I pantsered my first novel and it took me three times as long to finish because of all the plot holes and meandering threads. My second book was strictly plotted and it felt like wearing a straight jacket, lifeless and dry. Now I do a basic outline to make sure the plot points connect and make sense, then pantser the meat and potatoes. A blend of both is probably the best approach in my opinion.
This. I 100% pantsed my first draft, ending it when I hit nearly two million words. Then, I created a basic outline using elements from that word vomit and ended up with an actual story, a trilogy worth. I still prefer to pants my tales, but a basic outline is still required to some degree for me.
@@MrNoucfeanor I'm glad you agreed and have a similar experience. I often wondered if I was somewhat crazy doing it this way. I probably am slightly mad in the head, but at least it works :)
Same here! This exact blend of both is what works best for me too. Enough structure to know it’s generally story shaped, but not so much structure that you have no room to riff on voice and character and tone as you go. Leave room to surprise yourself. That’s where the joy of writing comes from for me.
My plotted stories plodded. My pantsed stories could never finish because they weren't going anywhere. Gotta do both them to get the perfect blend, of an exciting story that builds to the conclusion.
When I was 5 years old I actually got lost in the woods, along a little creek, maybe 1/4 from camp. I was devastated, but I remembered what my mom had said to me,”If you ever get lost, sit on a log.” That was it , all of it, her instructions. So I found a log and started to cry. And cry. When I stopped crying I started to think. I figured it out: water always goes 15:07 down hill. I had been running upstream along the creek in my keds that just wanted to run. Simple! I would run downhill. I did. When I saw my mom, I ran to her and hugged her. Hard. “Honey, what’s going on?” “Nothing,” I said. As a kid I was pretty quiet. Very few words ever came out of my mouth. As an adult, nothing has changed. I’m a pantser lost in the woods of my on making. I couldn’t help it, my pen just started writing one day like my feet along that creek. I’m 300k words into a story, lost, no clear plot, but not crying . Yet. But I’m ready to sit on a log and listen to Tim. Thanks Tim.
I am very firmly in the camp of the plotter. If I don't know where the story is going, I find it difficult even to get started. If I have writer's block, it's almost always a result of not fleshing out my ideas beforehand. Since I tend to write historical fantasy, I need to do a ridiculous amount of research before I can even get started, and frequently have to stall in order to look something up. Strangely enough, this approach is actually more liberating than the arbitrary quicksand of secondary world-building.
The ability to craft a compelling story and the skill of writing are distinct. The former is intuitive, often absorbed effortlessly through life experiences, while the latter is a practical skill that requires dedicated learning. Just as appreciating great architecture doesn't make you an architect, having a knack for storytelling doesn't automatically translate to writing proficiency. The advantage for those with storytelling intuition is that they bypass the common struggle of developing a captivating plot, saving them time and effort.
My take is that it’s beneficial to have the heart of an explorer, willing to dive into the medium with courage and optimism, like a pantser; but be humble enough to accept the wisdom and experience of teachers and experts who can guide you on your journey with invaluable tools and know how, like a plotter. The best advice I’ve heard is - Commit to the process, love what you do, and feel free to explore off the beaten path. Thanks Tim, you and your team are awesome!
This video felt like it missed the mark. Boiled down, it says, "Good writers can do either," which isn't that interesting. The core piece of advice is also, "Don't worry about this, focus on becoming a good writer," which isn't that helpful. Story Grid often looks like a heavy outline-first approach: map out your scenes, have all the obligatory moments, manage your tension and resolution, etc. A much more useful video, imo, would be to show how a "pantser" can still follow this framework (or can they?), or to show how much or how little planning is actually involved to use the Story Grid methodology, or to offer a hybrid model, showing which parts of a story should be plotted in advance and which parts have the most room for discovery. I'd really like to see one of those analysis.
