Snowflake method for writing

[PennLady]

Came across this today via Stumble Upon: How to Write a Novel using the Snowflake Method.

Not entirely sure what I think of it, but it might work for some.

 

[Handley_Page]

Isn't that a programmer's approach ?

 

[MaxSebastian]

It's good for people who like to plan their stories down to the tiniest detail and find staring at a blank screen daunting. Essentially you start writing a sentence summing up your book, then you write a paragraph, then a one-page summary, then a several-page plan, and so on, adding levels of detail until you have a full story.

I'm only a vague planner in fiction writing, I have an idea where it's going, and don't always write in a linear or chronological fashion, so Snowflake wasn't really for me.

I find excessive planning takes the element of discovery out of my writing process, so much so that I lose interest in it.

But, lots of other writers like to plan a great deal, so Snowflake is quite popular.

 

[damppanties]

How do you write synopses for characters?

And the whole things seems to be an outline of the plot, character sketches and a detailed plot line, in that order.

 

[3113]

"was invented by Randy Ingermanson, an award-winning author of fiction..."

Who? (That I don't know this guy, his work, or what awards he's won shakes my confidence in his method...)

Step 1: Write a summary of your novel in one sentence. Take an hour and write out your one sentence summary. This sentence will be how you hook an editor into buying your novel. Therefore, it should be the best you can think up.

[Raises hand] How can I write up a summary of my novel (in however many sentences) if I haven't written it yet?

I see a problem with this method...

 

[TxRad]

"was invented by Randy Ingermanson, an award-winning author of fiction..."

Who? (That I don't know this guy, his work, or what awards he's won shakes my confidence in his method...)

[Raises hand] How can I write up a summary of my novel (in however many sentences) if I haven't written it yet?

I see a problem with this method...

If you outline in detail enough, you have your novel. Except for typing it up that is.

This would be an OCDs dreamworld.

Yeah, I think I'll let this one drift on over before we have to shovel it. Uh, we are still talking snow right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you outline in detail enough, you have your novel. Except for typing it up that is.

This would be an OCDs dreamworld.

Yeah, I think I'll let this one drift on over before we have to shovel it. Uh, we are still talking snow right?

^^^^Uses the Ballentine writing method he discovered in a bar; that is, he writes in circles, lotsa circles.

 

[PennLady]

"was invented by Randy Ingermanson, an award-winning author of fiction..."

Who? (That I don't know this guy, his work, or what awards he's won shakes my confidence in his method...)

[Raises hand] How can I write up a summary of my novel (in however many sentences) if I haven't written it yet?

I see a problem with this method...

I just found the link today, and I don't know the guy either, just thought it was interesting and I'd pass it along. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's not a good writer. Then again, this might be useless.

You write a summary, I'd guess, by saying something like "John Doe, secret agent extraordinaire, must fight for the survival of his country but his efforts are compromised when he meets Jane Smith, an innocent targeted for death." Or whatever your story is about.

What I took from this was that you start with your idea and write it down. Then you expand on it, then you go back and expand on that, etc.

And as with any other writing rules/guidelines, no one's saying you have to follow it precisely.

 

[autoplot]

I use a modified version of this for my own work. I don't go into the painstaking planning that he does, but I use it as a base for building an outline that works for me.

It's been extraordinarily helpful to me in crafting my fiction, and it shows in the amount of work I've completed, as well as reader reactions.

But, as I always say with stuff like this, find what works for you.

It only works if you're willing to figure out what your story is about before you write it, though.

 

[sunandshadow]

This is really new to you all? *chuckle*

"was invented by Randy Ingermanson, an award-winning author of fiction..."

Who? (That I don't know this guy, his work, or what awards he's won shakes my confidence in his method...)

[Raises hand] How can I write up a summary of my novel (in however many sentences) if I haven't written it yet?

I see a problem with this method...

The core concept is actually really simple: you write a short description of the story you want to write. (premise or logline) Then you look at it and add some detail to get a longer description of the story you want to write. (1-3 paragraph summary) Then you look at it and add some detail to get a longer description of a story you want to write. (act or chapter outline or synopsis). This kind of iterative development process is used in many industries, including the closely-related movie-making industry. The only slightly innovative thing is applying it to novels. That's why it doesn't matter at all who Ingermanson is - the concept is simple and stands on its own.

If you don't know how to write a premise or logline for a story you might want to read The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri. Wikipedia describes this book as, "widely regarded as one of the best works on the subject of playwriting, though its teachings have since been adapted for the writing of short stories, novels, and screenplays." The central concept of The Art of Dramatic Writing is that if you identify what you want to say with a story, in other words a central statement of it's theme, then knowing this helps keep you on track when writing the story, streamlining the process a it, compared to a writer who only discovers what the story was about at the end of the first draft (or not at all) and then spends a lot of time rewriting or has no idea how to rewrite effectively.

 

[sr71plt]

I suspect a lot of writers are doing essentially this in their mind before they write rather than putting it to paper.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's good for people who like to plan their stories down to the tiniest detail and find staring at a blank screen daunting. Essentially you start writing a sentence summing up your book, then you write a paragraph, then a one-page summary, then a several-page plan, and so on, adding levels of detail until you have a full story.

I'm only a vague planner in fiction writing, I have an idea where it's going, and don't always write in a linear or chronological fashion, so Snowflake wasn't really for me.

