Plotters v Pantsers

[SimonDoom]

I just read an interesting thread on Twitter about why the feel of Game of Thrones has changed over the last few seasons. The author of this thread attributed it to the difference between "plotters" and "pantsers."

Plotters plot a story first, and then write it, while pantsers make up the story as they write. The advantage of a plotting style is that the plot of the story may be tighter and more cohesive, but the downside is that the characters may seem less real, and more as though they are devices to push the plot. Pantsers tend to flesh out the characters more, and the plot develops as a product of character, but the plot may be less cohesive.

This person reasons that the first five seasons of GOT had a "pantser" feel because they tracked the previously published books of GRR Martin. Since the last few seasons have outstripped the plot of the published books, the stories are being written by the producers rather than by GRRM, and they have more of a "plotter" feel to them. The characters are less satisfying.

I think this is dead-on with respect to GOT, and the general observations apply more broadly as well.

I'm a plotter. My stories arise from concepts rather than characters. I plot the storylines before I write. I think my story ideas and plots are pretty good but sometimes my characters can be a bit thin, or they do things that some readers don't find plausible or satisfying.

I'm curious what authors here think about this. Do you buy the plotter/pantser distinction? Are you a plotter or a pantser? Do you see the consequences that this person describes happening in your own stories?

 

[Areala-chan]

I just read an interesting thread on Twitter about why the feel of Game of Thrones has changed over the last few seasons. The author of this thread attributed it to the difference between "plotters" and "pantsers."

Plotters plot a story first, and then write it, while pantsers make up the story as they write. The advantage of a plotting style is that the plot of the story may be tighter and more cohesive, but the downside is that the characters may seem less real, and more as though they are devices to push the plot. Pantsers tend to flesh out the characters more, and the plot develops as a product of character, but the plot may be less cohesive.

This person reasons that the first five seasons of GOT had a "pantser" feel because they tracked the previously published books of GRR Martin. Since the last few seasons have outstripped the plot of the published books, the stories are being written by the producers rather than by GRRM, and they have more of a "plotter" feel to them. The characters are less satisfying.

I think this is dead-on with respect to GOT, and the general observations apply more broadly as well.

I'm a plotter. My stories arise from concepts rather than characters. I plot the storylines before I write. I think my story ideas and plots are pretty good but sometimes my characters can be a bit thin, or they do things that some readers don't find plausible or satisfying.

I'm curious what authors here think about this. Do you buy the plotter/pantser distinction? Are you a plotter or a pantser? Do you see the consequences that this person describes happening in your own stories?

I'm confused...wouldn't a TV show relying on a previously-written work of fiction which has been heavily plotted produce a show with several seasons that appeared plotted, then transition to the seat-of-the-pants style of writing required to rapidly complete a series which has lapped the source material?

 

[MelissaBaby]

I just read an interesting thread on Twitter about why the feel of Game of Thrones has changed over the last few seasons. The author of this thread attributed it to the difference between "plotters" and "pantsers."

Plotters plot a story first, and then write it, while pantsers make up the story as they write. The advantage of a plotting style is that the plot of the story may be tighter and more cohesive, but the downside is that the characters may seem less real, and more as though they are devices to push the plot. Pantsers tend to flesh out the characters more, and the plot develops as a product of character, but the plot may be less cohesive.

This person reasons that the first five seasons of GOT had a "pantser" feel because they tracked the previously published books of GRR Martin. Since the last few seasons have outstripped the plot of the published books, the stories are being written by the producers rather than by GRRM, and they have more of a "plotter" feel to them. The characters are less satisfying.

I think this is dead-on with respect to GOT, and the general observations apply more broadly as well.

I'm a plotter. My stories arise from concepts rather than characters. I plot the storylines before I write. I think my story ideas and plots are pretty good but sometimes my characters can be a bit thin, or they do things that some readers don't find plausible or satisfying.

I'm curious what authors here think about this. Do you buy the plotter/pantser distinction? Are you a plotter or a pantser? Do you see the consequences that this person describes happening in your own stories?

My first series was generally autobiographical, and therefore, very much plotted. I also wrote it as two parallel timelines that only merged together in the final chapter, so that required a very tightly crafted narrative.

When I started my second, fictional series, I began with a basic concept and wrote the first chapter. Having established the main characters, I then wrote a rough draft of the last chapter. Once I'd set an embarkation point and a destination, I sketched out a general route, which has veered here and there, but not changed from the designated course. All the main plot points were mapped out by the time I was three or four chapters in, with one exception. That a was a significant plot development that I had not considered until a reader suggested it. They were right, it was a necessary part of the tale that I had overlooked.

