Series On Writing

Hmm. I didn't get past the first entry, to be honest. When I'm doing a novel-length work, I consider my inciting incident and climax and just kinda piece things in from there. My outlines, when I actually write them down instead of just formulating them in my head, aren't boring and can be extensive in some cases, so I suppose I write what this person calls a "beatline."

I do find the seven-part structure thing interesting, and perhaps I'll be able to use that at some point, because I do tend to have trouble figuring out how many new problems/mini-climaxes I need before the big one.

Otherwise, I've heard the stuff about having a pitch and logline before you write your first draft in order to give yourself an idea of the theme and "aboutness" of your novel, but to me that sounds ridiculous. These are things that many good writers can pinpoint even without pre-writing the pitch and logline. *Maybe* before revision is an appropriate time to create one, but honestly I see those things as marketing tools. I wouldn't worry about them until query letter time.

Overall, I have heard that the pitch and logline thing works for some people. It just wouldn't work very well for me. Just like some people like to outline heavily before they start a project, and some people are pantsers.

If it works for you, it's fabulous, and you should totally do it.

If you try it and it doesn't work, another method will work, and what works on one book might not necessarily work on the next one, but keep persevering.

Detri Redmond said:

Anyways here goes for those that may find it interesting and helpful:
http://selfeditingblog.com/story-development-for-writers-part-1-the-basics/649/

Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on what is said here. I'm fairly inexperienced but I'll say the steps mentioned could be pretty helpful especially for a new writer like myself.

Click to expand...

It's one method. It will work fine for some writers and not at all for others. Plenty of writers do just sit down and start writing with only the vaguest notion of what the story is about or how it will end.

Some of those end up with a mess and some end up with best-selling novels.

What it comes down to is finding what works best for you. All writers have to figure this out. Some have the ability to write brilliant stories without benefit of a blueprint or planning of any kind. Some use outlines and write stories just as brilliant.

The only wrong method is the one that doesn't work for you.

Interesting how he gets from seeing some bad books that were pantsed to the assumption that all bad books were pantsed...and all pantsed books are bad. I would suspect that most books submitted to agents/editors are bad and that a lot of those books were pantsed, but it doesn't follow that they're bad because they were pantsed. It's a correlation merely. It's just as likely they were bad because the author hadn't yet learnt the craft. Or didn't edit. Or both.

If you don't know how to structure a story, then writing an outline isn't going to help you per se. You'll just end up with a bad outline instead of a bad book. Less effort, though, I guess. OTOH, if you do know how to structure a book, then you can structure it as you write. Learning structure is far more important than making rules about how to apply it.

Read it all, take what is good for you, leave the rest. Google "snowflake method" and "dramatic question" too. Look up "three act structure" and "the hero's journey for fiction writers" as well. And while you're at it, look at Polti's 36 dramatic situations and "Freytag pyramid." And buy a copy of Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer, if you haven't already. (But, fun as that is to read this all, don't use it to avoid writing!)

While I do start with elevator pitch (what he calls logline), then a bullet-point outline (which he calls pitch sheet and beat something) and character arcs, and a lot of research, that might not work for the next writer.

I'm a little troubled that he's using film terms regarding fiction; this makes me question everything he says twice as much as I would otherwise. I'm not writing a screenplay, I'm writing a novel, and there are differences. Personally, I don't like novels where I can tell the author is trying to slap together something s/he hopes Hollywood will option. I can tell, and it doesn't work for me the reader. But people have likely gotten rich doing it, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

Nice if it works but pure B.S. for tje most part. If that works for you, fine, but I know a whole big bunch of pro writers who would rather quit writing than work this way. I'm one of them. Not that I would ever anyone who has "developmental clients" seriously, if I wanted writing advice.

Really, this guy doesn't have a clue.

You may get different opinions tomorrow .

That doesn't sound like it would work for me. I create some structure beforehand, but not to the degree this author wants.

I don't see the harm in giving it a try. If it works, great! If it doesn't, then you know.

What works for this project, may not work for the next.

What didn't work for this project, might work for the next.

Put it in your toolbox and take it out to try it every so often.

yes

Yes. I've heard Lee Child is a pantser extreme and he's one of my favorite writters. On the other hand, I've read some massive failures that looked like they were outlined to death, with predicatable, manufactured excitement in every chapter.

Use what works. Or better let, use a mixture, the right technique at the right time. I'm a plotter, but I couldn't use his steps exclusively. The plotting and pantsing are going on in parallel, complimenting each other.

Buffysquirrel said:

Interesting how he gets from seeing some bad books that were pantsed to the assumption that all bad books were pantsed...and all pantsed books are bad.

