Neither a plotter nor a pantser be

I am fascinated by the many approaches writers use to writing a novel, and the attempts they make to conceptualize and pigeonhole their approach. Plotters and pantsers have been around for a while, and now my fellow Type Mers have introduced me to another – the plantser, aptly described by Sybil as a hybrid version. This 'neither here nor there' approach recognizes that writing is a spectrum, not a dichotomy. In fact, although writers may predominantly favour one style, they may use another if the mood or the task requires it. I am much more likely to be a plantser when writing a short story, mostly because short stories don't allow much room for stumbling around wondering where I'm going.

I also used the plotter style for some of my earlier Rapid Reads novellas because the publisher required a thorough outline before offering a contract. With these novellas, like short stories, there is no room for wandering, and the plots are straightforward, linear, and devoid of subplots. It's easy to write an outline in a straight line. 'This happens, which leads to that, and then that...' Even so, when I actually sat down to write the novella, the outline proved inadequate and both characters and storyline became richer. Luckily, few publishers complain when the end result is better than the plan.

Rapid Reads novella

Sybil also described another intersecting spectrum  -- lawful to neutral to chaotic - which I had not heard before, possibly because I avoid reading "how to" books. I don't like to analyze how I write, where my ideas come from and how my characters emerge. For me, there is a certain magic to the writing experience. Ideas come to me from somewhere in the jumbled cauldron of my subconscious, and I'm afraid if I look too closely, they will disappear. I also don't want to follow someone's plan for how to create the perfect novel, complete with heroes' journeys and three thrill points. These guides can be useful at the self-editing stage when you're trying to figure out why on earth the story isn't working, but as a creative aid, they are killers. Too close to paint by number. 

I read Sybil's link on lawful to chaotic styles with great interest. It breaks the process into more elements, like how you create character, what order you write scenes, how you use outlines. I still don't fit into any box, although there are some I never enter, but I generally jump around between pantser and plantser, and between lawful and neutral. 

Note the change of direction at the end 

I was interested to discover that I am rarely chaotic, even though in my mind my process feels quite chaotic. Chaotic as used in this matrix seems to refer to the order in which you move through a story. Do you write scenes out of order, copy and paste or shuffle them around, and end up with a "Frankendraft"? This is the one approach that would never work for me, because each scene grows out of the scene before, and the character's later actions and thoughts evolve out of what they went through before. I will insert scenes or move a scene around during rewrites once I can see the whole story.

It's a useful look at the writing process and entertaining to see how other writers approach it. I actually met a highly successful chaotic plotter (a combination I would not have thought possible). The important point is that there is no right or wrong way to write, just your way, and that depends on your personality, your experience, and the way that magic muse comes to you. What do other writers think? Where do you fit in?

Are you a plantser?

 

I, Sybil Johnson, being of sound mind (not sure about the body) fully admit to being a plantser. Not a plotter or a pantser, but a plantser.

When I first started writing, I put myself squarely in the plotter category even though it didn’t seem quite right. I don’t do the extensive outlining that seems to be common to plotters. But I sure as heck wasn’t a pantser. I could never fly by the seat of my pants. Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can work that way even though I know a lot of people who do.

Then I started saying I was a hybrid, which more accurately describes the way I work. I know the crime, the killer, the victim, suspects and most of their secrets (sometimes new ones are revealed during the writing process). I also know how the story starts as well as what happens at key points along the way. I do occasionally change what happens at those key points, but I’ve never yet changed the victim or killer or reason for the crime. I’m open to doing that, however, if it makes a better story. And, finally, I know what the 3 subplots that form the basis of my novel are. But I don’t know as many details as a typical plotter does.

Then I heard the term plantser. A little googling tells me that this term has been around for several years, but I’ve only come across it in the last few months. Basically, the writer who is a plantser takes a little bit from the plotter and a little from the pantser, a hybrid, which I already thought of myself as. Plantser is a much better term and more fun to say.

I don’t know why it makes me feel better about the way I write to have a term for what I am. Doesn’t really change my process. But somehow I feel better knowing that there are enough people out there who work in a similar manner that there’s actually a term for us.

While I was googling, I found this blog post on different Writing Alignment styles: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic Plotter; Lawful, True and Chaotic Plantser, and Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic Pantsers. Looking at these definitions I’m a mix of Lawful and Chaotic Plantser since I know the ending and write towards it and do some character bios, but I also write out of order and assemble scenes into a “frankendraft”.

I don’t think it matters what your writing style is, but I think it helps to understand a little about the way you write.

Any other plantsers out there?