Pantsing Doesn't Mean Lots of Revising

 This week at the SFF Seven, we're talking about our revision process. 

I'm running behind, as I seem to eternally be doing these days, and posting this a day late, but I feel it's important to talk about my revision process to dispel a huge myth about intuitive writers. I feel strongly enough about making this case that I'm using the term "Pantsing," which I almost never use.

(As an aside, the reason I don't like that term is that it comes from "to fly by the seat of your pants," which implies a lack of control that I think comes from the pre-plotting end of the spectrum. Writing without outlining beforehand does not mean having no control of the story. It also doesn't mean that intuitive writers don't plot. All writers plot; otherwise there wouldn't be a story. The difference lies in whether we determine the plot before writing or during it.)

A consistent message I hear from those espousing pre-plotting is that writing a book without creating an outline first leads to many blind alleys, cutting huge chunks of prose, and spending even longer on revision. While this can be true of some writers - which is fine! Figure out what your process is and own it, I always say - this is not true of me.

Intuitive writers like myself have often internalized story structure. We know how to write the novel without resorting to external guideposts like an outline. I also think that I draft faster by writing intuitively, by submersing myself in the creative flow of the subconscious. It takes me typically 55-60 working days to draft a novel of 90-100K words. Then I spend about 14 working days revising. I typically cut 1-2K words in revision and add ~10K. 

Explaining everything I do in revision would take longer than I have in this blog post, but in essence, my process is this:

1. Write the story beginning to end, skipping nothing, never jumping ahead.
2. Revise from the beginning. This involves:
   1. layering in foreshadowing and other clues for stuff I figured out along the way and about the ending.
   2. smoothing character arcs
   3. removing extraneous information, red herrings, doorways to routes I didn't follow, tweaking word choices.
3. When done, I read out loud one more time to catch any consistency errors or clunky wording.

 

And that's all she (I) wrote!

Overthinking Your Writing? Be Like Jackson

Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is: How do you stop overthinking your writing? The accompanying photo is of Jackson, who makes a practice of overthinking absolutely nothing. I'm tempted to say "Be like Jackson" and end the blog post here. 

But, seriously, the key to not overthinking your writing is ... stop overthinking.

I know that's not helpful, but it is an important skill to acquire. Conversely, it's important to purge yourself of the idea that thinking is necessary for writing. As an intuitive writer, I do everything I can to maximize intuition and minimize conscious thought. The more I think, the slower I write. I know this about myself, but there's a pervasive idea out there that writing comes from thinking. 

This gem was going around Twitter/X the last couple of days:

We won't dive into how much of a dipshit this guy is, including a misguided impression that writers are somehow not into opportunities that allow us to pay the bills. What's key here is that he believes you have to have an outline before writing, that you have to THINK it out. Spoiler: you do not. I am living proof of it and a total advocate for being that opportunist. Let the story come to you.

Something to keep in mind is that overthinking is a form of perfectionism, which can be paralyzing. Therefore, any techniques for killing perfectionist tendencies will help here. Basically let go of expectations and the need to make the story perfect as you're writing.

Relax. Let it flow.

Be like Jackson.

 

Pinch Points: WTF Are They??

Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is: Pinch Points or small turning points. We're asking each other if we plan them, use them as foreshadowing, or just let the story flow?

So, I read KAK's excellent post from yesterday explaining WTF "Pinch Points" are and how she uses them. Spoiler: yes, she plans them out.

Cannot possibly be a spoiler for anyone who knows anything about me: No, I plan them, I might use them? 

YES, I LET THE STORY FLOW.

I swear, I need to start adding topics like "when you're intuitively letting the story flow, how do you.... " Except then I get stuck because there's just not a whole hell of a lot to say about writing intuitively. Yep, here I am, letting things flow. Still flowing. How will it end? I have no idea!

LOL.

Amusingly enough, however, what KAK explained in her detailed analytical post is pretty much the exact scene I wrote yesterday in my current manuscript: ONEIRA.

(If you haven't been following the podcast, ONEIRA is a Totally New Thing - new world, new magic system, unrelated to anything I've written so far. I've been calling it the book I'm not supposed to be writing - it fell on me from out of the sky and insisted on being written - but all of my friends have finally convinced me that clearly I am supposed to be writing it, so I'm trying not to say that anymore.)

It's almost eerie, how the scene I wrote yesterday matches exactly what KAK says the pinch point with the villain is supposed to do. But I didn't plan it at all. In fact, this scene introduced a new POV character and a new plot element, totally unexpected. But this is how I write and how I write this book in particular. It's insisting on doing all sorts of things that I haven't done before and don't expect and I've just surrendered and am going with it. Which actually makes this project really fun, because I'm just letting it be whatever it is and not worrying about reader expectations or where it will fit in the marketplace.

All of this is to say that we all have our own process. My mantra: figure out what your process is and own it. 

KAK loves to geek out on analysis, minutely controlling her stories down to pinches.

My stories just go their own way and I try to cling to the saddle. 

It's all good.

(Except sometimes I end up writing something I'm not supposed to be writing....)

