I just slapped together the terms instinctive and methodical to describe writing process, because they sort of sounded right 
. Which right away clues you in to the fact that I am very much in the instinctive camp. It is not that I adamantly want to be there, because I have found through writing a lot of books that there are things I now do consciously, rather than instinctively, but I still don’t analyze my process very closely.
Maybe with time I’ll see more patterns, and maybe that’s what the methodical approach is really all about. Noticing your patterns and then following them with intent the next time, rather than by accident.
I prefer to do the more methodical things once my manuscript is finished, and I’ve used Donald Maass’s Writing the Breakout Novel Workbook checklists before. But I can only do that sort of thing so often. Then, either I incorporate the techniques into my writing style or I don’t. And I’m not saying a refresher every now and then isn’t called for, but I just know I’m going to forget to sit with a list of things TO DO, and so I read what interests me and assume I absorb it, somehow. Then I go back to doing what feels right.
I enjoying shaking things up every now and then, and taking a course, with the chance there will be a lightbulb moment, or I’ll see things in a new way – which is always good. And I definitely know that these things have impacted me. I don’t write the same way I used to. I am more aware of what I’m doing when I’m doing it. But I still shy away from trying to pin my process down.
What about you? The more you know about your process, the happier you are? Or would you rather not mess with the magic?
Hey Michelle, great blog! I’m a don’t mess with the magic gal.
Seriously, I usually don’t discuss the process methodically because I can’t. It’s a mystery, and one I’m not sure I want to totally unravel. I guess the fun and enjoyment for me is the journey. Time enough later, during the revisions, to peel away and peer inside. And even then, I go by feel, not to-do list.
Pressed to describe my style recently, I dubbed it “intuitive,” but “instinctive” works, too. I’ve probably incorporated some methods I’ve picked up over the years into the process, but the act of getting that first draft on paper is pretty much anything goes. All the technical stuff (GMC, replacing weak word choices, etc.) is for troubleshooting during rewrites. If I bust out the index cards and charts sooner than that, I feel like I’m on a leash, which doesn’t serve the story very well.
The more I know about the process, the more I concentrate on it, rather than the story. It steals the magic that I want my mss to have. Instead, it’ll leave me with the flattened cake you get from opening the oven door one too many times to check on its progress. Who wants to savor that? Give me the rounded goodness with delicious frosting and some whipped cream on top.
Uh oh. I’ve started thinking about creamy delicious things. I had better go get my French Vanilla cappuccuno.
I like “intuitive.” That’s definitely what it is. I’ve read Donald Maass’s workbook 3 times already, the last 2 times a year apart. I hope what he’s said has sunk into my subconscious. I know some of it has, I’m racketing up the tension — although I can’t quite get rid of the kitchen scenes.
I tried using a detailed plot a couple times, but for me it’s like Marcia said: “It steals the magic…” The only method I use is my skimpy pre-writing notes and sitting my butt in a chair and my fingers on the keys.
LaDonna, I think you nailed it. It is the journey that makes it fun. Why would I take away the fun deliberately?
Kerry, ‘intuitive’ works for me, too! As for GMC, I have shied away from it from the moment I heard about it, and haven’t even tried to unpack the concept. I know it works for a lot of people, but not me. I prefer to feel my way, make mistakes and rewrite. The book always turns out better for my ‘journey’.
That’s interesting, Marcia. Maybe that is why I instinctively shy away from concentrating on the method, because I would be too caught up in it? Food for thought.
LOL, Edie, maybe another reason I don’t concentrate on method is I’m too impatient to start writing. That definitely sounds like me
.
Thinking about my method terrifies me! Seriously, I’m an instinctive author all the way, following the journey my characters take ME on. I’ve not written a book the same way twice. Each one seems to demand a different approach, and to me that keeps the magic alive. No way am I going to try to analyze the whys and whyfors.
Purely instinctive for me, Michelle. I figure if I over-analyz everything, I’ll lose my touch. Can’t have that happen.
I don’t think I’ve ever read a How-To books. What works for one person, may not work for another. I don’t want to mess with what works.
I’ve never read a how to writing book. ever. and there are many who say I should. but I write from the inside out. i can’t write from the outside in. because my process is what it is, I generally have to do some pretty heavy revisions, but I’m okay with that. By then I really know who my characters are, what they want and how they’re going to get it.
Oooo, I like that analogy, Karin. “Writing from the inside out.” Good one.
Jan, it sounds like the way you do it works for you. And anything that terrifies should usually be avoided
.
Liz, I’ve read books that aren’t really How To, but do give suggestions not on style, but on elements to consider. Like Donald Maass and Chris Vogler. I wouldn’t describe either of their books as How Tos, but I don’t write with them at my elbow, either. They are more general works on the big picture.
I agree that the journey is so individual, it would be hard to follow someone else’s method and have it work.
I like that expression, too, Karin
. I think anything that is prescriptive probably isn’t for me, but Vogler and Maass are more along the lines of what Margie Lawson offers. A way of shaking things up, in your own way, rather than a checklist.
Okay, raising hand here about Karin’s great line! And Michelle, I love your take on Maass, Vogler, and Margie too. Now, that appeals to me also.
Magic only works consistently if you know how it works. Stumbling upon it each time doesn’t sound like fun to me.
LOL, Zoe, I wondered where all the (many) writers who like to know the methodology of their process were. How do you go about pinning it down? I’d be interested to hear how you define it.
It’s much like throwing crap on a wall and seeing what sticks.
It’s pretty much trial and error. I’m pretty analytical (often too much so for my own good, which causes me problems) and so it’s important to me to be able to figure out how I do something or why I do it.
I was working on my novel writing methodology back when I was 12. I had this book: “Guide to Fiction Writing” by Phyllis A. Whitney. It was my bible until I figured out there were other methods of skinning a cat.
I think the only way to figure it out is to pick a method, try it, and see if it works for you. I’ve tried several different methods and what ends up happening is, parts of a method work and other parts don’t for me. So I take what works, discard what doesn’t and hope to get more clear on my method the next time around.
i think seeing it as “magic” is very romantic, but I guess I have this view that you have to know how the magic works or else it’s dwindles to superstition. It’s too hit or miss for me.
Interesting, Zoe. I think I naturally shy away from formally trying to define my process because I don’t want to get stuck in a rut with it. I do do some things deliberately, and after 5 books I know where I usually hit problems, and how to avoid making the same mistake again, but in general, I like to think each time I write, I do it better, rather than the same way.
But I know plenty of writers who feel the same way as you. That the more you know about the process, the better you can make it. Which is the same destination as me, just a different route.