Are you an outliner, or a non-outliner?
Yes.
If I have learned one thing in 20 years as a working writer (i.e. getting paid for what I write) and many more as a writer (i.e. one who writes), it’s that every writer’s process is unique. I distrust the idea that there is “an answer” or “one way” to do it “right” or do it “best.”
My advice on this score is simple: Figure out what works for you, and go with it. In general I believe that over time you, as a writer, will figure out general processes that work for you and specific processes that work for any given individual book. I don’t even write each book in exactly the same way, although the overall process remains pretty much the same, having been refined (or, if you will, ground down into well-worn ruts) over the years.
Do I outline or not outline?
I do both. Depending.
Or, if you want to be strict about definitions, I do neither. Depending.
Let me define (exaggeratedly) a strict outliner as someone who plots out, scene by scene, character development by character development, an entire novel before s/he writes it.
I definitely do not do that. Too much happens in “real-time” as I am writing. I have learned over time to trust the flow as much as the landmarks. I give in to that sense of trust as I write, knowing that things and bits and baubles will bubble out of my subconscious at unexpected times and emerge with or as cool stuff (at least I think it’s cool) that I *could not* have sat down and coldly come up with during a brainstorming or outlining session.
Also, I am dependent on the process of “organic writing” (the story and character development growing as the novel grows) for certain elements of my character interaction. I have had the experience of having characters suddenly say something I literally was not planning on them saying, things that took me by surprise; things that illuminated their characters in unexpected ways that only made their characters deeper or more realistic, more appalling or more appealing; things that, had I sat down and outlined and then written to the outline, would not have developed.
Do I think outlining kills spontaneity in writing? No, actually, I don’t. I think part of what goes on with outliners--so I suspect--is that they do a lot of head work in the outlining process that I prefer to do in the writing process. Ultimately, if the story comes out as richly as they want, then it doesn’t matter where that work happens.
Alternately, there is the strict non outliner, which I will define for my purposes as a writer who starts with nothing more than an image, a character, or an interaction and then writes forward discovering the story as s/he goes.
To say this way of writing would terrify me is an understatement. Dude, I am way too much of a control freak.
I think of myself as an architectural writer, mostly because I think it hip and cool to say so. And also because I like architecture, and because I studied music a little and the architecture of music often seems to me to have a lot to do with the way I plot, with the way themes and character affect and events and consequences ebb and flow, recede and heighten and recur, within the course of the story.
But what I would say that means is that I need a scaffolding. I need at the very least a foundation on which I’m building the story. I need a framework, and a way of thinking about the narrative (or melodic) flow of the plot. In the early and intermediate stages of thinking about the plot, specific scenes or events or reactions will pop into my head, and I’ll note them down. Later, as I’m actually writing the first draft, I will start cobbling together very ragged outlines for things that now necessarily come later; he’ll have to go *here* now because of what happened *there*; those two must have a conversation; she’ll sell that ring because it has bad associations. That outline may change in its contours, and sometimes long awaited events will transmogrify into unintended beasts, but in a sense I am writing to a fluid and malleable outline.
Tad Williams once called a process similar to this the “Hawaiian Islands” method: you know the peaks (the major events) that show above the sea, but all the stuff lying below the water you have to discover as you write. I like that metaphor, too.
That’s the long way of explaining why my answer to the question is “yes.” I do outline, where it helps me, but I also let the story unfold as I’m writing, where that works. Ultimately, I’m always balancing somewhere between the two.
So where does your process fall on the outlining/non-outlining axis?
October 20 2008, 08:18:20 UTC 3 years ago
By nature, I do not prepare. I never studied for exams; I don't make notes before a public gig; I don't go into interviews or meetings with any notion what I'm going to say. I am idle, or slapdash, or a procrastinator, or simply confident in my ability to improvise (depending on whom from my long past you choose to talk to).
Similarly, given my choice, I don't go into a book with any kind of outline. What I like is a title, a first line and a sense of setting. That's enough. Often in fact I'll have a last line too, or at least a sense of ending; a book is a journey, "Hey, I'm in Newcastle; let's go to Samarcand!" and off we go. I like that sense of the author discovering the story at the same pace as the reader does, page by page.
Having said that, though, most of my best examples of that are actually short stories, which are almost all written that way. My books are written to commission, and how often do publishers commission on the basis of a title, a couple of lines and a setting? The closest I've come to that was a commission on the basis of a phone conversation, where really all I was committed to was a book about amnesia and a fallen angel. (Dispossession, since you ask...)
Mostly, publishers want something on paper that looks like a synopsis. So I write them. As skimpily as I can get away with, but I do write them; and then I put them away and don't look at them again. I have the most ill-regulated memory, I can seldom remember anything for any length of time; the books tend to grow fairly swiftly away from whatever it was the synopsis said, because I genuinely don't know what that was. Besides, it might take me two weeks to write a synopsis, two or three years to write the books that derive from it; it's ridiculous to be shackled for years by a fortnight's-worth of ideas. I wrote the most detailed synopsis I could for the Outremer books, because I was shifting genre - and then into chapter three walked a character not mentioned in the synopsis because I hadn't realised I'd need him, and he instantly became one of the pillars the whole trilogy depends upon. It's like that. It's always like that.
(Don't tell my editor, but I'm currently halfway through vol two of three. I barely remember what the outline said about vol 2; I have Absolutely No Idea what's supposed to happen in vol 3. But hey, I've got a title, and a world ready-built, with a lot of people in it and all sorts of tensions and distress; what more do I need? An outline is about plot, and plot is just what people do. Get the people right, and they'll do something interesting...)