The problem is that Story Grid is a method that works for a particular kind of writer, but isn't applicable to every writer. There are writers (me, for example) who would utterly fail at writing fiction if they had to follow this system. In fact, it wouldn't work for roughly 60% of writers. The ONLY thing that works 100% of the time is for every writer to figure out their own process. But no one wants to hear that they have to figure this stuff out for themselves; they want to step into someone else's system and immediately become a great writer. That's not how it works. At all.
@@carneliancaryatid I see Story Grid as an excellent analysis structure, to see what makes good writing good. I also see it as a good tool for revisions; I've got over 100k in my current story (idea out of the blue, just started writing one day), and I can already pinpoint what I would change / how to rearrange scenes for the second draft. What I don't see is how it helps me, a discovery writer, get better at doing the first draft. And maybe it can't. I would at least like to see that upfront, though, rather than this rather empty video that fundamentally just says "Get gud."
The main point is: you can do either, but intentionally learning about storytelling is going to be the more efficient way to improve as a writer when you're starting out
I've been developing iterations of the same story since 2018. This year from 1st Feb to 1st June I wrote an iteration that is now the story I wanted to write in 2018. Writing in First Person and Present Tense was the ingredient that brought it together. The story is shorter now and far more concise. I now have the skills to write the story I want to write. A brilliant story? Almost certainly not. P.S. I love writing scenes.
I do both... And allow my stories to be what they do best... I follow the story to its logical end... considering everything. So I do both and let the ideas go into a concept journal and see what it does on paper. Not word salad. By the time I write the first draft, I have a clear idea where it goes.
All great. Terrific explanation. I could not agree more. But, (and with me, there always seems to be a 'but'), maybe there's a way to look at pantser-plotter a bit more broadly, that can actually help that process. What if we looked at it from the point of view of advantages and disadvantages? At the most basic level, the biggest problem with pantsing is you don't have a map. You don't really know where you're going at first, there might be some wandering involved, and you might not ever get there. That's why people plot. Plotting has its own disadvantages, and one of the biggest ones is it hems you in. It immediately restricts where you can go to tell your story. It corrals you. Even more importantly, creativity all comes from the unconscious mind, and none of it comes from the conscious mind. Zero. What comes to mind spontaneously in plotting is simply not allowed, and a great many things in a great many stories are based on that spontaneous inspiration (found in pantsing), which happens as you tell the story that you aren't even sure of yet, and which is usually not nearly as powerful if you try to consciously figure it out before you tell the story. This is why people pants. For the sake of argument, let's think of these two things as a binary choice. In reality, they are not. It's a kind of a spectrum, and you can find yourself anywhere on that spectrum, part plotter, part pantser. There is a way to avoid all the disadvantages of either, while at the same time, getting all the advantages of both, and the secret to that is timing. Instead of picking a spot on the spectrum, which is neither full plotting nor full pantsing, do both. OK, how can I possibly do both? Aren't they sort of mutually exclusive? Nope. The answer is actually very simple. Pants first, plot later. I refer to this as 'reverse plotting', and anyone can do it. First, draft like Stephen King. Write like you're shot out of a cannon. Your drafts might be a mess. But you've written what you've written unencumbered, and it came from where all creativity comes from-your unconscious mind. Whatever inspiration there is is expressed, even though a lot of that may have been unconscious and even unexpected. Then, take the writer hat off and put your editor hat on, and look at things from the point of view of how well it might have been 'unconsciously' plotted. Fix what doesn't work. If it's not going anywhere, or not going where you want it to go, all you have to do is pick a destination, like a plotter might do, and take it there. But now you're doing this after the fact. After the creativity has already happened. And now you have all the advantages of both states of mind and none of the disadvantages. It WILL be spontaneously creative, and it WILL take the story where you want it to go. It takes work. It's not quite as efficient as plotting, and not quite as efficient as pantsing. but looking for shortcuts is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Just do the work. Do this on a scene-by-scene basis. Just draft the glimmer, the unformed idea, as the basis for the scene, and then get the scene working, by using what you've learned from Story Grid. Once you have the scene working the way it should, then you can work on trying to structure it properly into the format of the novel you're trying to write. Stephen King doesn't just write like he's shot out of a cannon. He also fixes what doesn't work after the fact. I didn't invent this process. There are a number of successful published authors who already know how to do this and do it all the time. They, and I, are living proof of how well this works.
