Organic vs. Outline: The Story of O
Feb. 23rd, 2007 08:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jpskewedthroneHere's the third entry in the series on writing tips/discussions. I'm not going to number them after this. Today's entry talks about the different ways to approach writing, which I've labeled "organic" and "outline" for simplicity. Enjoy!
PS--Don't forget the review contest still going on. And check the signings and conventions page soon for some new additions! I'm just awaiting confirmations of dates and times.
There are an infinite number of ways to approach the writing process. All of them involve getting your ass into the chair first, but after that, how do you proceed? Do you sit down and develop a detailed outline of the novel, complete with character sheets, essays on the world itself (its cultures, its magical system, etc), and a map? Or do you simply dive right in and see where the story and the characters take you? Or do you play computer solitaire until an idea strikes?
The problem is that there is no one right answer. Every writer must find their own particular approach, which one works for them. And often, it won't be a single approach, but one that either combines ideas from the two extremes or varies according to the story of novel idea that presents itself. I thought I'd focus on the two extreme first, discuss their pros and cons as I see them, and then discuss my own technique.
Let's start with the "organic" approach. For this method, the writer sits down at the computer or typewriter or legal pad and . . . simply begins. There is not real hard-copy preparation. The writer does not sketch out a rough outline, or develop character sheets, or even draw up a map for their world. Instead, they simply begin and let the characters or the story or the world take them wherever it wants. They may have a niggling little idea of where the plot is going, a scene that's powerful enough that it's driving them in a particular direction, but in general they're writing in order to see what happens. It's as simple as that.
The advantage as I see it to this approach is that the writer is completely free. There are no expectations, no structures that the writer must conform to except the usual ones dealing with putting words down on paper. In some sense, the writer can be the most creative while writing organically. They simply let the story grow, without any preconceptions of what it will grow into. They may start with what they think is a fantasy novel, but during the course of the book find they have a science fiction novel instead, or vice versa. Or, what's more interesting (to me at least), they may start with a character they THINK is the hero, only to learn that in fact that character is the villain. Because the story hasn't been prescribed, or written down as a sketch, the story itself can take unexpected twists.
However, these unexpected twists are also the main disadvantage. Because of the freedom inherent in the organic approach, there's always the potential that the story will "spin out of control," that so many new plot threads or characters are introduced, that the story never takes on any true form. So, many interesting things happen . . . but they aren't connected enough to form a coherent story.
Another significant disadvantage is that the industry isn't set up to be kind to the organic writer. To sell that first novel, the book itself must be complete, but in general, after that, novels are sold based on plot synopses and a few sample chapters. As an organic writer, you don't have that plot synopsis to sell unless you've written the book. And writing a book that, in the end, might not sell at all isn't very efficient or productive in the long run.
So to be an effective organic writer, you need to be disciplined enough to keep your focus while writing, so that the novel doesn't spiral out of control, while at the same time allowing yourself the freedom to be creative. It also helps to find an agent or editor who's willing to take a risk on your next novel based on a rather shaky idea of the what the book will be about . . . or one who understands that during the writing process, the story idea they've been presented may change, hopefully in a good way.
And now, the other end of the spectrum: the outline approach. This is where the writer works out everything in detail before they sit down to write the actual novel. These details can be numerous and varied. Most outliners do actually sit down and outline the novel, either in standard outline format (including all of the plot twists and turns, all the character developments, etc) or in plot synopsis form. Some even go so far as to do a chapter-by-chapter summary, along with the entire rollercoaster arc of increasing tension for the reader. The serious outliner will develop character sheets. These aren't the same thing as the character sheets used for D&D gaming, but they're close. In these sheets, the writer gives all the minute details of their character, including eye color, hair color, the types of clothes they wear, their favorite food, and a (typically) detailed backstory for the character all the way up to the beginning of the novel. The SF writer will often do essentially the same thing as a character sheet, but for the world in general. A sheet about the different cultures, how they interact, their histories, their quirks, their hatreds, their language, etc. Along with this, especially for fantasy, will be a map. A highly detailed map, perhaps even multiple maps from different time periods during the history of the world.
