plotter or a pantser?

Person writing on notebook and listening to music

it is said there are two kinds of writers: plotters and pantsers. if you’re new to writing and wondering what does that mean, then let me explain.

plotters map out the entire outline of their book. they can plan characters, scenes, character arcs, time lines, settings and so on.

pantsers approach a book by the seat of their pants. they don’t plan anything. they just see the blank page and go for it!

i never quite knew where i fitted in to these groupings when writing. my first book i wrote without any planning. i just knew what it was about and i sat down and wrote it. it was a children’s book of about 18,000 words and those words and the story just sprung to mind. i knew who the main character was and what the story was about. it was a straight forward tale which followed a main character on their humorous adventure.

the second book needed a little planning. i wrote a sentence saying what each chapter was about. it was still mainly driven by one main character but their was a sub-plot with a few others characters involved. however it was still a straight forward story.

the next three were outlined in a similar way. a brief couple of sentences for each chapter. maybe a bullet point of a key detail to remember but no more than that. they all had linear plots that were fairly straight forward.

the next book really needed some plotting. well, more plotting than i was used to. it was based on old detective noir and so i needed to know key events and when clues were to be revealed. most of the characters were pre-planned but some just developed naturally as i wrote. the book took a long time to write and really tested me. i wasn’t used to juggling so many elements and sometimes i forgot things as my notes were still generally brief. 2 or 3 sentences per chapter.

whilst i was writing that book, i took breaks by writing short stories and prose poems. none of these were planned out. just an idea and then write. a complete contrast to the detective novel i was working on. ok. it was my usual dark sense of humour with fantastical elements but besides that there were no connections between them.

so there i was. writing different things. both pantsing and plotting. but with the detective novel was i really a plotter? i have heard of people with multiple postcards outlying the key scenes of a novel; graphs that show character timelines and sciences they’re mentioned in; biographical details for each character; floor plans for locations; maps of worlds. none of that existed when i wrote.

then i found myself waiting on beta readers and so decided to start a new work in progress. something to keep me amused. but this time i went back to pen and paper like i wrote my prose poems. gone was the computer screen for novel writing. gone the side notes. just a pen and paper. and a fuzzy idea. no notes were written down beforehand. no outlining of a plot. no. just pen and paper and that vague idea. and so it began.

it has been said by some that plotting stifles the writing. takes the energy out of it. im not sure the readers of books written that way would agree. i certainly cant tell if a book has been written by a plotter or a pantser. maybe it was more a reflection of how that particular writer felt about having to plot. to lay things out before they got going. of feeling they didn’t have permission to stray from the laid out path. certainly when pantsing a piece you feel free to do what you want. that you’re on a rollercoaster and where it is going you’re not entirely sure. but then there are drawbacks. you have to write more regularly or process a good memory of what you have already written. and you have to be prepared to rewrite and edit to fix the holes you overlooked in your frenetic energy.

having done both pantsing and plotting im not sure what kind of writer that makes me. undecided? maybe there is a place for the undecided writer when approaching a novel.

doppelganger

Minimalist portraiture women outdoors

Margaret Atwood in her book ‘On Writers and Writing’ talks of authors living in a life of split-personality. Like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde we exist with a darker self, our writer’s voice or being. Whilst we live good wholesome lives earning a crust to support our writing identity and enable us to do the thing we love, when faced with a blank page and a typewriter we turn dark. We will happily murder a character that our poor readers have grown to respect and love. We will with joy bestow upon a poor child a life of misery in the harshest of conditions with no seemingly way to exist the torment. We will bring death to the door of a beloved pet. All for the story. Always to the unseen god of story.

It is no wonder then that some readers when faced with the writer in front of them may confuse the voice of the book, the one they had previously trusted until the heroine died horribly in a fire, is the same as the voice of the writer. That both hold the same sentimentalities and beliefs. That both are not indistinguishable from the other. After all, are not writers told to ‘write what you know?’ What more evidence is needed then that the writer is capable of these hideous offensives?

Yet, when writing the writer often detaches themselves from their character and world. Yes, there may be elements of their psyche that influences the path of the story. But the story is a being onto itself. The characters make demands. Choose their own paths. You may hope a character will do certain actions but the god of story may demand otherwise. And who is brave enough to oppose the god of story? Those who do sacrifice their existence.