I like this approach and might just try it out. One question: what if you get stuck in the story while pantsing? Do you fix it immediately with plotting and pants further?
@@allesaufanfang-sarah I'm afraid maybe our definitions of 'stuck' may not coincide. Or, maybe they do. I think the smart thing to do during the drafting stage is to just let your freak flag fly. Don't concern yourself with whether things work properly or not. Writing is a nondestructive, medium, meaning you can always easily go back and change anything at any time. So you can revise things whenever the moment feels right to do that. How you handle things is based on your personal style and your ability. And it shouldn't feel hampered by either of those. Some people are able to quickly switch hats between drafter and editor even during a first draft. Some people aren't. Both of those people can prevail at writing. I have always been able to kind of do both at the same time, but I only switch to editor mode while drafting a new scene when I get 'stuck', and what I mean by that is there are little moments where I don't yet know what the next idea I need to write in the draft is going to be. I might only have a glimmer. Drafting without plotting first is like driving your car in unfamiliar territory and you have no idea what's over the next hill, but that's kind of fun and exhilarating at the same time. When I seem to get 'stuck', if I take that moment to look over the last 100 words or so I can see whether something might need a bit of fixing or not. I deal with that, and then whatever new idea I have in the drafting seems to come to me. Focusing on what's just happened rather than on what's ahead, distracts me just enough so that my unconscious mind can tap me on the shoulder and whisper to me what should be next. So stuck or not, everything is forward progress. For me, this means that first drafts also include a certain amount of revision. on the other hand, I have a friend who can only do drafting while drafting. She has a process where she will revise just dialogue, then make another pass and revise just action, then a third pass and revise just narrative. And this works for her.
I like the orienteering analogy. Proper orienteering requires a map and a compass. It’s too easy to get lost in writing without at least a basic outline (map) and a good grasp of theme (compass). I took the Stephen King route at first, and wandered in circles and was attacked by proverbial bears numerous times before I realized, hey, there are probably people on the internet who already know how to do this. 8 years and a total rewrite later, it’s published and I’m plotting book 2 (with an actual outline!) and my confidence in my abilities as a writer has skyrocketed. Still have a lot to learn, but at least I’m not lost banging my head against a tree anymore thanks to channels like this one 😄
@@youareawesome5236 wow. do you legit not understand how rude you sound? literally accusing me of plagiarism for using my own words to summarize and complement the video (and add details he never mentioned, thereby building on the analogy)? how fragile your ego must be. discussing the video is what the comment section is FOR
@@notalltheories poor victim. I said I'd plagearize your saying after I complimented you. Than I informed you it was a joke n you still can't understand, even after I asked if you understand. I've legit never seen a person get paid a compliment, get told a joke, have the joke explained n still don't understand anything n resort straight to being a victim. You'll never finish a book. If you don't understand set up n pay off. You'll never a book if you can't understand perspective, something I used that you didn't even notice as your brain is hardwired to see "victim" You'll never finish a book because if you think keeping track n understanding a 15-20 word comment is difficult. Sorry I insulted myself, paid you a compliment n used self deprocation as humour. Poor you such a victim. Lol I still honestly can't believe you can't understand the most simple style of writing n I legit can't believe you're trying to play victim. I bet you're American n I bet I know who you support in politics. Just by this comment. You gotta know ya readers. Good luck with your book.
General question, a tad off - topic: should one first learn all the ins and outs of poetry before attempting prose? This is something I run into often enough to prompt the question.
