You feel no ill effects aside from maybe disappointment at having to stop. Mythicalcoolkid: Habits, Tics, Stims, Compulsions, and Behaviors The important thing isn’t whether you outline, but why an outline may or may not help you create the story you want to tell. deductive” terminology is a more useful distinction than plain old “plotter vs. Obviously, writers will fall on a spectrum somewhere between these two extremes. Neither way is better–it just depends on your preferred storytelling strategy.
Other people might find that they can’t come up with useful details unless they know the larger picture. It works much better if I write at least a few scenes first–see the characters interacting in their environment–and then dig deeper into what those details tell me about my characters, plot, and setting so I can further develop the story. I might have a plot plan and character sheets that work extremely well in summary form, but I find I can’t use those big pictures to extrapolate the small details I need for a scene–the resulting story feels vague and artificial. I find that detailed outlines often destroy my stories. pantser” argument is generally framed as “do you get bored if you know the story beforehand”? But the difference goes much deeper than that–it ties into which method of story building feels more logical to you. This framework has given me insight into why I write the way I do. The small details have to come first, so they can be combined logically to draw larger conclusions about the story. For example, Suzie and Dave are having tense interactions across multiple scenes, so it’s logical that it will erupt into an argument in the next scene. I’d also use the details of early scenes to figure out the next logical steps of my plot. From this, I’d determine that Suzie was brave, and would use this insight to inform Suzie’s behavior in future scenes. For example, if I were writing inductively, I might write a scene in which Suzie was the only person in her party to enter a haunted house without hesitation. This type of writer aligns more closely with the “pantser” end of the spectrum, and is likely to get more ideas from writing scenes than from writing an outline.Īn inductive storyteller needs to write out scenes, and use the small details in the prose to figure out broader facts about the plot, characters, and setting. Therefore, inductive storytelling starts with specific details of a scene, and from that, draws general conclusions about the characters, plot, and setting. In contrast, inductive reasoning starts with specific data and draws general conclusions. The big picture needs to come first, and any necessary details can be logically drawn from this framework. I’d also needs to figure out the steps of the plot before coming up with the details of any specific scene–I’d need to know that Suzie will argue with Dave so I can set up the tension that will lead to that scene. For example, if I were writing deductively, I’d decide that Suzie is a brave character, and then write scenes that show Suzie’s bravery. To a deductive storyteller, the overarching framework is necessary in order to develop the small details.
In a similar way, deductive storytellers start with general concepts and work their way down to specific details.The Snowflake Method is the purest form of deductive storytelling–you start with the most basic overview, and at each level, you add more details and get more specific, until you wind up with a first draft. pantser”, consider: are you a deductive storyteller or an inductive storyteller?ĭeductive reasoning starts with general premises and draws specific conclusions.
But I think I’ve discovered a more useful way to frame this difference. As I consider my writing process, I’m beginning to think this framework isn’t very useful for describing how I turn my ideas into a full-fledged story. We writers often categorize ourselves as “plotters” or “pantsers”, based on how much of our story we prefer to outline before we begin writing actual scenes.
0 kommentar(er)
