Katiba said:
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.