But what I have found is that once you have set the story in motion, your control is not unlimited. The characters are going to take on lives of their own and limit your plot options. I have not had any real problems serving both the plot and the characters, so it obviously can be done. Finding that balance is the challenge.

 

[Hypoxia]

My usual answer to "How-2 put a story together?" is to tell of my techniques.

1. Sexualize a journal account. I know where the story is going.
2. Visualize an ending image. Build the story to get there.
3. Create a setting, some plot points, and the players. Set them loose to do their thangs and perform a story for me to transcribe.

#1 is plotting. That blog-entry source might be based on reality. #2 can be circular, starting with the end, then proceeding as a flashback until the end is reached again. Any plot is just an excuse. #3 is the voices-in-my-head path to storytelling. My conscious mind feels like it's only copying and editing.

Authors writing to contract had best have a plot in mind when they sign. So says my sorta-sis with multiple NYT-BS list entries. Unplotted stories are obvious. For mass-production, churning out pulp fiction, a formula plot may be demanded by those paying you. For we on LIT who work for free, the limits are distant. Do whatcha wanna do!

"Only a fool writes, if not for money," said Dr Johnson. Many fools here.

 

[John988]

[This content has been removed due to a copyright violation.]

 

[MelissaBaby]

Ya, that's what I'm thinking.

But, to the OP's question: I am more of a pantser--well, sort of. The story I'm working on right now, I've been working on for a while, and other than its framework, it's a completely different story than the one I started writing. I knew what the plot was, who the characters were, what the action was, but the more I developed the story, the more I fleshed out the characters, it changed little by little, and it's pretty much a whole new story, now.

But, to some extent, isn't that the way everyone writes, though? We come up with a world, a plot, characters, and as we work on it and develop those things further, we realize that this thing doesn't actually work, and we want to add this thing, and while we may be close to what we started with, there are going to be differences because of all the things we changed as we went along. It's a little from Column A, little from Column B, nyah?

"To some extent", yes. But if you also choose where you intend the character to end up, you have already limited the options of the directions the characters can move in. So, for "plotters", no, really isn't the way we write.

 

[jomar]

I'm confused...wouldn't a TV show relying on a previously-written work of fiction which has been heavily plotted produce a show with several seasons that appeared plotted, then transition to the seat-of-the-pants style of writing required to rapidly complete a series which has lapped the source material?

That’s my thinking, not having seen the twitter thread. In fact, I’d say the Hodor name reveal argues strongly for plotters seasons coming before any pantser ones.

But as for me, I usually know where I want to begin and end up but even that’s not 100%.

 

[Voboy]

I’m a pantser.

I like inventing people and exploring their worlds. I don’t enjoy making endless outlines. What generally happens to me is that I devise two characters and a relationship. Usually, they’re not the two characters who wind up fucking. I take that relationship, write a brief paragraph about it before I forget, then fit my new characters into my bigger universe and develop their bios. And then?

I write, when I’ve got the time.

Very often, I end up sketching out a very brief plot, typically bullet phrases, once the story is already well along. But I typically don’t do this until I’m already about 12k words in. It provides my roadmap for finishing.

I’ve done longer pieces and tried to plot them. The results sold well, but didn’t please me; they seemed very sterile. So I stopped doing that and thanked god for a good day job.

 

[Hypoxia]

For fun, gargle for how to create a story plot and see what advice erupts, much of which seems aimed at wannabe novelists. Our stroker shorts and vignettes might not fit the pattern, or may compress it.

I'm fairly active at Story Ideas. Many of the 'ideas' there, naked little plot bunnies, are mere setups demanding structure and some sort of ending. Some invite a standard plotline. Some must be tortured into completion. Some, we should run from, screaming. As for story points and perils, refer to TVtropes. And if you can't think of an ending, pretend to offer a sequel.

 

[John988]

[This content has been removed due to a copyright violation.]

 

[Maeven_quinn]

I just read an interesting thread on Twitter about why the feel of Game of Thrones has changed over the last few seasons. The author of this thread attributed it to the difference between "plotters" and "pantsers."

Plotters plot a story first, and then write it, while pantsers make up the story as they write. The advantage of a plotting style is that the plot of the story may be tighter and more cohesive, but the downside is that the characters may seem less real, and more as though they are devices to push the plot. Pantsers tend to flesh out the characters more, and the plot develops as a product of character, but the plot may be less cohesive.

This person reasons that the first five seasons of GOT had a "pantser" feel because they tracked the previously published books of GRR Martin. Since the last few seasons have outstripped the plot of the published books, the stories are being written by the producers rather than by GRRM, and they have more of a "plotter" feel to them. The characters are less satisfying.

Not sure about the "plotter" versus "pansters" divide. I think you can be a great plotter and still have great, convincing characters. There's a difference between how one develops characters though. Some authors improvise as they write. Others create exhaustive backstories and personalities before hand.