I think it depends on your skill level personally. If you’re first starting out, you need the structure because you don’t know enough to find plot and character problems. You can’t fix it. Or it will take so long that it’s not worth fixing. Learn to plot and character map and world build well, and you can wander fruitfully. Learn the form first.
You don't get it. Intuitive pantsers are not some idiots who choose to learn writing the hard way. This is the EASY way for us. This is how our minds work. I read all those formulas, all this theoretical stuff, “inciting incidents” and the like, and I find it very interesting in itself - but if I try to apply it to my own writing, it kills it. I just can't think in theoreotical terms - I see real people, in a real world, dealing with real problems. And the thing is - let's poke the elephant in the room now - formulas do not a story make. No matter how well-versed somebody is in the theory of character arcs, for instance, this is *no guarantee* that they would be able to create interesting characters. Ultimately, you've got things backwards here. The rules of novel-writing are *secondary* to the ancient art of narrative fiction, which in turn is rooted in our experience of the world and our psychology. This is the knowledge that the intuitive pantser is drawing upon. To use your forest analogy: you're implying that anyone not using a GPS is blundering around haphazardly. But we are not blundering - we orient ourselves by subtle natural signals, like the side of the tree trunks on which the moss grows. And as for the tired argument about Stephen King being a professional... Was he a professional when he wrote his first novel? No. And that novel was “Carrie”. So much for “blundering”....
If you slow down the learning process enough, the learner often gives up because they have nothing but skills and no actual work. If you do "discovery" learning, the learner actually enjoys the learning process and is motivated to keep learning. Don't turn learning writing into a particularly boring college course.
Pantsers like King and Lee Child are not really pantsing anything. They are reproducing very stereotypical, formulaic stuff within genre conventions. King read horror stuff from childhood and has absorbed the conventions and formulas to the point where he writes in that vein. Lee Child is basically reproducing the Travis McGee stories he read obsessively. They don't need to plan because they are churning out pretty conventional, formulaic genre material.
True, but they very occasionally stumble into a modestly interesting outcome, out of the sheer number of attempts. I agree their basic outlook is shallow and conventional, and would not normally stand up to re-reading, the ultimate acid test. They actually do some research on occasion, but rather than challenge the reader with whatever they might have uncovered, they will instead filter it in a way that flatters the reader's conventions, because they share that conventional outlook. If they try to disturb the reader it will usually be with physical gross out things, but not with fundamental or general notions. Ultimately the emphasis is on the sensational, which works well in a declining world where people are less reflective and lack the realism and refinement to know that keeping the sensational to a minimum is valuable in itself.
Stephen King did it the long way, which is probably why he recommends the long way as well: "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot" (On Writing, page 145). This videos wandering in the forest analogy is very similar to how King describes his own process, "good story ideas seem to come quite literally from nowhere, sailing at you right out of the empty sky" (On Writing, page 37). Like the video argues, writers like this learn by developing intuition the long and hard way (a sort of developing a sense for writing almost like trial and error). King did exactly this. He was an obsessive reader growing up, and he wrote a ton of (often very long) books in his career. King may be a writing genius as you say, but he clearly work very long and hard to get to that point. He worked for and earned his success.
@@tehufn we agree hes a genius. And non geniuses will get lost in the woods and wont make it out alive. I am 70% into my first draft of a 400 page novel and couldn't imagine pancing that. Im definitely pro plotter.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I pantsered my first novel and it took me three times as long to finish because of all the plot holes and meandering threads. My second book was strictly plotted and it felt like wearing a straight jacket, lifeless and dry. Now I do a basic outline to make sure the plot points connect and make sense, then pantser the meat and potatoes. A blend of both is probably the best approach in my opinion.
This.
I 100% pantsed my first draft, ending it when I hit nearly two million words.
Then, I created a basic outline using elements from that word vomit and ended up with an actual story, a trilogy worth.
I still prefer to pants my tales, but a basic outline is still required to some degree for me.
