I think the article focuses on how to nurture the creation of our art.

I liked the article and found it helpful. I'm with a couple folks on this thread in that I mentally outline my work before I sit down to write the story. I keep notes on world building, character connections and back stories, etc. But I've found it troublesome to write a flowing story from an outline. And I agree with one point made in the article that if you know where your story is going, then you won't be writing by the seat of your pants.


----------



## Guy (Oct 16, 2013)

Helen said:


> I dunno.
> 
> When you see people construct stories on white boards. When you analyze stories and see just how meaningful every word, action, motif is.......there's a lot of science in it.


True. It just comes down to the individual's approach. To my mind what you described is the functional equivalent to outlining, and for creative writing my mind just doesn't work along those lines. I sort of see it as similar to the difference between a contemporary metallurgist and an ancient blacksmith - the metallurgist can give you a specific, scientific analysis on what is happening during the forging process and use that knowledge to produce high quality steel. The ancient smith couldn't do anything like the contemporary metallurgist's analysis. He just somehow knew how to take a piece of iron and forge it into a steel blade.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 18, 2013)

Having just attempted to outline yet another story, I have come to the conclusion that outlining doesn't really work that well for me. What tends to happen is that once I string together a series of events and start fleshing out the plot, major holes appear that send the whole story crashing down. The different parts of the story that I think up just won't harmonize with each other unless I come up with some ridiculous contrivance. It's like putting together a puzzle of pieces that don't fit together.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 18, 2013)

What strikes me in all this is how different writing is from the other arts. One rarely sees this sort of conversation -- i.e., what one must or ought to do in order to create a successful work -- in painting or in music. The closest parallel I can find is in acting, where there are methodologies that some swear by while others reject. 

Personally, I agree with those who recommend Sitzfleisch and practice. Also, most musicians (not so much with painters) understand that one does not progress through practice alone but through practice + feedback/criticism. Unfortunately, there's no writer's equivalent to playing in a bar band. We're more like classical musicians, thousands of us crowding to get that one chair open at second violin.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 18, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> What strikes me in all this is how different writing is from the other arts. One rarely sees this sort of conversation -- i.e., what one must or ought to do in order to create a successful work -- in painting or in music. The closest parallel I can find is in acting, where there are methodologies that some swear by while others reject.
> 
> Personally, I agree with those who recommend Sitzfleisch and practice. Also, most musicians (not so much with painters) understand that one does not progress through practice alone but through practice + feedback/criticism. Unfortunately, there's no writer's equivalent to playing in a bar band. We're more like classical musicians, thousands of us crowding to get that one chair open at second violin.



Ursula K. LeGuin described it this way...



> You sit down and you do it, and you do it, and you do it, until you have learned to do it.



No magic formula, you just keep doing it and (presumably) you discover what works for you and what doesn't. Just because X works for me doesn't mean it'll work for you, and vice versa.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 18, 2013)

If I may provide another article advocating for not having an outline, here's one from the famous limyaael herself:

Jumping into oblivion, a.k.a writing without an outline


----------



## Talynn (Oct 21, 2013)

I am a loose outliner. I have a fairly good idea where I am going, but am not afraid to follow rabbit trails. I believe there is a continuum, and that I'd fall more to the outliner end, though not rigidly. I found the article interesting, but I do have  to say... I found myself a bit offended. 

I've come across this "debate" before, and usually end up feeling offended. It seems to me that these article writers (and I don't want to classify ALL -- or even the majority -- of organic, pantser people this way, but it happens often enough to bother me) are saying that outliners are uncreative, paint-by-numbers, dullard lumps. That - if you outline - you have no spark, no muse, no life in your writing. That the only way one can write a "good" story is to close your eyes and let the words magically flow through you, as if channeling some spirit. I always finish these articles feeling as if I have just been called a "lesser writer" than those wild, free geniuses who pity me for my outlined straitjacket.

Pfft, ok, that was a bit more hyperbole than I would have liked. But I hope you know what I mean... No offense intended to anyone who didn't intend any!

Also, I read something once that has stuck with me, and it's helped me understand that "continuum." I have no idea who said it, but I love it:

Pantsers are just writing VERY detailed outlines; Planners are just writing VERY short first drafts.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 21, 2013)

Talynn said:


> I am a loose outliner. I have a fairly good idea where I am going, but am not afraid to follow rabbit trails. I believe there is a continuum, and that I'd fall more to the outliner end, though not rigidly. I found the article interesting, but I do have  to say... I found myself a bit offended.
> 
> I've come across this "debate" before, and usually end up feeling offended. It seems to me that these article writers (and I don't want to classify ALL -- or even the majority -- of organic, pantser people this way, but it happens often enough to bother me) are saying that outliners are uncreative, paint-by-numbers, dullard lumps. That - if you outline - you have no spark, no muse, no life in your writing. That the only way one can write a "good" story is to close your eyes and let the words magically flow through you, as if channeling some spirit. I always finish these articles feeling as if I have just been called a "lesser writer" than those wild, free geniuses who pity me for my outlined straitjacket.
> 
> ...