Click to expand...

Detri Redmond said:

Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on what is said here. I'm fairly inexperienced but I'll say the steps mentioned could be pretty helpful especially for a new writer like myself.

Click to expand...

I never had any format training in fiction writing, and learned most of what I know from articles like this (before the invention of blogs).

Even so, it pays to review the basics from time to time. Also, terminology changes with time. I'd never heard the term 'beatline', for example. I always called it a bullet outline.

tko said:

I've read some massive failures that looked like they were outlined to death, with predicatable, manufactured excitement in every chapter.
.

Click to expand...

I think it's harder to write a good story from a detailed plan, simply because it's difficult to hide the sense that it was constructed specifically to press readers' buttons. It's like having sex with a robot--no matter how good it feels, you know there are no emotions behind it. People who can pull it off have my admiration.

That may be why I don't like 'The DaVinci Code', for instance, which looks as if it were written by a computer. But I like 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' which shows extensive signs of having been pantsed, mainly because Larsson apparently didn't live long enough to finish the editing.

(Yes, I know Larsson outlined ten books in 'The Girl' series, but I can't believe he did it in extreme detail.)

dangerousbill said:

I think it's harder to write a good story from a detailed plan, simply because it's difficult to hide the sense that it was constructed specifically to press readers' buttons. It's like having sex with a robot--no matter how good it feels, you know there are no emotions behind it. People who can pull it off have my admiration.

That may be why I don't like 'The DaVinci Code', for instance, which looks as if it were written by a computer. But I like 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' which shows extensive signs of having been pantsed, mainly because Larsson apparently didn't live long enough to finish the editing.

(Yes, I know Larsson outlined ten books in 'The Girl' series, but I can't believe he did it in extreme detail.)

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the author and the story. I've had stories that were outlined within an inch of their lives, and worked just fine. I've had one or two where I all but ditched the outline after the second chapter and winged it from there because my characters kept hijacking the story. There are writers who can pull off a mystery or thriller without an outline...I am not one of them. My thrillers are outlined in great detail. I also write out of sequence, so I absolutely need an outline -- whether a very basic one or a detailed one, I need something -- in order to keep track of things.

I should note, of course, that my outlines are flexible. No one ever said outlines have to remain the same throughout the story, and my backspace button works just as well in that Word document as it does in the manuscript. If something happens in the story that doesn't jive with the outline, then the outline changes accordingly. My one set-in-stone rule when I write? If the outline and characters disagree, the characters win. Every time.

So for me -- I can't speak for anyone else -- it's entirely possible to write a good (at least I think they're good) story with a detailed outline as long as the outline isn't written in blood.

It's always worth seeing if an outline will work for you. All these approaches are tools; they're just not 'one size fits all'.

I'm an outliner but never marry the thing, and I don't think most outliners do, as some pantsers seem to think we do. More interesting ideas can pop up. One secondary character can become more fun than another secondary character and I'll axe the latter's scene and pants a new one in for the former.

This last time I didn't do anything more than a very brief outline until I had written 60(?) pages, at which point I did a bit more, and when it came time that I had to do a minute-by-minute timeline for an action section, I resented it and put it off as long as I could. (But it had to be done--there was too much technical detail, 3D issues requiring study of topo maps, and coordinated events among several characters to pants.) Bearilou is right for me: what works one time may not work the next.

If I were on my 15th novel in a series or category/subgenre that had the same basic structure, I doubt I'd outline novels #3-15 either. Or if I had a better memory I might not outline. My long-term memory sucks, and if I have a good plot idea (or line of dialog), I had better write it down at once, or it floats off into the ether.

But you aren't me, and all you can do is explore you until you find something that mostly works, most of the time. If you don't give up on writing, you'll probably write 20 or more novels in your life. Plenty of chances to get your unique process down.

Buffysquirrel said:

Interesting how he gets from seeing some bad books that were pantsed to the assumption that all bad books were pantsed...and all pantsed books are bad. I would suspect that most books submitted to agents/editors are bad and that a lot of those books were pantsed, but it doesn't follow that they're bad because they were pantsed. It's a correlation merely. It's just as likely they were bad because the author hadn't yet learnt the craft. Or didn't edit. Or both.

Click to expand...

I ran into an agent like that. He posted a blog post that he would not work with pantsers because he'd run into a few that had difficulties figuring out a story problem.

lorna_w said:

I'm an outliner but never marry the thing, and I don't think most outliners do, as some pantsers seem to think we do.

Click to expand...

Lol, well, when you read advice like that the OP linked to, you can see *where* we get that idea .