@@MrNoucfeanor I'm glad you agreed and have a similar experience. I often wondered if I was somewhat crazy doing it this way. I probably am slightly mad in the head, but at least it works :)
Same here! This exact blend of both is what works best for me too. Enough structure to know it’s generally story shaped, but not so much structure that you have no room to riff on voice and character and tone as you go. Leave room to surprise yourself. That’s where the joy of writing comes from for me.
@@SteveJubs You said it better than me, it gives you structure, plus room to be creative and let the story take you!
My plotted stories plodded. My pantsed stories could never finish because they weren't going anywhere. Gotta do both them to get the perfect blend, of an exciting story that builds to the conclusion.
When I was 5 years old I actually got lost in the woods, along a little creek, maybe 1/4 from camp. I was devastated, but I remembered what my mom had said to me,”If you ever get lost, sit on a log.” That was it , all of it, her instructions. So I found a log and started to cry. And cry. When I stopped crying I started to think. I figured it out: water always goes 15:07 down hill. I had been running upstream along the creek in my keds that just wanted to run. Simple! I would run downhill. I did.
When I saw my mom, I ran to her and hugged her. Hard.
“Honey, what’s going on?”
“Nothing,” I said.
As a kid I was pretty quiet.
Very few words ever came out of my mouth.
As an adult, nothing has changed.
I’m a pantser lost in the woods of my on making. I couldn’t help it, my pen just started writing one day like my feet along that creek. I’m 300k words into a story, lost, no clear plot, but not crying . Yet. But I’m ready to sit on a log and listen to Tim. Thanks Tim.
I am very firmly in the camp of the plotter. If I don't know where the story is going, I find it difficult even to get started. If I have writer's block, it's almost always a result of not fleshing out my ideas beforehand. Since I tend to write historical fantasy, I need to do a ridiculous amount of research before I can even get started, and frequently have to stall in order to look something up. Strangely enough, this approach is actually more liberating than the arbitrary quicksand of secondary world-building.
The ability to craft a compelling story and the skill of writing are distinct. The former is intuitive, often absorbed effortlessly through life experiences, while the latter is a practical skill that requires dedicated learning. Just as appreciating great architecture doesn't make you an architect, having a knack for storytelling doesn't automatically translate to writing proficiency. The advantage for those with storytelling intuition is that they bypass the common struggle of developing a captivating plot, saving them time and effort.
This is the best explanation I have ever heard! Excellent! Thank you. I’m so grateful for Story Grid.
My take is that it’s beneficial to have the heart of an explorer, willing to dive into the medium with courage and optimism, like a pantser; but be humble enough to accept the wisdom and experience of teachers and experts who can guide you on your journey with invaluable tools and know how, like a plotter. The best advice I’ve heard is - Commit to the process, love what you do, and feel free to explore off the beaten path.
Thanks Tim, you and your team are awesome!
I tend to start with a structure, figure out my character's name, and then write.
This video felt like it missed the mark. Boiled down, it says, "Good writers can do either," which isn't that interesting. The core piece of advice is also, "Don't worry about this, focus on becoming a good writer," which isn't that helpful.
Story Grid often looks like a heavy outline-first approach: map out your scenes, have all the obligatory moments, manage your tension and resolution, etc. A much more useful video, imo, would be to show how a "pantser" can still follow this framework (or can they?), or to show how much or how little planning is actually involved to use the Story Grid methodology, or to offer a hybrid model, showing which parts of a story should be plotted in advance and which parts have the most room for discovery. I'd really like to see one of those analysis.
The problem is that Story Grid is a method that works for a particular kind of writer, but isn't applicable to every writer. There are writers (me, for example) who would utterly fail at writing fiction if they had to follow this system. In fact, it wouldn't work for roughly 60% of writers. The ONLY thing that works 100% of the time is for every writer to figure out their own process. But no one wants to hear that they have to figure this stuff out for themselves; they want to step into someone else's system and immediately become a great writer. That's not how it works. At all.