The obvious advantage of all this preparation is that the writer knows exactly what must happen, why it happens, and how it changes the characters and world before they sit down to write. Halfway through the novel, they won't "introduce" anything that throws off the already established plot, or the backstory of one of the characters. Everything has already been mapped out. They will also never make a consistency error, meaning that in chapter 20 they won't say that a character had 5 brothers, when in chapter 3 they said they were an only child. All of the details are already established, so to figure out how many brothers a character had, they simply refer to their sheet.
Another advantage relates to the business end of things: editors buy novels (after the first one of course) based on plot synopses and outlines. The outline writer will have all of this readily available, and in sufficient detail to please any editor's tastes. So the outliner will be able to work on and sell a novel well before they even get remotely close to writing it.
The disadvantages are all related to this detailed preparation. First, the writer has to have the guts to eventually STOP working up the details and actually sit down to write the book. And once that happens, there's a chance that the story itself will not have any "life" in it, because essentially the writer has already written the story--in the outline, in the backstory, in the world development along the way. In essence, during all of the preparation, they've "written" the story, so when they actually sit down to write . . . the story is dead. It's already happened in their mind, and that keeps them from bringing the story to life. I think this comes about because the creative process has been shifted to the outline phase. That's where all of the cool ideas and characters get added to the story, so by the time the writer gets to the point where they are introducing that idea or character into the story, the coolness factor doesn't come across as cool as it initially sounded.
Obviously, I've discussed the two extremes here. In real life, the writer will do a combination of these things, dependent on the story itself, or their own personal tastes. Thus they get a combination of the advantages and disadvantages. The goal of the writer is to find the right balancing point between these two extremes so that they can consistently produce well-written novels.
So what do I do? What's my balance? On this scale, I tend to weigh in closer to the organic approach. Not quite the extreme I've given here, but pretty close. In general, I sit down at the computer with a character or a scene in my head that starts off the book, and a few scenes that occur somewhere later on. And I start writing. I use the few scenes from later on to give my organic approach the focus that it needs to keep from spiraling out of control. While I'm writing, I constantly say to myself, "This is where I'm headed." But because this is an organic approach, I allow myself the flexibility--the creativity--to alter those later scenes significantly before I read them. While writing The Vacant Throne, I intended the novel to end in a very particular way, with Varis using all of the special skills she developed on the Dredge as an assassin to sneak into the council chambers and kill the main antagonist. However, about halfway through the book, I realized that this idea was no longer feasible. The characters and the story itself had grown beyond that simple idea, had developed into something that required less subtlety and more force. So I had to alter that ending. Instead of being so personal, so one-on-one, the death and the resolution afterwards became much more public and involved literally thousands of people. A complete turn-around of the original idea.
I've run into the major disadvantage of the organic approach when I attempted to sell my next novel, Well of Sorrows. I needed a plot synopsis. So I wrote up a sketch for the entire trilogy, all the while thinking that I wasn't happy with it. The main reason I wasn't happy with it was because it isn't detailed enough, and that's what the editors out there want. You can't blame them for wanting, and in fact NEEDING, to know what they're paying for. I happen to have an excellent and trusting editor, who agreed to buy the book even without a detailed synopsis in hand. However, she wanted a more detailed one eventually, especially for the first book. I managed to pull something together, and gave it to her with the understanding that it may significantly change while I write. She knows this, because I've dealt with her and this issue on the previous novels. But still, we have a meeting to discuss the new book Friday next week.
So I'm an organic writer. I cannot foresee me ever being an outliner, and will have to deal with the disadvantages of being an organic writer from a business perspective as my career grows. But what about you? What type of writer are you--organic or outline, or some combination of both?
****************
Joshua Palmatier
http://www.sff.net/people/jpalmatier
PS--Don't forget the review contest still going on. And check the signings and conventions page soon for some new additions! I'm just awaiting confirmations of dates and times.
Organic vs. Outline
There are an infinite number of ways to approach the writing process. All of them involve getting your ass into the chair first, but after that, how do you proceed? Do you sit down and develop a detailed outline of the novel, complete with character sheets, essays on the world itself (its cultures, its magical system, etc), and a map? Or do you simply dive right in and see where the story and the characters take you? Or do you play computer solitaire until an idea strikes?
The problem is that there is no one right answer. Every writer must find their own particular approach, which one works for them. And often, it won't be a single approach, but one that either combines ideas from the two extremes or varies according to the story of novel idea that presents itself. I thought I'd focus on the two extreme first, discuss their pros and cons as I see them, and then discuss my own technique.