That difference, in my opinion, can make or break characters. Both methods can work, but you have to know how to use either. It's the difference between writing classical music and improvising Jazz.

I think this is dead-on with respect to GOT, and the general observations apply more broadly as well.

In the case of GOT, I think the writing quality dipped after the books. GRRM provided the producers with notes, but not written stories at this point. The simplest explanation for its downward turn in quality is that.

I dislike Euron right now. He's not a character. He's the embodiment of plot contrivance. Still, some of the characters seem to be written well. Stark men (I'm looking at you, Jon) still make bad decisions for sake of honor. I've appreciated how Sansa has changed too. I pity her future husband-of-convenience. She is probably going to manipulate him into utter madness.

Overall, happy with the way the series is closing up. Not a a reader of the books. Won't be.

I'm a plotter. My stories arise from concepts rather than characters. I plot the storylines before I write. I think my story ideas and plots are pretty good but sometimes my characters can be a bit thin, or they do things that some readers don't find plausible or satisfying.

I'm a plotter who is slowly learning to put more work into developing her characters and giving them more consistent characteristics, and broader quirks than simply their intelligence level and amount of confidence.

Currently fleshing out a callous, ambitious, class-migrant, who just wants to rescue her mind controlled friend and get the hell out of Portland for good.

 

[MelissaBaby]

My point is that, when you plot a story, it isn't static. I doubt that you can tell me that from conception to completion, there has been no deviation in any of your stories. The dichotomy of plotters versus pantsers implies that one group has no ability to recognize alterations that would benefit the plot, whereas the former cannot stick to a well-conceived framework.

"To some extent" describes the fact that there is some overlap between the two, and "limited options" is your proof of that.

My point is that separating people into distinct groups and excluding commonalities between them is a poor method of description.

I agree, it's not static. My point was that, for plotters, the range in which the kind of alterations that you are talking about are more limited.

 

[Hypoxia]

I agree, it's not static. My point was that, for plotters, the range in which the kind of alterations that you are talking about are more limited.

Unless they drastically revise the plot because 1) hot new idea, 2) major plot trap, 3) unexpected IRL event, 4) boss demands it, or 5) other. Writers regularly tear apart and re-work plotted stories and scripts. Dash Hammett toiled many months on The Maltese Falcon (my grandma lived next door) and he never did get much of a plot. But he was aiming for atmosphere, not nicely-tied-up solutions.

Or maybe ambiguous, trailing-off, and hanging endings are part of the plot.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Unless they drastically revise the plot because 1) hot new idea, 2) major plot trap, 3) unexpected IRL event, 4) boss demands it, or 5) other. Writers regularly tear apart and re-work plotted stories and scripts. Dash Hammett toiled many months on The Maltese Falcon (my grandma lived next door) and he never did get much of a plot. But he was aiming for atmosphere, not nicely-tied-up solutions.

Or maybe ambiguous, trailing-off, and hanging endings are part of the plot.

I guess I'd say that in those cases, they may have thought they had a plot, but they didn't.

I can just talk about how it works for me. I am not nearly as experienced as many of the rest of you. I have nothing but respect for everyone who sticks their asses out by submitting their writing to be read, no matter how they work.

 

[Hypoxia]

I have nothing but respect for everyone who sticks their asses out by submitting their writing to be read, no matter how they work.

Nobody knows who we are, so we can expose ourselves to slings & arrows of trolls with naught to be hurt but our egos.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Saw a good comment on this issue yesterday from a professional writer, but I can't now track down the source.

His position was that "plotting" vs. "pantsing" is more useful for describing modes of writing rather than for pigeonholing writers. Most pros use both as the situation demands, though some have preferences for one or the other.

Currently I'm working on two different stories. One is heavily plotted - it's a "man outwits the devil" piece that revolves around the wording of a contract, so I have to plot tightly in order to keep things consistent with that contract. The other is mostly pantsed, starting with two characters in an unusual situation and letting things evolve from there.

But neither is entirely one or the other. In the devil story, although I'm following the plot outline, I'm improvising around that to flesh out characters and their relationships. In the other, I have a rough idea where the story will end, because the characters' priorities and drives imply it, and I'm working with that.

 

[Hypoxia]

I may find myself plotting retroactively. Whip out a basic story ad hoc, then realize that timelines, ages, locations, and motivations need alignment. So, write the outline and character sheet, adjust plotting as needed, and edit some more. Then stop. The End. Submit, and move on to the next.

I love digital cut-and-paste -- so much easier than paper, scissors, and glue. Back in the day, "cut-and-paste" was quite literal. Authors edited works and cannibalized old texts, pieced them together, overlaid with fixes and fakes. A manuscript page could become three-dimensional back before WhiteOut.