The Intuitive Approach to Avoiding Writing Repetitive Scenes

 Yesterday I took Kelly Robson on the mandatory-for-all-creatives pilgrimage to see Georgia O'Keeffe's home and studio. This was my fourth time and as shimmeringly inspirational as the first time.

Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is how to avoid writing repetitive scenes. 

I confess not much springs to my mind on this topic, probably because I'm much more of an intuitive writer than an analytical one. Even in revision - arguably the most analytical phase of my process - I don't pay a lot of attention to whether scenes are repetitive. I do notice repetitive information, or emotional exchanges that have happened before. But so far as analyzing for goal, motivation, and conflict (GMC) - which is where this topic seems to have sprung from, regarding questions to ask to cull out repetitive scenes - that's just not how I think about story.

So, how DO I avoid repetitive scenes? I think it helps that I'm a linear writer. I write from beginning to end and thus the story trajectory is always in my mind. That's part of holding the thread to me. 

It also helps to approach the story from a character-driven perspective. This is part of what people are getting at with GMC - it's an analytical lens on character. If you're an intuitive writer, like me, you'll want to be in the flow of the character's thoughts, emotions, and personal journey. Sometimes they might regress, as our growth isn't always linear, but those steps back before the moving forward again can be important to the story.

Finally, probably the most analytical I get, I look at each scene as I'm revising and pay attention to what it's accomplishing in the overall story. What aspects of the plot is it advancing? What questions are being asked and answered in the scene? How does this deepen or strain the relationships between the characters. Occasionally I'll have two scenes doing more or less the same thing, and then I might consolidate them - or tweak the later one to be adding something new and different.

One thing I think is really important to keep in mind - especially in the face of the GMC/analytical types, who tend toward making a clean (and therefore somewhat sterile) formula for the story structure, to my thinking - is that not every scene has to "advance the story." This is especially true in genre writing/escapist fiction where some of the story is there for the sheer joy of it. There is nothing wrong with having parts of the story exist entirely for sensual delight. Even in the most rollicking plot, we sometimes need a bubble of space to breathe, to relax a moment, for the characters to remember what they're fighting for. 

In fact, don't we all?

Writing the Intuitive Way

Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is as follows: 

Of the 7 types of hooks, which one do you use most? The “Why” Hook. The “Character” Hook. The “Catastrophe” Hook. The “Setting” Hook. The “Contradicting Emotions” Hook. The “Inherent Problem” Hook. The “Goal” Hook.

O_o

You guys... Sometimes I look at these topics and I just bust out laughing. 

I haven't HEARD of these seven hooks, much less do I have any idea which I use most, if at all. 

That's the thing about being an intuitive writer like I am. I just don't have much experience with an analytical approach to writing like this. I also came to writing sideways, as all my education is in sciences. (With the exception of a major in Comparative Religious Studies alongside the BS in Biology, but I'm not sure that counts.) While I've taken classes with writers, I've never been to a fancy workshop like Clarion or Taos Toolbox. I have an MS in Zoology & Physiology, not an MFA.

While I like reading and hearing about how other authors work, I hate reading craft books.

In my heart of hearts, I suspect that overanalyzing story elements is a surefire way to kill the book dead. Or at least numb it out of existence. But I totally get that this is an intuitive writer's perspective. All you analytical types, go knock yourself out!

So, anyway... I have nothing to contribute, so I'll just crow about how DARK WIZARD is a bestseller! It cracked the Kindle Top 100 - a career first for me ~ and is on sale for 0.99c through Monday. The sequel, BRIGHT FAMILIAR, comes out July 9, so this is a great time to snap up book one. 

Check out those pretty pretty bestseller ribbons!

      

When Your Antagonist Is the Whole World

Our topic at the  SFF Seven this week reminds me of an AP English essay question. The question is: "The Antagonist’s Arc - how do you choose one that will not only compliment your protagonist’s arc but drive it?"

Okay, you guys know me. Or you SHOULD by now! As soon as we get to the "how do you choose" part of the question, you've lost me. I mentioned (briefly, as a drive-by remark) that Meyers-Briggs puts me pretty squarely and consistently in the INTJ category. I think, I judge, I am an introvert, and - that capital N? - that correctly identifies me as an intuitive.

People, I am an intuitive writer. I don't know what to tell you. GMC (Goal-Motivation-Conflict)? I have no idea. Character analysis? Not gonna happen. Picking out a plot ahead of time? Don't make me laugh!

How do I find out what the antagonist's arc is? I watch them when they appear on the page and follow along. Because I'm not much of a believer in black and white lines, my antagonists tend to change over time, better or worse, depending on how their lives are going. 

Now, I can tell you of something I did work up deliberately with a fair amount of mulling on top of the intuition. In DARK WIZARD, book #1 in my new Bonds of Magic dark fantasy romance series, the antagonist is not a person. Yes, there are characters making the lives of my protagonists very difficult, which will wax and wane, as is my wont. But the real antagonist of the story is the world itself.

Or, more precisely, it's a repressive political and social system. All the characters are caught up in this rigid and ancient system. Some benefit from it. Some are crushed by it. Only a very few live outside of it, and even they are impacted by its far-reaching effects. As the series progresses, everyone in this world will be affected by what happens when a few people take on the gargantuan task of changing the world they live in.