@@carneliancaryatid I see Story Grid as an excellent analysis structure, to see what makes good writing good. I also see it as a good tool for revisions; I've got over 100k in my current story (idea out of the blue, just started writing one day), and I can already pinpoint what I would change / how to rearrange scenes for the second draft.
What I don't see is how it helps me, a discovery writer, get better at doing the first draft. And maybe it can't. I would at least like to see that upfront, though, rather than this rather empty video that fundamentally just says "Get gud."
The main point is: you can do either, but intentionally learning about storytelling is going to be the more efficient way to improve as a writer when you're starting out
I've been developing iterations of the same story since 2018. This year from 1st Feb to 1st June I wrote an iteration that is now the story I wanted to write in 2018. Writing in First Person and Present Tense was the ingredient that brought it together. The story is shorter now and far more concise. I now have the skills to write the story I want to write. A brilliant story? Almost certainly not. P.S. I love writing scenes.
I do both... And allow my stories to be what they do best... I follow the story to its logical end... considering everything. So I do both and let the ideas go into a concept journal and see what it does on paper. Not word salad. By the time I write the first draft, I have a clear idea where it goes.
All great. Terrific explanation. I could not agree more.
But, (and with me, there always seems to be a 'but'), maybe there's a way to look at pantser-plotter a bit more broadly, that can actually help that process.
What if we looked at it from the point of view of advantages and disadvantages? At the most basic level, the biggest problem with pantsing is you don't have a map. You don't really know where you're going at first, there might be some wandering involved, and you might not ever get there. That's why people plot.
Plotting has its own disadvantages, and one of the biggest ones is it hems you in. It immediately restricts where you can go to tell your story. It corrals you.
Even more importantly, creativity all comes from the unconscious mind, and none of it comes from the conscious mind. Zero. What comes to mind spontaneously in plotting is simply not allowed, and a great many things in a great many stories are based on that spontaneous inspiration (found in pantsing), which happens as you tell the story that you aren't even sure of yet, and which is usually not nearly as powerful if you try to consciously figure it out before you tell the story. This is why people pants.
For the sake of argument, let's think of these two things as a binary choice. In reality, they are not. It's a kind of a spectrum, and you can find yourself anywhere on that spectrum, part plotter, part pantser.
There is a way to avoid all the disadvantages of either, while at the same time, getting all the advantages of both, and the secret to that is timing. Instead of picking a spot on the spectrum, which is neither full plotting nor full pantsing, do both.
OK, how can I possibly do both? Aren't they sort of mutually exclusive?
Nope. The answer is actually very simple. Pants first, plot later. I refer to this as 'reverse plotting', and anyone can do it. First, draft like Stephen King. Write like you're shot out of a cannon. Your drafts might be a mess. But you've written what you've written unencumbered, and it came from where all creativity comes from-your unconscious mind. Whatever inspiration there is is expressed, even though a lot of that may have been unconscious and even unexpected.
Then, take the writer hat off and put your editor hat on, and look at things from the point of view of how well it might have been 'unconsciously' plotted. Fix what doesn't work. If it's not going anywhere, or not going where you want it to go, all you have to do is pick a destination, like a plotter might do, and take it there. But now you're doing this after the fact. After the creativity has already happened.
And now you have all the advantages of both states of mind and none of the disadvantages. It WILL be spontaneously creative, and it WILL take the story where you want it to go. It takes work. It's not quite as efficient as plotting, and not quite as efficient as pantsing. but looking for shortcuts is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Just do the work.
Do this on a scene-by-scene basis. Just draft the glimmer, the unformed idea, as the basis for the scene, and then get the scene working, by using what you've learned from Story Grid. Once you have the scene working the way it should, then you can work on trying to structure it properly into the format of the novel you're trying to write.
Stephen King doesn't just write like he's shot out of a cannon. He also fixes what doesn't work after the fact. I didn't invent this process. There are a number of successful published authors who already know how to do this and do it all the time. They, and I, are living proof of how well this works.