I find excessive planning takes the element of discovery out of my writing process, so much so that I lose interest in it.

But, lots of other writers like to plan a great deal, so Snowflake is quite popular.

Sounds like it would be better described as a "snowball" effect it gets bigger as it rolls along.

I agree with you, too much planning just kills my creativity.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Gosh that sounds like a sort of formula for churning stuff out rather than creative writing. I just try to kick the piglet out the house so I don't fear her acquiring interesting new vocabulary while reading over my shoulder and then scribble frantically!

Nice snowflake paper art.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sounds like it would be better described as a "snowball" effect it gets bigger as it rolls along.

I agree with you, too much planning just kills my creativity.

Agreed. Writing isn't supposed to be PAINT BY THE NUMBERS, its kinda in the class of improvisation tho not stream of consciousness per se. Its structured spontaneity.

 

[SamScribble]

I think that the 'snowflake method' might produce a novel, but I doubt that it would be one that I would want to read. 'Sausage machine' is an expression that comes to mind.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think that the 'snowflake method' might produce a novel, but I doubt that it would be one that I would want to read. 'Sausage machine' is an expression that comes to mind.

Plenty of folks like sausages. I suspect that 99% of people cant distinguish a cuppa coffee from Quickie Mart, and coffee from Starbucks.

 

[TxRad]

Plenty of folks like sausages. I suspect that 99% of people cant distinguish a cuppa coffee from Quickie Mart, and coffee from Starbucks.

That ones easy. $1.29 at Quickie Mart and $6 at Starbucks.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That ones easy. $1.29 at Quickie Mart and $6 at Starbucks.

I read that 85% of us don't know good coffee from bad coffee.

 

[lovecraft68]

That ones easy. $1.29 at Quickie Mart and $6 at Starbucks.

And the ones paying the $6 are the type to overpay for everything and brag about it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Agreed. Writing isn't supposed to be PAINT BY THE NUMBERS, its kinda in the class of improvisation tho not stream of consciousness per se. Its structured spontaneity.

I remember there was a writing exercise somewhere about using a "formula" to write your own Lovecraft story, because let's face it he did have a pattern to many of them.

1) Pick a relative or friend of the missing or deceased center of the story to get to the bottom of things

2) pick an avoided ominous town (Could be Arkham, Miskatonic,Innsmouth)

3) Pick an evil tome from the Lovecraft Library Necronimicon, Pnakotic Transcripts etc...

4) Pick your Lovecraft deity Cthulhu,Azatoth,Shub-niggurath

5) pick your tragic ending. Guy goes insane, guy disappears, guy discovers something horrible and story ends....

And you got a LC story!

But tell you what as big of an HPL fan as I was I tried it a couple of times and they never came out to well. I don't think my mind can function in any form of constraint or limits.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I remember there was a writing exercise somewhere about using a "formula" to write your own Lovecraft story, because let's face it he did have a pattern to many of them.

1) Pick a relative or friend of the missing or deceased center of the story to get to the bottom of things

2) pick an avoided ominous town (Could be Arkham, Miskatonic,Innsmouth)

3) Pick an evil tome from the Lovecraft Library Necronimicon, Pnakotic Transcripts etc...

4) Pick your Lovecraft deity Cthulhu,Azatoth,Shub-niggurath

5) pick your tragic ending. Guy goes insane, guy disappears, guy discovers something horrible and story ends....

And you got a LC story!

But tell you what as big of an HPL fan as I was I tried it a couple of times and they never came out to well. I don't think my mind can function in any form of constraint or limits.

SK says the trick with HPL or any of the greats is they never grew up mentally. He says that every great fantasy writer has the look of a 12 year old.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's good for people who like to plan their stories down to the tiniest detail and find staring at a blank screen daunting. Essentially you start writing a sentence summing up your book, then you write a paragraph, then a one-page summary, then a several-page plan, and so on, adding levels of detail until you have a full story.

For me, a sentence isn't enough to start writing. I need more of a concept than that before I know I have a story to tell.

At any given time I have dozens of half-formed ideas drifting around in my head. Eventually a couple of them bump together and start looking interesting, and then I'll let them ferment and develop a bit more. Then I might start on an outline, if they look good, and by that stage I probably have at least a page's worth of material already. I might go back and condense it if I need to give somebody else a shorter synopsis, but a one-sentence synopsis isn't likely to help me get a story out.

But each to their own.

 

[MichaelWest]

Interesting method. I often begin with just a single sentence, usually a line spoken or a thought in the mind, a statement or question. For me the writing is a hobby and I do not have the time to plan or outline, barely is there time to write, so I think of a theme that the story will explore and then write from that sentence. It often gets pushed deeper into the story as the story develops, or finds itself at the end.

If I were more serious I would develop the ability to write to formula, have descriptive sentences or paragraphs for a story and a coherent arc. But then I write captured moments, fantasies and stuff that entertains me rather than eyeing it being published or saleable.

 

[autoplot]

I think that the 'snowflake method' might produce a novel, but I doubt that it would be one that I would want to read. 'Sausage machine' is an expression that comes to mind.

I highly doubt you could tell the difference between an outlined and an improvised story, if it were professionally published. The difference is how much work goes into planning vs. how much work goes into revisions. It's all on the back end.

I find the concept that a detailed outline automatically means a lifeless, mechanized story pretty absurd.