October 20 2008, 08:18:45 UTC 3 years ago
PS
Oof. Sorry, that got a bit long...October 20 2008, 08:31:49 UTC 3 years ago
That said, ten years in this game has taught me how essential it is to develop a feel for the flow of the narrative and the emerging imperatives and developments that you weren't expecting. Even when they're going to give you a lot more trouble with other aspects of your plot/characters than you necessarily want or like. Dodging such issues doesn't work, I find. Taking the hard choices makes for much better books.
October 20 2008, 09:07:49 UTC 3 years ago
October 20 2008, 10:56:13 UTC 3 years ago
October 20 2008, 11:22:07 UTC 3 years ago
I just have no idea what in the middle, and if the middle ends up requiring that the characters end up somewhere else than where I first envisioned them ending, that's fine.
Often -- usually, in fact -- somewhere in the middle I'll get stuck and have to stop to figure out what all this means. Usually I'll do some small-scale outlining of the next part of the book to allow me to move forward.
October 20 2008, 11:43:51 UTC 3 years ago
18. She sells ring. (bad associations.) $20. The rat, she thought. The bald-faced liar. How could she have been stupid enough to keep believing what he'd said about the ring even after...
The bit will probably end up as is in.
So at the end, my plan sometimes looks kind of odd.
What I actually use it for is mostly thinking about pacing and the whole shape of the story.
October 20 2008, 12:36:01 UTC 3 years ago
I have no axis!!!
Me I generally don't outline... but sometimes I do. It depends how I feel, sometimes I keep the ending in mind and write to the end... and sometimes I get bored with the story and don't finish. My writing process is as random and spontanious as my writing topics... I just write.October 20 2008, 13:22:28 UTC 3 years ago
But I take the above and make the Event possible only by the actions of the characters I follow in the book.
I have on occasion taken my sparse first drafts and turned those into an outline after the fact in preparation for when I develop them into proper novels. That may be backwards but it helps me out in the rewrite process.
October 20 2008, 13:53:55 UTC 3 years ago
October 20 2008, 14:30:55 UTC 3 years ago Edited: October 20 2008, 14:33:23 UTC
Sometimes I start with a character, sometimes a concept, once or twice just an image. I put that on the page, and then I go away and think about it for a while. A lot of those end up permanently stalled, never becoming stories.
But some of those do start to roll, and spring new ideas or additions on me at the most awkward times ("while driving" is really annoying, as is "in a meeting"). If I can, I note the idea in my moleskein for later use. I have about a dozen little memo books from the past 20 years, and yes, I keep them all.
At some point in a project, I get a clear picture of where everything is going. At that point I am likely to write it up as a loose outline just so I can check that it makes sense (short story), or so I can timeline events (novel).
If I don't get this "spontaneous outline" by 3000 words into a short story, then the story either stalls or it really wants to be a novel.
A novel can get within hailing distance of the end without anything outline-y happening, and really the only reason I make the outline at that point is to see the skeleton and if it looks malformed.
So the short answer for me: I outline stories so I can finish them and I outline novels after the first draft.
What I can't do is sit down and discover the story via an outline, not even the major peaks. I need to be working in prose for things to happen.
October 20 2008, 14:51:44 UTC 3 years ago
The last book started with a scene -- a conversation, really -- in my head. It grew and morphed and mutated in sometimes startling ways. At a certain point there was an outline. Later there were other outlines. If I could find the original one, I suspect I would discover that it bears about as much resemblance to the finished MS as ... well, not very much at all, is what I'm trying to say. There was no love story in the original outline. That one guy didn't die. This other person was left behind in chapter three, which later became chapter nine. And so on.
The current book also started with a scene (a monologue this time) in my head; in this case I can trace its origins, with considerable precision, to a bad patch at work and, specifically, to a former co-worker -- but I'm doing my best to file the serial numbers off. Again, though, it's growing and mutating in far more interesting ways than I ever suspected it might do.
I mean, it's not as though you can just make the characters or the story do whatever you want them to do. (I think that's why people dislike books with a MESSAGE: it's much too clear that the author made the characters do what s/he wanted, or behave in strictly rational ways, rather than doing what came naturally to them.)
What seems to work for me -- apart from always keeping handy the matériel for writing stuff down -- is to try to plot out a little bit ahead, but not too far, while recognizing the strong possibility that any or all of what I've just plotted out will turn out to be totally wrong. :)
October 20 2008, 14:59:16 UTC 3 years ago
I do it the terrifying way
I always start with a scene, rather like I turned TV channels and landed in the middle of some interesting program. I write from there. I don't know where I am going. Once I am all done and know how it ends, THEN I can go through what I have, outline the shape of the story, and rewrite it to get rid of the unneeded bits and add in the stuff I missed.I honestly don't think I could do it any other way.
October 20 2008, 17:37:41 UTC 3 years ago
October 20 2008, 17:41:15 UTC 3 years ago
off the scale
Mental outlines of a sort. Mental, because they can't easily be put on paper: kinesthetic-tactile, sometimes in four dimensions.October 20 2008, 19:18:49 UTC 3 years ago
Most artists start with something that does not look like a final human being. They start with something that looks like a lot of swirly oval things. Eventually, it becomes a human face.
That's how I write. My "outlines" are swirly oval things, that tell me the bones of the story, much the way the artists' first sketches tell them the bones that will eventually support the paint and flesh out the picture. I cannot imagine just leaping into a story and writing it-- though, I do that with my flash fiction. I have to worldbuild to a degree, but too much kills the fun of the story for me.