Let's start with the "organic" approach. For this method, the writer sits down at the computer or typewriter or legal pad and . . . simply begins. There is not real hard-copy preparation. The writer does not sketch out a rough outline, or develop character sheets, or even draw up a map for their world. Instead, they simply begin and let the characters or the story or the world take them wherever it wants. They may have a niggling little idea of where the plot is going, a scene that's powerful enough that it's driving them in a particular direction, but in general they're writing in order to see what happens. It's as simple as that.
The advantage as I see it to this approach is that the writer is completely free. There are no expectations, no structures that the writer must conform to except the usual ones dealing with putting words down on paper. In some sense, the writer can be the most creative while writing organically. They simply let the story grow, without any preconceptions of what it will grow into. They may start with what they think is a fantasy novel, but during the course of the book find they have a science fiction novel instead, or vice versa. Or, what's more interesting (to me at least), they may start with a character they THINK is the hero, only to learn that in fact that character is the villain. Because the story hasn't been prescribed, or written down as a sketch, the story itself can take unexpected twists.
However, these unexpected twists are also the main disadvantage. Because of the freedom inherent in the organic approach, there's always the potential that the story will "spin out of control," that so many new plot threads or characters are introduced, that the story never takes on any true form. So, many interesting things happen . . . but they aren't connected enough to form a coherent story.
Another significant disadvantage is that the industry isn't set up to be kind to the organic writer. To sell that first novel, the book itself must be complete, but in general, after that, novels are sold based on plot synopses and a few sample chapters. As an organic writer, you don't have that plot synopsis to sell unless you've written the book. And writing a book that, in the end, might not sell at all isn't very efficient or productive in the long run.
So to be an effective organic writer, you need to be disciplined enough to keep your focus while writing, so that the novel doesn't spiral out of control, while at the same time allowing yourself the freedom to be creative. It also helps to find an agent or editor who's willing to take a risk on your next novel based on a rather shaky idea of the what the book will be about . . . or one who understands that during the writing process, the story idea they've been presented may change, hopefully in a good way.
And now, the other end of the spectrum: the outline approach. This is where the writer works out everything in detail before they sit down to write the actual novel. These details can be numerous and varied. Most outliners do actually sit down and outline the novel, either in standard outline format (including all of the plot twists and turns, all the character developments, etc) or in plot synopsis form. Some even go so far as to do a chapter-by-chapter summary, along with the entire rollercoaster arc of increasing tension for the reader. The serious outliner will develop character sheets. These aren't the same thing as the character sheets used for D&D gaming, but they're close. In these sheets, the writer gives all the minute details of their character, including eye color, hair color, the types of clothes they wear, their favorite food, and a (typically) detailed backstory for the character all the way up to the beginning of the novel. The SF writer will often do essentially the same thing as a character sheet, but for the world in general. A sheet about the different cultures, how they interact, their histories, their quirks, their hatreds, their language, etc. Along with this, especially for fantasy, will be a map. A highly detailed map, perhaps even multiple maps from different time periods during the history of the world.
The obvious advantage of all this preparation is that the writer knows exactly what must happen, why it happens, and how it changes the characters and world before they sit down to write. Halfway through the novel, they won't "introduce" anything that throws off the already established plot, or the backstory of one of the characters. Everything has already been mapped out. They will also never make a consistency error, meaning that in chapter 20 they won't say that a character had 5 brothers, when in chapter 3 they said they were an only child. All of the details are already established, so to figure out how many brothers a character had, they simply refer to their sheet.
Another advantage relates to the business end of things: editors buy novels (after the first one of course) based on plot synopses and outlines. The outline writer will have all of this readily available, and in sufficient detail to please any editor's tastes. So the outliner will be able to work on and sell a novel well before they even get remotely close to writing it.
The disadvantages are all related to this detailed preparation. First, the writer has to have the guts to eventually STOP working up the details and actually sit down to write the book. And once that happens, there's a chance that the story itself will not have any "life" in it, because essentially the writer has already written the story--in the outline, in the backstory, in the world development along the way. In essence, during all of the preparation, they've "written" the story, so when they actually sit down to write . . . the story is dead. It's already happened in their mind, and that keeps them from bringing the story to life. I think this comes about because the creative process has been shifted to the outline phase. That's where all of the cool ideas and characters get added to the story, so by the time the writer gets to the point where they are introducing that idea or character into the story, the coolness factor doesn't come across as cool as it initially sounded.
