So, a very interesting exchange on Twitter last night directed me to an article on the two most commonly espoused approaches to creating narrative (in the Twitter writing community anyway), namely the relative benefits of the ‘Plotter’/’Planner’ (who develops a detailed outline before putting pen to paper on narrative) vs the ‘Pantster’/’Pantser’ (who creates the characters and setting, but has no idea what the plot is going to be at the outset and, according to author folklore, are told by the characters as they write, so writing ‘by the seat of their pants’). As the article I link to suggests, for the general reader, no-one much cares but there are two quite vocal camps among writers themselves. Often the plotter sees themselves as more professional, more accurate and precise, and the pantster more on the ‘muse-driven’ path, allowing their inner genius to flourish unencumbered by pesky facts and dates. @WardProWords (self-proclaimed planner) argues that in reality there isn’t really such a binary approach, and certainly not enough for the West Side Story divide when authors argue amongst themselves. Where he is a Jet, I am a Shark, and would put myself definitely in the pantster camp, though I actually agree to a large extent that you can’t have one without the other if you’re going to be a success. I’ve tried both approaches at the outset of a project though, and would argue that there are distinct differences.
Genre
First off, if you’re creating in a very action-driven genre, there are obvious advantages to the planning approach. Particularly I’d say for crime fiction, procedurals, mystery, historical drama, thrillers, horror etc, there are huge advantages to having the structure laid out in advance, to avoid plot holes and mcguffins which might ruin the readers’ experience. There are also good examples of action-driven writing in books like Bernard Cornwell’s Arthur Trilogy or David Eddings’ initial fantasy epic, both of which were so successful that almost exactly the same plot was used for new versions, just changing the characters and timeframes, and they worked just as well.
At the other end of the scale, in sci fi worldbuilding, picaresque and character-driven studies, romance, lit fic where actual events are almost secondary, exploring the internal nature of the cast is almost the entire point. That doesn’t mean that nothing happens, but Conan Doyle’s weekly serialisation approach, or a work like Orwell’s 1984 where nothing much technically occurs, might be better suited to the seat of your pants ‘let’s start writing and see what happens’ approach. The characters are the deliberate focal point, and it is their reactions that grab the attention, rather than the external events themselves.
This is a slight digression from my main points, but worth making I think, as ‘genre-writers’ (a term I dislike, I suspect partly because I don’t have one) might find the mindset and starting point or one of the other better suited to their writing.
Is There A Difference?
I’d argue yes, but more in the initial mindset, or which comes first. The planner benefits from a structure to work to, is less likely to need to conform to a linear construction of a first draft (so has ways of overcoming writers blocks), and I’d argue is more likely to finish that first draft. If they draw a blank, they know what is due to happen in later chapters, so can jump ahead to complete those sections, and keep their momentum of writing. This is why many creating writing courses and degrees insist on the more structured approach, to ensure a coherent shape and achievable product. The planner may more easily have a synopsis and pitch even before they’ve started writing. The edit stage might be a different story. This is where the characterisation development can be tricky. If you’re driven for characters to undertake specific actions or have certain reactions at set points, they need to read as organic and natural, which takes a lot of tweaking and tinkering. Just because the outline is created in detail first, that doesn’t mean that nothing changes though, and just as with the pantster, characters, conversations and events will be driven by the characters which have been created, so the process there is much the same. The ‘muse’ and inspiration elements are just as much in evidence for the plotter, but they have self-imposed barriers to navigate too, as the characters serve the story. I don’t mean this as a negative, quite the opposite in fact. After all, what is a novel but a story? Why include the flab and distraction of the main character’s reflections on their favourite cheese if it has no bearing on the rest of the book, and doesn’t expand our understanding of them?
The pantster may have an initial vague idea for a book, or a central event of character, and may try not to over-think, or restrict the unlimited directions their plot could potentially take. They’re often surprised by what they’re written, or an end-product significantly different from the initial intention, which is probably what gave rise to the cliché of the characters writing the story rather than the author. An accurate synopsis is next to impossible, which frees the writer from all restrictions, but also provides no guidance or support mechanism when they lose their way. I think pantsters are responsible for the majority of unfinished novels in the world. The pantster, despite their protestations, also plan meticulously, but at a later stage in the process, and have a far more daunting job in the edit. For myself, this is where the detailed research begins, the mapping of foreshadowing and the painful removal of much-loved dead end developments, the list of dates and references to look up, and the edit can be an immense job, with far more re-writing needed to create a satisfactory whole.
This blogpost is the essence of pantsting I think. It rambles a little, has some ideas worth exploring, but in its initial form, raw as it is now, lacks polish and professionalism. It reflects what might be a first draft for me.
The catalyst for my Twitter discussions and this post was actually a comment on the approach of a TV screenwriter, Bob Holmes (great Dr Who scriptwriter), who is said to have created the characters first, and let them guide his plot (a true pantster). This surprised me, as I would have expected for a TV drama, the plotting approach would have been the only way to go, but it just proves that that there isn’t a write or wrong way to write, whatever the context.
Is plotting or pantsting the ‘better’ approach to a novel? Neither, I’d say, it depends very much on what you are writing, and on your own style, pace of creation, preferred structure, patience for editing, and whichever you pick as your moniker (and like it or now, most writers will still continue to see themselves as one or the other), the truth is that it describes your mindset before you begin, and you’ll use a combination of the techniques at some point anyway. That’s the nature of writing.
Stay safe,
Kit