(WhiteOut was invented by the mother of Mike Nesmith of the Monkees. He spent his childhood sniffing and bottling the stuff in the family garage.)

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm a pantser, no doubt whatsoever about that.

Even my Arthurian thing, where I had to get a dead king onto a boat, I had no idea how I was going to get him there. All of my stories start from some tiny idea, often just a visual image, and go from there. I've had a major plot twist turn up in between the first sentence of a paragraph and the last (which took another eleven chapters to resolve); I've had key characters arrive and demand to be written into a story. I never know how a story is going to end, so I just keep going till it does. Given all this, I'm amazed that EB world is as consistent as it is, but there it is.

I read about all you folk who plot and make storylines, character notes, endless editing and so on, and think that's too much like project management to me. Since that's my day job, I run away screaming from the slightest thought of writing like that. My fundamental problem is I don't like being told what to do - a pre-conceived plot would be doing that, and I'd be forever fighting it. Besides, my characters would scoff at the suggestion that they have a pre-determined destiny. "Really, you think?" they'd say. "Watch me do... this."

"But the plot needs you to do that."

"So? We're now doing something else. Please, dear writer, keep up."

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm confused...wouldn't a TV show relying on a previously-written work of fiction which has been heavily plotted produce a show with several seasons that appeared plotted, then transition to the seat-of-the-pants style of writing required to rapidly complete a series which has lapped the source material?

It would be reasonable to think so, but in the case of GOT it was different. I think the producers and script writers have been working with a basic outline provided by GRRM, so they're filling in the dialogue and character development to conform to GRRM's outline. The result has been that the dialogue and character development haven't been as sharp since Season 5 because they're not being handled by GRRM.

 

[Hypoxia]

I read about all you folk who plot and make storylines, character notes, endless editing and so on, and think that's too much like project management to me.

Same for me, mostly. The plots and notes only emerge when needed. The editing stops when sufficient. I'm very likely to escape a setup and let players do what they will, or to see a desired ending and let the story go there. But long durations and large casts need to be controlled, managed, lest they implode. Small tales are easier.

Bottom line: Whatever works for you.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Small tales are easier.

Yes, more than three is a crowd. I rarely have more than three characters in a room at any one time, and I've never written more than three in a bedroom. I don't think I could manage the pronoun logistics of four people interacting; I'd end up getting fucked in the head!

 

[Hypoxia]

Yes, more than three is a crowd. I rarely have more than three characters in a room at any one time, and I've never written more than three in a bedroom. I don't think I could manage the pronoun logistics of four people interacting; I'd end up getting fucked in the head!

I ended my last series after a few dozen orgiasts overloaded my ability to account for all. Earlier, over a half-dozen filled a bed, including three-generation incest. Athletic GILF. Big bed. And more fuckers were nearby. Whew.

Beds get crowded. Put the fuckers in and around a swimming pool. Last part of another series has several families sitting naked on the pool's rim, legs open, while swimming kin took turns oralizing the targets and then awaiting their own suctions. The trick there was tracking relationships and hair colors.

(Most of my stories are clusterfucks, with or without incest. Fun.)

Another alternative: pulling a train. That can brush infinity.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hmmm... plotter or pantser?

1. an idea comes to mind
2. I see it as a movie in my head
3. I think about it for awhile
4. I might write down the idea or not
5. I start writing
6. it may not go as planned (characters are fickle)
7. Which am I?

There are time I just sit and write without even having a plot. Are there really plots to stroke stories?

 

[Maeven_quinn]

Dash Hammett toiled many months on The Maltese Falcon (my grandma lived next door) and he never did get much of a plot.

That's so amazing that your grandma was his neighbor! The Maltese Falcon was one of the first "classic" books I got into through High School english. Teenage me was super proud about that A+ on my paper entitled "The Blond Satan is Definitely Involved in an Affair."

 

[SimonDoom]

I read about all you folk who plot and make storylines, character notes, endless editing and so on, and think that's too much like project management to me. "

I can understand how someone who writes in a start to finish way would think this, but plotting to me is an essential part of the creative process. When I'm writing a story I see it in similarly to the way I would see a painting. It's two- or three-dimensional rather than linear. When I do a drawing or a painting I outline the thing first rather than simply start painting from one corner and working my way out, and I think of a story the same way. I have an idea, then I work up a notion about what I want to say about that idea, or the tone I want to strike. I write the last few paragraphs before I get very far along. Most of the writing is a process of filling color and detail once I have my outline done. I guess I could try a more linear approach, but this way has always felt right to me. So, I'm very much a plotter, but I recognize I need to pay more attention to character development and motivation.