The reason I ask is because I find unique values in both approaches. Some planning beforehand is absolutely necessary, but then I'm amazed at what I come up with when I have to put words onto the page. I'm generally farther ahead with my planning than my writing, but not so far ahead that I know everything that's going to happen already in a novel-length work of fantasy. Sometimes, the urge to just write what is dying to come out is overwhelming and must be obeyed, no matter where you are in the planning process.
[This message has been edited by Magic Beans (edited October 02, 2004).]
Then, I write the first scene of that and step back and start planning out some specifics of how the story evolves from that scene (modifying the scene as necessary).
After some planning along this line, I go back and start writing again. I also allow myself to drop back to a previous stage if the development seems to warrant that.
Another novel that I have a partially completed draft of was outlined in full before starting. I shelved it because I wanted to concentrate on other stories first.
I'm about to start another novel (when I've finished that 2nd draft, which should be in the next couple of weeks). I've tried outlining it, and haven't been satisfied with the results. I'm going to try it without an outline to see what happens. I do have extensive character details drawn up, a relatively detailed history of the world they live in, a sketched map of the world, details of some important people who may or may not be involved in the story, and an idea of how the story should end.
This worked really good for me. I was able to complete a novel length manuscript in about a month. It's probably the worst piece of writing I have ever done and I'm sure it will be in the rewrite stage for awhile but having something completed TO work with has taken a lot of pressure off of producing.
This has also helped me better focus my researching. I have a clearer idea of what I need and can concentrate only on those areas without getting sidetracked too much.
I've noticed, however, that things I'd never thought about before tend to pop up on my screen when I write. I get a lot of interesting conflicts, characters, and mechanisms that way. I don't think they would come to light if I extensively outlined instead of writing on the fly. It's like my fingers know my story better than my brain does. So I usually let them do the storytelling the first time, and save my planning functions for the cleanup in the second draft.
A couple things I've noticed about my own process--this may be true for you, as well:
I will sit and stare for quite some time without conjuring up that critical character name I need, but if I start writing, it just appears onscreen as if I'd known it all along. It's a little unsettling.
Also, when I try to take notes that are compartmentalized into topic like plot, character biograhpy, milieu, etc., everything I write starts turning into a simplified synopsis of the story.
My theory is that whenever your subconscious is doing one thing that is apparent, it can also do other things for you, and it is easier to access them. If I just sit and think my brainstorms, instead of writing them down, I never get the same depth of results or surprises that I get when I type out whatever comes to me.
Similarly, my best ideas come from dreams, or when I first wake up before I am really truly awake; that is where almost all of my very good ideas have come from. The rest have happened while in the shower or driving, again, activities where your subconscious is controlling your physical activities, allowing your conscious mind to do other things.
Does this make any sense?
I read somewhere a long time ago that when we are wrestling with a problem or working an issue even if our concious mind is not focussed on it, our subconcious mind still works it and that's why there are sudden flashes of inspiration for resolution to those problems when we least expect them.
[This message has been edited by dspellweaver (edited October 04, 2004).]
Research now. I can research for the entire length of the book and after I've finished it. The more I know, the richer the story becomes. I do tend to research sort of simultaneously with my writing, which sometimes means that I have to throw scenes out but that's okay.
. No, actually even my made-from-scratch scifi world has a little bit of research, to make sure what I'm creating is scientifically feasible, but on the whole my desire to skip research is one of the reasons I write fiction.
I also am not big on outlining. I tried doing it to one of my stories and ended up with 10 pages of details and no direction for the details. I can usually get through the story as long as I know how it ends. So I find my creativity flows better when I'm just writing (letting the character tell the story and all that metaphysical writer's stuff) and go back and fix stuff later. It also helps keep the inner-critic enough at bay that I can get through something.
Then I write a very rough draft as quickly as I can. I'm pretty much dedicated to writing the extra-long frist draft, exploring tangets as they come. Once the first draft is finished, and after letting it sit for a while, I read it, making notes of what I like and what I don't. Then I strcture the story. I've already told the story once, and in some detail, so now it's all about arranging it in some kind of order. Depending on the length and complexity of the story, this can range from a simple one-page synopsis to a lengthy scene-by-scene outline.
Then I rewrite--physically rewrite, from beginning to end--the entire story, using my first draft as a guide. This second draft then becomes my working draft as I revise and polish the story.
I normally don't do any research for a story. I don't write hard SF or historical fiction. And I've found that if an idea stikes me as espeically good for a story, I can't use it for a long while. It has to reach full term, so to speak; a woman can't give birth to an embryo.