The thing that gets me about these articles and their writers is that they are -- to use a phrase from another thread -- the writing equivalent of paint-by-numbers. Everyone *must* follow the same rules or the Writing Police will be after you!

Writing is just as much art as painting, but how many articles do you see saying that painters must do everything exactly identically?


----------



## Talynn (Oct 21, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> The thing that gets me about these articles and their writers is that they are -- to use a phrase from another thread -- the writing equivalent of paint-by-numbers. Everyone *must* follow the same rules or the Writing Police will be after you!
> 
> Writing is just as much art as painting, but how many articles do you see saying that painters must do everything exactly identically?



And I resent the opposite implication (in these articles, not your post) that if you DO follow any structure, you are cold, dry, and uncreative.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 21, 2013)

Talynn said:


> And I resent the opposite implication (in these articles, not your post) that if you DO follow any structure, you are cold, dry, and uncreative.



That too.

Most of my strong disagreements with other members of this here forum have been when someone gets on a pedestal and tries to proclaim, Thou Shalt Do It This Way! That just rubs me entirely the wrong way.


----------



## Motley (Oct 21, 2013)

I don't outline. Sometimes I jot down things  in order so I don't forget them (I'm almost 40!)



> I always hated the way a lot of people make creative writing a story sound like assembling a book case. It's way more art than science.



Some bookcases are works of art, but they still have to hold up heavy books.
I think stories are a lot like building anything that takes creativity. Except for the truly experimental literary stuff, they do need a relatively-specific structure.


----------



## Addison (Oct 25, 2013)

Motley said:


> Except for the truly experimental literary stuff, they do need a relatively-specific structure.



That's mostly for non-fiction, historical fiction and science fiction because the people who read those more than often have knowledge about the subject. So if you write a scene with a low-paper laser cutting through a metal door and incapacitating the guard, they won't believe it because they'll know it's impossible and put the book down. Every book requires some sort of research, but the specific genre or sub-genre compared to your current knowledge really determines the required research.


----------



## Sam Evren (Oct 25, 2013)

For what it's worth, I wrote 530 pages of a book without any outline at all. 

And there were days that I really hated myself for it.

It wasn't that I needed structure. It wasn't that I couldn't write myself out of the particular box in which I'd cornered myself.

It was that on some days, when trying to unwrap myself from three consecutively-running plot-lines, or trying to trace the footsteps of which character was where, exactly, I left myself sitting in front of my keyboard rudderless.

I got through it, but I was, essentially, burning daylight without working while I struggled to figure out what, exactly, I should have been working on in that given space of time.

Different folks will approach writing in all sorts of different ways. What works for any given person is the truth of what works for them. 

In my experience, having a map---thinking of an outline as a map I've drawn for myself---has helped me cut down on those days where my compass is spinning and the wind a mere memory in my sails.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 25, 2013)

I just tried writing without any outline whatsoever and I want to take back my statements in favor of it. I definitely feel like I need to know where I am going when I write something, even if I don't jot that outline down on paper or a computer file. It's true that perfecting an outline can take work, but it's better than writing without any kind of game plan whatsoever.


----------



## Addison (Oct 26, 2013)

To each their own. Everyone has a method that works best for them. I write by my pants and then go over to tighten it up with an outline after the first draft is done.


----------



## Talynn (Oct 30, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Having just attempted to outline yet another story, I have come to the conclusion that outlining doesn't really work that well for me. What tends to happen is that once I string together a series of events and start fleshing out the plot, major holes appear that send the whole story crashing down. The different parts of the story that I think up just won't harmonize with each other unless I come up with some ridiculous contrivance. It's like putting together a puzzle of pieces that don't fit together.



That's why I LIKE outlines. If everything is going to come crashing down, I'd rather see it happen before I throw thousands (and thousands...) of words at it.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 31, 2013)

Do you ever have an outline that works fine but once you start writing the thing comes unraveled?

-= Skip =-


----------



## Ireth (Oct 31, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> Do you ever have an outline that works fine but once you start writing the thing comes unraveled?



That happens to me all the time. I've taken to outlining only a bit at a time, keeping a few chapters ahead of where I'm at in the actual writing, but keeping things loose enough to allow room for unexpected incidents or people.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 31, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> Do you ever have an outline that works fine but once you start writing the thing comes unraveled?
> 
> -= Skip =-



Yep... but it's supposed to. No outline survives unchanged. As you write, when something deviates from the outline in a significant way, you can look at the outline and see how that change affects the rest of the story. This gives you the opportunity to either backtrack or proceed. If you proceed you edit the outline to reflect the changes.

Sometimes what appears to be a good idea at the time may not be because it spins your story in a direction you man not intend or want. Having the outline allows you to see the consequences of the change before you write 10 chapters only to realize the change isn't right.


----------

