Outlines?

[Dngrsone]

I don't use outlines for story writing.

I pretty much create a character or three and let them tell me what happens next.

[James_Wilde]

I'm assuming, Critch, that that outline you showed was a sort of generic outline, cos as it stands, it would fit almost anything. Personally, I outline a book similarly in the sense of creating a synopsis of two or three single spaced pages telling the story I want to tell.

The problem is that this is the first thing I do for the novel, and as a consequence I haven't developed characters yet. As GM pointed out, characters have a way of going in a different direction from the original plan and I think this is quite simply because one doesn't know the character yet, and a character has to act with integrity to his nature.

In the early days this often meant that the story moved in ways I had not expected which was interesting, but might go so far as to sabotage the story. It's getting easier now, since I re-use my characters and I'm getting to know them quite well. Nonetheless there are always new characters to throw a spanner in the works.

I've just started on a short, and here, too, I created the whole story first in outline, although in my mind rather than on paper. I'm on the third re-write now, so I think that I would have been better to have taken the time to do a proper synopsis first, although hardly two to three single spaced pages of course. The big problem I'm facing is that the story was supposed to be 1000 words for its original purpose, which I couldn't manage, and now I'm trying to re-create it at its natural length.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

I'm assuming, Critch, that that outline you showed was a sort of generic outline, cos as it stands, it would fit almost anything.

Yep, James Wilde I do think it is supposed to be a generic early draft outline. As you said it's likely that events in a given story will add twists and turns into the story. Still I think it looks useful as a guide for a basic pattern.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

[...] As GM pointed out, characters have a way of going in a different direction from the original plan and I think this is quite simply because one doesn't know the character yet, and a character has to act with integrity to his nature. [...]

I think this is an important point. Some stories are event driven, the characters don't matter that much (obviously it's better if they're interesting, but how they're interesting has little impact on the events of the story). A lot of TV shows fit this mould - you see this in the various crime-related series, they're all essentially the same, just the actors have changed. But other stories are character driven, the nature of the characters forms an integral part of the story, and so you can't plan the story in great detail while you are still learning about your characters.

I suspect that event driven stories are probably best written with an outline, they need to keep everything focused on the events (the mystery or action that is central to the story), any asides for character development are just there for a bit of colour. For character driven stories the author has to find and define the characters, and that takes a different sort of preparation. Letting the story evolve (and then cutting out all the bits you don't need) is just one way into this process of discovery, another is to write detailed backgrounds (actual dialogue and interaction is the only way to get a good feel for them), and a mixture of both is what works best for me.

[Pulpmeister]

Probably okay for a linear narrative, but it would be crippling is you're writing a mystery or whodunnit. For these, you need to write out first a detailed story of what actually happened; and then work out how the protagonist finds it out. Then the final chapter becomes a rewrite of the "what actually happened' notes.

And if you have plot-counterplot, and coverging lines of action, nor nested flashbacks, it might also be a problem.

Many writers hate outlines. It's like trying to breakdance in a phone booth. Others find them indispensible. Some build the whole story in their head before they begin writing. Wodehouse's method with novels was to write a longish draft which included key dialogue and incidents, say about 20-30,000 words; and then rewrite it to its full length.

While I'm thinking of it, Wodehouse also had a novel approach to the characters in his books. He was a producer and writer of musical comedy shows on Broadway, and he would "cast" a book as though it were a stage production. Okay, I have this character... is there enough "business" to justify his "pay", so to speak. If not, merge the character with another, or give the character a good bit of business to justify his presence.

To see how he worked, get hold of a copy of "Performing Flea". This book consists of the letters he wrote to his old schoolmate and fellow author William Townend, in which he often described what he was doing with his latest novel or play, and equally did a lot of critiquing of Townend's novels, laying down some very basic principles. (Also, it is funny. A Wodehouse letter could only have been written by Wodehouse...)

[gmw]

Pulpmeister, I completely agree that some types of story must need a good outline - mysteries/whodunnits, action-thrillers. This is largely what I had in mind when I was speaking of event driven stories - one or two characters may have certain twists that are important to the story, but most of the rest are there for colour/interest and can be changed out or merged with little change to the outline.

I have (I think successfully) dealt with converging threads in all my books. I knew they were going to come together again, but I didn't have anything more than a vague idea of how they were going to do that when the separate threads were created. The key for me was maintaining an after-the-fact outline (well, multiple overlapping outlines), so I always knew exactly where all my characters were in relation to the others at every point in the story. They all made it to where they were supposed to be (and without having to pull a hamstring to slow one down ).

The Wodehouse details are interesting, I hadn't read that before. I sort of like the idea of casting the story in advance, I hate it when I get to the point in a story where a new character is entering and I don't know them well enough to even give them a name. Everything grinds to a halt while I think about who it is that just walked onto the set.

[barutanseijin]

Outlines?

Never.

(But i don't write narrative fiction.)

[Anna Drake]

I write mysteries without an outline. I have my amateur sleuth follow the clues as they develop during the writing of the book. I usually know who the killer is by the halfway point of the novel. Then, I write toward that ending. I also list five future chapters with story ideas for each of them. That's when things are going well.

My problem with outlines is that once I know the story and how to get there, I become bored with the tale I'm writing.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by crich70

The posted of the video presented an outline something like this...

It's the basic outline for almost every fantasy story I've ever read, esepcially the ones in high/epic fantasy.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It's the basic outline for almost every fantasy story I've ever read, esepcially the ones in high/epic fantasy.

I think it could be said that it is a basic outline of a lot of fiction fantasy or not. I mean the quest could be for love (romance) or to fight off the bandits (western) or to find the killer (mystery) just as easy as it could be to find or destroy a magical artifact (fantasy).