I like this approach and might just try it out. One question: what if you get stuck in the story while pantsing? Do you fix it immediately with plotting and pants further?
@@allesaufanfang-sarah I'm afraid maybe our definitions of 'stuck' may not coincide. Or, maybe they do. I think the smart thing to do during the drafting stage is to just let your freak flag fly. Don't concern yourself with whether things work properly or not. Writing is a nondestructive, medium, meaning you can always easily go back and change anything at any time. So you can revise things whenever the moment feels right to do that.
How you handle things is based on your personal style and your ability. And it shouldn't feel hampered by either of those. Some people are able to quickly switch hats between drafter and editor even during a first draft. Some people aren't. Both of those people can prevail at writing.
I have always been able to kind of do both at the same time, but I only switch to editor mode while drafting a new scene when I get 'stuck', and what I mean by that is there are little moments where I don't yet know what the next idea I need to write in the draft is going to be. I might only have a glimmer.
Drafting without plotting first is like driving your car in unfamiliar territory and you have no idea what's over the next hill, but that's kind of fun and exhilarating at the same time.
When I seem to get 'stuck', if I take that moment to look over the last 100 words or so I can see whether something might need a bit of fixing or not. I deal with that, and then whatever new idea I have in the drafting seems to come to me. Focusing on what's just happened rather than on what's ahead, distracts me just enough so that my unconscious mind can tap me on the shoulder and whisper to me what should be next. So stuck or not, everything is forward progress.
For me, this means that first drafts also include a certain amount of revision. on the other hand, I have a friend who can only do drafting while drafting. She has a process where she will revise just dialogue, then make another pass and revise just action, then a third pass and revise just narrative. And this works for her.
I like the orienteering analogy. Proper orienteering requires a map and a compass. It’s too easy to get lost in writing without at least a basic outline (map) and a good grasp of theme (compass). I took the Stephen King route at first, and wandered in circles and was attacked by proverbial bears numerous times before I realized, hey, there are probably people on the internet who already know how to do this. 8 years and a total rewrite later, it’s published and I’m plotting book 2 (with an actual outline!) and my confidence in my abilities as a writer has skyrocketed. Still have a lot to learn, but at least I’m not lost banging my head against a tree anymore thanks to channels like this one 😄
What an awesome analogy. I'm gonna steal this n tell people I came up with it.
Some pants, some plot.
Some plagearize.
@@youareawesome5236 umm literally half the video was Tim talking about orienteering and how it relates to writing/plotting... it's not my analogy 😅
@@notalltheories yeah. Do you legit not understand my comment was a joke, playing off your comment, that required a set up n pay off.
@@youareawesome5236 wow. do you legit not understand how rude you sound? literally accusing me of plagiarism for using my own words to summarize and complement the video (and add details he never mentioned, thereby building on the analogy)? how fragile your ego must be. discussing the video is what the comment section is FOR
@@notalltheories poor victim. I said I'd plagearize your saying after I complimented you.
Than I informed you it was a joke n you still can't understand, even after I asked if you understand.
I've legit never seen a person get paid a compliment, get told a joke, have the joke explained n still don't understand anything n resort straight to being a victim.
You'll never finish a book. If you don't understand set up n pay off.
You'll never a book if you can't understand perspective, something I used that you didn't even notice as your brain is hardwired to see "victim"
You'll never finish a book because if you think keeping track n understanding a 15-20 word comment is difficult.
Sorry I insulted myself, paid you a compliment n used self deprocation as humour. Poor you such a victim.
Lol I still honestly can't believe you can't understand the most simple style of writing n I legit can't believe you're trying to play victim.
I bet you're American n I bet I know who you support in politics. Just by this comment.
You gotta know ya readers.
Good luck with your book.
General question, a tad off - topic: should one first learn all the ins and outs of poetry before attempting prose? This is something I run into often enough to prompt the question.
