I am a selfish nerd, I never want this discourse to end. I am declaring, forthwith, that I am a "Kilter" and I will be gatekeeping the word as far as whimsy and boredom allow me!!
I’m going to study your process and work to extract what defines you as a “kilter,” then establish a process that subverts your methods and declare myself “off-kilter”!
You probably know by now that I am anti-labels (which is a label), and veer towards Emil's side. As much as I can say that I take sides.
Still, I wanted to leave a comment on his reply that the dichotomy is not itself bad, especially for writers that are just starting out on their journeys. All the decent craft advice that employed this dichotomy admitted that purism in this matter is foolish, and I think that your original piece started from this assumption. At the end of the day, they are just tools and you got to have a name for them if you are going to tell somebody else how to use them.
Great piece. I did want to add that plotting/pantster approach becomes most important depending on what's being written. For example, script writing. Making a movie, which is a conglomeration of scenes, needs plotting. A meandering novel may be tolerable (I wouldn't read, but some people like to wander around a store while other take a list and stick to it), but at some point there has to be a point. I've seen (parts of) movies that seem to be lifted from 'stream of consciousness' novels, and shudder to think what the writer was smoking.
The medium of the message will probably determine how constricted or meandering a piece of writing can be and still be coherent. (And, books don't have the luxury of visuals or music to set the opening scene and capture the audience; novel writers have to do it with words only.)
Poetry, on the other hand, can lead us wherever the writer's heart meanders, and we'll stay aboard, give the poet a long lead time before we jump ship if his words are pretty enough. Poets are more likely to be pantsters before editing for beauty as well as meaning.
Scholarly papers have fewer opportunities to be 'creative' because most of time these papers include data presentation to strengthen/justify/explain the writer's arguments. Scholarly readers have expectations of uniform formats, and topic placements: table of contents, intro including literature review, thesis statement, etc., summary of findings, conclusions including appendices, bibliography. etc. There's little need to be creative with form so much as being creative with presentation. The audience is usually predictable, too. Other scholars, peers, or mothers of scientists. :)
Can cops write believable detective novels with interesting characters and snappy dialog? Sure, but that doesn't always equate with 'hooking' specific audiences within the genre of mysteries per se. I think the writers who have one of the more tougher jobs is the true crime writer; s/he has to be both news reporter and novelist. The facts have to be presented in a way that entertains as well as informs.
Yeah, this was validating to read, as a person who gets a little nervous whenever I see or hear the pantser or potter question, as though a writer must be one OR the other; because in practice I find I'm a little of both. It depends on the day, it depends on the story. Generally I have a good conceit of beginning, middle, and end, but then I think my best stuff occurs to me when I'm actually writing.
What a great article Thaddeus. I loved your breakdown of classic writers and what category of presentation they fell into. It's hard to love Hemingway, except possibly The Old Man and the Sea. Similarly, with Faulkner as you struggle with his style, you may find the great connection to humanity in THE SOUND AND THE FURY. I especially love John Steinbeck because of his intimate understanding and elevation of humanity in crisis in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Similarly, in one of his novels, DANDELION WINE, Bradbury makes his move profound statement about childhood, and awakening to the meaning of life. T.H.White does the same thing, on a grand scale, in THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.
I am a selfish nerd, I never want this discourse to end. I am declaring, forthwith, that I am a "Kilter" and I will be gatekeeping the word as far as whimsy and boredom allow me!!
I’m going to study your process and work to extract what defines you as a “kilter,” then establish a process that subverts your methods and declare myself “off-kilter”!
YESS!!
Thank you for the mention, Thaddeus!
You probably know by now that I am anti-labels (which is a label), and veer towards Emil's side. As much as I can say that I take sides.
Still, I wanted to leave a comment on his reply that the dichotomy is not itself bad, especially for writers that are just starting out on their journeys. All the decent craft advice that employed this dichotomy admitted that purism in this matter is foolish, and I think that your original piece started from this assumption. At the end of the day, they are just tools and you got to have a name for them if you are going to tell somebody else how to use them.
Loved and restacked. I've been been told we're calling Fitzgerald "Effy" now, so we have insider lingo and feel like the cool kids.
Thank you for the shout out, Thaddeus. I'm glad you found some guffaws in my fiction.
Great piece. I did want to add that plotting/pantster approach becomes most important depending on what's being written. For example, script writing. Making a movie, which is a conglomeration of scenes, needs plotting. A meandering novel may be tolerable (I wouldn't read, but some people like to wander around a store while other take a list and stick to it), but at some point there has to be a point. I've seen (parts of) movies that seem to be lifted from 'stream of consciousness' novels, and shudder to think what the writer was smoking.
The medium of the message will probably determine how constricted or meandering a piece of writing can be and still be coherent. (And, books don't have the luxury of visuals or music to set the opening scene and capture the audience; novel writers have to do it with words only.)
Poetry, on the other hand, can lead us wherever the writer's heart meanders, and we'll stay aboard, give the poet a long lead time before we jump ship if his words are pretty enough. Poets are more likely to be pantsters before editing for beauty as well as meaning.
Scholarly papers have fewer opportunities to be 'creative' because most of time these papers include data presentation to strengthen/justify/explain the writer's arguments. Scholarly readers have expectations of uniform formats, and topic placements: table of contents, intro including literature review, thesis statement, etc., summary of findings, conclusions including appendices, bibliography. etc. There's little need to be creative with form so much as being creative with presentation. The audience is usually predictable, too. Other scholars, peers, or mothers of scientists. :)
Can cops write believable detective novels with interesting characters and snappy dialog? Sure, but that doesn't always equate with 'hooking' specific audiences within the genre of mysteries per se. I think the writers who have one of the more tougher jobs is the true crime writer; s/he has to be both news reporter and novelist. The facts have to be presented in a way that entertains as well as informs.
Good points but remember that process doesn't dictate form
True, true, true.
Yeah, this was validating to read, as a person who gets a little nervous whenever I see or hear the pantser or potter question, as though a writer must be one OR the other; because in practice I find I'm a little of both. It depends on the day, it depends on the story. Generally I have a good conceit of beginning, middle, and end, but then I think my best stuff occurs to me when I'm actually writing.
I also thought Mistborn was boring. I have yet to find a Sanderson novel I connect with.
Thoroughly enjoying this discourse and now rethinking my entire identity… or at least the names I give myself.
What a great article Thaddeus. I loved your breakdown of classic writers and what category of presentation they fell into. It's hard to love Hemingway, except possibly The Old Man and the Sea. Similarly, with Faulkner as you struggle with his style, you may find the great connection to humanity in THE SOUND AND THE FURY. I especially love John Steinbeck because of his intimate understanding and elevation of humanity in crisis in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Similarly, in one of his novels, DANDELION WINE, Bradbury makes his move profound statement about childhood, and awakening to the meaning of life. T.H.White does the same thing, on a grand scale, in THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.