I just came to a new understanding of my own process in writing. It has to do with telling stories.
One complaint pantsers have about outlines or other types of planning is that once it's all laid out, the author loses enthusiasm for the story. I neither doubt nor criticize that sentiment. Where I've been puzzled is why it doesn't appeal to me whereas planning does.
[aside: I prefer the term planning over plotting because there's so much more to producing a completed novel or short story than just the plotting part]
Here's my own take. When we tell a story, as in "tell me a story!", we can only do so because we already know the story. We've either made it up or we've heard or read it ourselves and now we relate that story to someone else.
This is what I'm doing with my own stories. I can't just write the thing, can't do the whole driving through fog with headlights (well, driving with the whole car, one presumes). Because how do I say what's next if I don't know what's next?
There's room for many variations here. Unless they're engaged in auto-writing, the most radical of pantsers are still thinking in their head of the next scene or part of the current scene. More commonly, I hear folks who say they envision a scene, maybe a chapter, and there are even some who envision the whole book in their mind without ever putting anything on paper. But they are still telling a story that is first inside themselves.
So, the difference now becomes external methodology. Over on the planning side, the least done might be to block out a fight scene or make a few general notes about a scene. Other people might plan out a whole book, but only in general terms. Plenty of room there for increasing detail, down to writing out every beat before ever "starting" the novel.
For me, at least, there's no loss of enthusiasm through planning. In fact, I gain enthusiasm. It's like when I was first able to tell my children about The Hobbit or other much-loved tale. It was precisely my detailed knowledge of the story that lent enthusiasm to my telling of it. So it is with my novels. By planning, I let the story take shape, the characters take shape, the theme take shape. When I've abandoned planning--usually when I simply can't find a way to plan through a scene or section and just take a breath and dive in--I feel anxious and muddled.
I've spoken before about how I feel that I as author have an obligation to do justice to my characters. They go through tribulations. My job is to relate their experiences in a way that will engage readers. If I don't do that, I've failed the characters and thus failed the story. It'd be as if I told my children The Hobbit for the first time but jumbled the narrative, got personalities wrong, and botched the ending. What a tragedy!
Planning lets me block out scenes, bring richer characters, and know exactly how to end a scene to tip the reader forward to the next one. With those pieces in place, I can enjoy myself in writing details of the setting, putting nuance into dialog, linger over language. To return to the Hobbit parallel, it's because I knew the story that I was able to voice the characters, knew where to put in a dramatic pause, and where to say that's all for tonight, kids.
To close on another analogy, the troubadors of old knew their stories, which is exactly why the singers were able to spin the tale for the audience. And if they did it well, everyone went home happy.
One complaint pantsers have about outlines or other types of planning is that once it's all laid out, the author loses enthusiasm for the story. I neither doubt nor criticize that sentiment. Where I've been puzzled is why it doesn't appeal to me whereas planning does.
[aside: I prefer the term planning over plotting because there's so much more to producing a completed novel or short story than just the plotting part]
Here's my own take. When we tell a story, as in "tell me a story!", we can only do so because we already know the story. We've either made it up or we've heard or read it ourselves and now we relate that story to someone else.
This is what I'm doing with my own stories. I can't just write the thing, can't do the whole driving through fog with headlights (well, driving with the whole car, one presumes). Because how do I say what's next if I don't know what's next?
There's room for many variations here. Unless they're engaged in auto-writing, the most radical of pantsers are still thinking in their head of the next scene or part of the current scene. More commonly, I hear folks who say they envision a scene, maybe a chapter, and there are even some who envision the whole book in their mind without ever putting anything on paper. But they are still telling a story that is first inside themselves.
So, the difference now becomes external methodology. Over on the planning side, the least done might be to block out a fight scene or make a few general notes about a scene. Other people might plan out a whole book, but only in general terms. Plenty of room there for increasing detail, down to writing out every beat before ever "starting" the novel.
For me, at least, there's no loss of enthusiasm through planning. In fact, I gain enthusiasm. It's like when I was first able to tell my children about The Hobbit or other much-loved tale. It was precisely my detailed knowledge of the story that lent enthusiasm to my telling of it. So it is with my novels. By planning, I let the story take shape, the characters take shape, the theme take shape. When I've abandoned planning--usually when I simply can't find a way to plan through a scene or section and just take a breath and dive in--I feel anxious and muddled.
I've spoken before about how I feel that I as author have an obligation to do justice to my characters. They go through tribulations. My job is to relate their experiences in a way that will engage readers. If I don't do that, I've failed the characters and thus failed the story. It'd be as if I told my children The Hobbit for the first time but jumbled the narrative, got personalities wrong, and botched the ending. What a tragedy!
Planning lets me block out scenes, bring richer characters, and know exactly how to end a scene to tip the reader forward to the next one. With those pieces in place, I can enjoy myself in writing details of the setting, putting nuance into dialog, linger over language. To return to the Hobbit parallel, it's because I knew the story that I was able to voice the characters, knew where to put in a dramatic pause, and where to say that's all for tonight, kids.
To close on another analogy, the troubadors of old knew their stories, which is exactly why the singers were able to spin the tale for the audience. And if they did it well, everyone went home happy.