I think it depends on your skill level personally. If you’re first starting out, you need the structure because you don’t know enough to find plot and character problems. You can’t fix it. Or it will take so long that it’s not worth fixing. Learn to plot and character map and world build well, and you can wander fruitfully. Learn the form first.
In other words: being a planster or plotter or hybrid, doesn't mean much if you don't know what or how to apply what you know.
You don't get it. Intuitive pantsers are not some idiots who choose to learn writing the hard way. This is the EASY way for us. This is how our minds work. I read all those formulas, all this theoretical stuff, “inciting incidents” and the like, and I find it very interesting in itself - but if I try to apply it to my own writing, it kills it. I just can't think in theoreotical terms - I see real people, in a real world, dealing with real problems. And the thing is - let's poke the elephant in the room now - formulas do not a story make. No matter how well-versed somebody is in the theory of character arcs, for instance, this is *no guarantee* that they would be able to create interesting characters. Ultimately, you've got things backwards here. The rules of novel-writing are *secondary* to the ancient art of narrative fiction, which in turn is rooted in our experience of the world and our psychology. This is the knowledge that the intuitive pantser is drawing upon. To use your forest analogy: you're implying that anyone not using a GPS is blundering around haphazardly. But we are not blundering - we orient ourselves by subtle natural signals, like the side of the tree trunks on which the moss grows. And as for the tired argument about Stephen King being a professional... Was he a professional when he wrote his first novel? No. And that novel was “Carrie”. So much for “blundering”....
But as far as we know, King wasn't taught his writing process explicitly, was he?
I am an extreme pantser 😂 Every time I try to plot it wrecks my thought process.
😂beautiful comment ❤
Same..
@@Zoeybeau_1 Trying to break free of it though. I want to be a plotter so bad 😭
If you slow down the learning process enough, the learner often gives up because they have nothing but skills and no actual work. If you do "discovery" learning, the learner actually enjoys the learning process and is motivated to keep learning. Don't turn learning writing into a particularly boring college course.
I hear what you're saying, but the analogy is not the best. Sometimes you gotta practice by hammering it out.
Pantsers like King and Lee Child are not really pantsing anything. They are reproducing very stereotypical, formulaic stuff within genre conventions. King read horror stuff from childhood and has absorbed the conventions and formulas to the point where he writes in that vein. Lee Child is basically reproducing the Travis McGee stories he read obsessively. They don't need to plan because they are churning out pretty conventional, formulaic genre material.
True, but they very occasionally stumble into a modestly interesting outcome, out of the sheer number of attempts. I agree their basic outlook is shallow and conventional, and would not normally stand up to re-reading, the ultimate acid test. They actually do some research on occasion, but rather than challenge the reader with whatever they might have uncovered, they will instead filter it in a way that flatters the reader's conventions, because they share that conventional outlook. If they try to disturb the reader it will usually be with physical gross out things, but not with fundamental or general notions. Ultimately the emphasis is on the sensational, which works well in a declining world where people are less reflective and lack the realism and refinement to know that keeping the sensational to a minimum is valuable in itself.
In other words dont try to be Stephen King because Stephen King is a freaking genius
Stephen King did it the long way, which is probably why he recommends the long way as well: "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot" (On Writing, page 145).
This videos wandering in the forest analogy is very similar to how King describes his own process, "good story ideas seem to come quite literally from nowhere, sailing at you right out of the empty sky" (On Writing, page 37).
Like the video argues, writers like this learn by developing intuition the long and hard way (a sort of developing a sense for writing almost like trial and error). King did exactly this. He was an obsessive reader growing up, and he wrote a ton of (often very long) books in his career.
King may be a writing genius as you say, but he clearly work very long and hard to get to that point. He worked for and earned his success.
@@tehufn we agree hes a genius. And non geniuses will get lost in the woods and wont make it out alive. I am 70% into my first draft of a 400 page novel and couldn't imagine pancing that. Im definitely pro plotter.