Obviously, I've discussed the two extremes here. In real life, the writer will do a combination of these things, dependent on the story itself, or their own personal tastes. Thus they get a combination of the advantages and disadvantages. The goal of the writer is to find the right balancing point between these two extremes so that they can consistently produce well-written novels.
So what do I do? What's my balance? On this scale, I tend to weigh in closer to the organic approach. Not quite the extreme I've given here, but pretty close. In general, I sit down at the computer with a character or a scene in my head that starts off the book, and a few scenes that occur somewhere later on. And I start writing. I use the few scenes from later on to give my organic approach the focus that it needs to keep from spiraling out of control. While I'm writing, I constantly say to myself, "This is where I'm headed." But because this is an organic approach, I allow myself the flexibility--the creativity--to alter those later scenes significantly before I read them. While writing The Vacant Throne, I intended the novel to end in a very particular way, with Varis using all of the special skills she developed on the Dredge as an assassin to sneak into the council chambers and kill the main antagonist. However, about halfway through the book, I realized that this idea was no longer feasible. The characters and the story itself had grown beyond that simple idea, had developed into something that required less subtlety and more force. So I had to alter that ending. Instead of being so personal, so one-on-one, the death and the resolution afterwards became much more public and involved literally thousands of people. A complete turn-around of the original idea.
I've run into the major disadvantage of the organic approach when I attempted to sell my next novel, Well of Sorrows. I needed a plot synopsis. So I wrote up a sketch for the entire trilogy, all the while thinking that I wasn't happy with it. The main reason I wasn't happy with it was because it isn't detailed enough, and that's what the editors out there want. You can't blame them for wanting, and in fact NEEDING, to know what they're paying for. I happen to have an excellent and trusting editor, who agreed to buy the book even without a detailed synopsis in hand. However, she wanted a more detailed one eventually, especially for the first book. I managed to pull something together, and gave it to her with the understanding that it may significantly change while I write. She knows this, because I've dealt with her and this issue on the previous novels. But still, we have a meeting to discuss the new book Friday next week.
So I'm an organic writer. I cannot foresee me ever being an outliner, and will have to deal with the disadvantages of being an organic writer from a business perspective as my career grows. But what about you? What type of writer are you--organic or outline, or some combination of both?
****************
Joshua Palmatier
http://www.sff.net/people/jpalmatier
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 03:47 pm (UTC)I do tend to pause when I am stumped and sort of try to "regroup" and jot down some notes and yes, even quickie maps, and I usually have a thematic arc and a hazy ending in sight, but otherwise it's all "make it up as you go along."
Ths way I am constantly surprising myself with what happens next and who pops up.... :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 04:15 pm (UTC)To keep the story from getting lifeless, when I outline, I outline WHO and WHY. I may have a general idea of WHAT and WHERE, but that can change. And I *definitely* don't outline HOW. That's the fun part that I discover as I write.
If I don't have an outline, I'm paralyzed. There are *so many* choices, I can't pick just one. I need the structure, the constraints, because it's working against the constraints and needing to find a way to do what I want to do when faced with limiting conditions that juices my creativity. If I can do anything, I do nothing.
(*light goes on above Jennifer's head* So THAT is why I'm stuck with the current book. Need more detailed outline, because there aren't enough constraints yet!)
Paradoxically, though, the only way I can get to know my characters is by writing them. So I frequently write the opening or first chapter, and then outline the rest of it, once I have a better idea of who I'm dealing with.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 04:53 pm (UTC)Steven King advocates the organic approach in his On Writing. Although I love this book, I have a major problem with how he presents this issue. I felt that he gave an unfairly negative discussion of outlining, even mentioning this "Plot Wheel" that this writer in the Twenties came out with and sold like hotcakes, apparently. Whenever you were stuck with a plot development, you spun the wheel and a plot development like "Hero declares his love" came up. King further called plot mechanical and anti-creative.
