 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) elizawrites recently asked about my outlining process, so I thought I'd respond with a fresh post rather than down in comments somewhere. Not exactly a how-to, but my thoughts, at any rate.
First off, I've hated outlines for years. I've only recently come to appreciate their virtues. The reason for this is simple. To me, the act of writing is the act of telling myself the story. (It's one reason I can speedwrite so effectively -- I don't know what's going to happen next, and I'm eager to find out.) That anyone else gets to enjoy the resulting story is a function of my overtrained subconscious and my incipient carpal-tunnel syndrome. So writing an outline very much has the feel of taking the air out of the tires of the novel itself.
Second of all, the definition of "outline" is very elastic. To belabor the obvious, we aren't talking about a term paper outline with sections and subsections. We're talking more along the lines of a synopsis, something that tells the story in a summary sense. (See my prior objection.) But that can be anything from a few paragraphs on a page to fifty or more pages of detail, depending on the writer, the idea and the publisher's requirements.
For a while, I had a tendency to write the novel first, then write the outline after the fact. I honestly think this is a legitimate technique, but I've also broadened my repertoire.
Here's the crux of it: my objection to outlining was essentially a short story writer's objection. Though my span of control now seems to extend to about 200,000 words, based on recent experience (and didn't that make the wax run from my ears), the art of formulating and writing a novel is substantially different from the art of short story writing. This was the basis of snurri's recent musing on the topic, variously answered by me and others.
I cheated with Rocket Science [ Clarkesworld | Amazon ]. It's basically a giant short story, in terms of structure, scope, character development, etc. It works pretty darned well, if I may say so, but if you analyze it according to snurri's line of inquiry, it falls over as a novel. And I wrote that book as a short story writer, with a short story writer's approach.
What I'm able to do now with outlines, and this is hard-won wisdom for me, however obvious it might have been to others, is outline first in order to provide the direction and complexity to drive to the depth of detail a novel requires. The outlines for the two most recent books I've drafted, Trial of Flowers [ Clarkesworld | Amazon ] and Madness of Flowers, helped me maintain the byzantine plots and tangled characterizations the books called for. More importantly, the outline for Stemwinder allowed me to sell the book concept to my editor.
In effect, learning to outline was for me part of the process of learning to rewrite -- I tell myself the story once, in brief, then again in detail.
Bonus Question: What does an outline mean to you? How do you approach it?
Post A Comment | 7 Comments | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
 |
| elizawrites |
| 2006-08-31 04:38 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| bucky writes |
|
Thanks, this was very interesting! I am a proponent of the outline now, when I didn't necessarily believe in its efficacy before. I wrote a Nano novel by the seat of my pants and I don't see that happening ever again.
As for my process, I know the major plot points in advance, and I tend to outline several scenes ahead. Write them, revise a little, then do some more outlining. I'm on my first real novel-length novel, though, so I reserve the right to change my process at any time! :)
Reply | Thread | Link
| r_urell |
| 2006-08-31 04:51 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
I asked Matt Stover this question once. He sent me a 100 page synopsis of BLADE OF TYSHALLE. That's how he does it, kind of speed writes and skims the "what" of the novel, then pores back over it adding texture and complexity in subsequent drafts. That seems like a pretty solid way to do it without taking all the fun out of the process.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| amberdine |
| 2006-08-31 05:23 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| characters |
|
Since I have a lot of POVs, the main point of my outline is to keep track of who is doing what where, and how it affects everyone else. I use index cards for the initial setup, then a wiki for the full outline and all the related notes.
For me, plotting and writing are totally separate mental activities. The outline is where I figure out all the big interactions, twists, and consequences. Then I can concentrate on each scene, while paying little attention to the larger picture.
Quite frequently details come up during writing that require the outline to change. So, it changes. Constantly.
Reply | Thread | Link
So far ... I can work from a bare bones kind of outline that gives me direction but no detail. However, the one time I tried to develop an in-depth outline, the book never got written. By the time I finished the outline, I was no longer interested in the story. So, for me, it's a tightrope.
I'm much happier doing the outline as analysis after the first draft ... to help me find holes and fill them in the revision.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
|
My first outline was what helped me restart a stalled novel-in-progress, by making me look at structure. My second outline did the same thing, but much sooner in the process and had the added benefit of keeping a much more complicated and fast paced plot under control. Another benefit I finally realized: it's OK to change the ending when inspiration strikes, but till then, it's good to know where in general your story is trying to go as it progresses.
Sold on the concept of outlining by these two experiences, I began my current N-i-P with an outline. But my outlines themselves are loose affairs. I organize into four acts at first, figuring out what the worst thing is that will happen near the close of Acts 1, 2, and 3, and how Act 4 will end. Then as I write I figure out the series of failures, pitfalls and partial successes that will lead up to that major turning point in the act I am writing. As I write later acts, I make notes on new things that come up that will need better setup in revision phase, while at the same time trying to lay adequate groundwork for the stuff that is coming up.
The outlines start off looking like a list of characters/interactions and a couple sentences about each of the four acts and then I flesh it out from there.
Reply | Thread | Link
I watch the movie of the story in my head while I'm stuck in traffic or at traffic lights--since I'm in New Jersey and make house calls, that adds up to a LOT of time--and then, once I've seen a bunch of the big turning points, I make a bullet-point list of them, boiled down to the smallest number of words I can hope to unpack into what I've been watching in my head:
*Haldur at Riot
*Funerary Mishaps
*TREBUCHETS GALORE!
That sort of thing.
Then I fill in my list until I feel like the transitions from one movement of the plot to the next are close enough to existing that I'll come up with some logical linkage when the need arises.
Reply | Thread | Link
Thanks for posting this. I find outlines difficult. Kevin J Anderson said in his work shop that he writes 100 page outlines. For me I'd rather write the novel if I'm going to write that much. I have not attempted an outline of that length. I have attempted 'sort of' one page outlines for series. This was interesting. On a writers retreat in January I was working on a second book in a series (not published) and I was stuck. I said to the others I should look at my synopsis. My writer friend was astounded that I hadn't been working to a plan (outline). When I looked at the synopsis I'd written I'd written it all except the ending. I hadn't given much thought about the middle of the book at all. So I think an outline is a good tool for planning your work. I think it can be as detailed or as sketchy as you need. However, once published you need them to sell your work. So it is a skill that I will have to apply myself too.
Reply | Thread | Link
|
|
|
|
|