With all due respect, I think King overstates his case and tries to make this issue into a dogma to justify his own nature as an organic writer. I tried King's suggestion of starting out with a situation and then seeing where it went from there. I found that I need to have a clear idea of what the story arc and main characters are, or what I write turns out to be a complete mess. Just because I try to work out some of these elements beforehand doesn't mean you're being any less creative than a person who makes stuff up as they write. Or to use a musical example, I've heard great guitar solos that were worked out and great guitar solos that were improvised on the spot. If the end result is a great piece of work, who cares what method the artist used?
Although I do try to plot the storyline as much as possible and work out who my characters are before I start to write, I've found that a great deal of organic writing actually occurs in the process of writing. Sometimes my story or characters change a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes I even need to rethink out the rest of the plot. However, this is what works for me. If another method works for somebody else, I say: Good for you! That's why when I give advice, I present it much in the same manner as Joshua does. All you can do when giving writing advice is to explain how you've met certain challenges at the keyboard, and explain how others have used other methods, and then let the person decide what is the best method for them. I've become convinced that a huge part of your development as a writer is finding out what methods work for you and why.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 05:07 pm (UTC)Among adult SF/fantasy writers, there seems to be a bias toward outlining--outliners talk about how they're savvy, businesslike, not wasting their time; while organic writers feel uncomfortable and apologize a little and say, "Well, this is my process!"
But among children's and YA writers, the bias seems to be toward the organic approach--organic writers talk happily about jumping off cliffs and discovering the story; while outliners fret a little about how they can't get started if they don't know what's going on, and defend the fact that their stories seem to still have life when they're through, honest.
I left an adult critique group because the other writers kept complaining about my lack of professionalism--meaning my refusal to outline. I joined a YA critique group and they all said, "But why would you outline first? You're still trying to find the story! You can worry about the details later."
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 06:43 pm (UTC)At least, umm, I'm assuming it's all of us, and not just me. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 06:34 pm (UTC)thats just me. If I don't have some sort of guidline or timeline I get very sidetracked.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 04:37 am (UTC)you know thats something I hadn't even considered
Process in collaborative writing
Date: 2007-02-23 10:53 pm (UTC)When I have written with partners, I had a similar experience. The first one was done from naivety. We had little clue how writing collaboratively would work, so we had to work from a great deal of trust. We didn't know where the story was going, who all the characters would be, etc. It was a really fun experiment and we finished the book! We started from a whatif question and just let loose. We read a lot of books about key elements of the story and did online research, too, as we encountered problems or unknown territory.
The second collab project was quite different. We did field trips to the setting (local) in advance, character sketches of the MCs and their family history, most of the plotting on a timeline by character, a floor plan for the main house involved, and I even did a color coded calendar of the mood progress near the end of the project. This story happens in only 5 days, so we were more precise in many aspects of the events to match the day of the week and the emotional states of one of the main characters who was unstable. Also, because this one was a mystery, we had to build in all the things like red herrings and clues to get us to the end we had planned. We did adjust and throw surprises at each other as we wrote each of the scenes to keep it interesting and live as you suggest. We weren't sure how we would solve the 'ending problems', but trusted that it would work out somehow, and I think we've succeeded.
JanW - Jan's Blog (http://www.janwhitaker.com/jansblog/)
Re: Process in collaborative writing
Date: 2007-02-24 01:26 am (UTC)Re: Process in collaborative writing
Date: 2007-02-24 03:59 am (UTC)I do think that different genres would require different approaches. Outlining seems like a much better approach for mysteries. But then again, maybe this is why most mysteries I read feel rather lifeless to me: because the author wrote it based on an outline approach. *shrug*
I find that if I try to write an outline ahead of time (or a ploy synopsis) it becomes almost instantly useless once I start writing, because the book diverges from it almost with the first scene.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-24 11:41 am (UTC)When the muse is calling, for me to ignore all that precious, life-filled, raw writing for research and preparation is asking for insanity. Yet somehow I never get off track or painted in a corner. And 1/2 to 2/3 of the way in, I can see enough of where my characters going to briefly outline the rest of the plot and sub-plots.
My stories change too much (for the better) in the early developing stages for a strict outline to be of use, anyway.
All of my local critique-mates are outliners, however. And it seems to suit them just fine.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 02:22 am (UTC)Although I still don't work out an outline at that point. I can just see it all in my head.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 06:11 am (UTC)Like images playing across an IMAX theater screen, no matter where I may be or what I'm doing. Praise Bilbo I am not alone! :-)