From Reedsy:
Do you plan your novel to the nth degree before you type a single word, or do you sit at your computer, take a deep breath and fly by the seat of your pants? If the former, you’re a Plotter; if the latter, you’re a Pantser.
. . . .
We all know there are pros and cons to both. Knowing exactly what’s coming next means that Plotters are less likely to suffer from writer’s block. They also tend to write faster and more efficiently. Pantsers, on the other hand, have the freedom to let their characters take control, which can be both terrifying and exciting at the same time.
I should say now that I am your typical Pantser. Don’t get me wrong, I am in awe of writers who spend months plotting scenes on timelines and building detailed biographies for their characters. When I start a book, I know how it begins, and I normally know how it’s going to end. It’s just the bit in the middle that’s, shall we say, fluid.
. . . .
I let the manuscript marinate for a couple of weeks, then re-read it. And realisation dawned. By not plotting, I’d got it all wrong. Flick had obsessed for four years about what happened to her sister; discovering how Kate died had to be the main plotline. It was a complete no-brainer. She cared about the pets, of course she did, but they had to play second fiddle to the main storyline.
I can fix that, I thought. Both stories were there, after all. But the timeline was completely skewed. I had issues with continuity and scenes that needed switching. Basically, I had 50,000 words in the wrong order.
I also had a little voice in my head saying over and over, “That’s why you should have planned it.”
Link to the rest at Reedsy
I use Pages on a Mac. Does everything I need. Used to use Word and have used all kinds of powerful programs, but I like simplicity.
And sometimes I even dictate using Pages. Pretty simple. I dump it into Vellum for output, then use InDesign for book layout. I do my own covers using photos I take myself, then use Photoshop.
I like the complete control over my book, and if something’s wrong, I can fix it myself and have nobody else to blame.
As for pantster vs plotter, I do a little of both, then let the story write itself. Usually my best moments come when I’m driving, so I use that as an excuse to travel a lot. My main income comes from my mysteries, though I write in other genres. I’m also a landscape photographer, so it all fits well together.
Apologies! I truly didn’t mean to start a range war.
Like almost everyone else, I used to use Word, and I still teach it, but I found that there came a point where I was having trouble with it – file size was one such issue. I also used to waffle a lot because writing in a linear way requires connections from one scene to the next, at least in /my/ mind. I tried a number of dedicated software packages and settled on StoryBox. And it changed everthing. For me.
That said, I probably should not have shaded my words the way I did. If you’ve tried different ways of writing and chosen to stick with Word then I have no argument with that. It’s just that many writers don’t even know that there are alternatives out there. Clearly, you guys do, so apologies again if I came on too strong.
Horses for courses. 🙂
It’s true that Word can get a bit prickly the larger a file gets. I’ve experienced that a few times.
An aside: I tried Scrivener first, 2 or 3 times, and the learning curve frustrated the holy heck out of me. Then I found Mark (the guy who created Storybox and Trackerbox), read one of his stories (which I liked), and decided to do a trial of Storybox.
They’re very similar, but strangely enough, I had no problems learning to use Storybox so I paid for it. 🙂
My editor uses Scrivener, so after learning to use Storybox and realizing how similar the two were, I bought Scrivener too.
And I still have both installed. I think implied that I never use them, and that’s not quite true. I think they’re neat and will occasionally start a new WIP in one or the other. I just NEVER manage to finish a story using them. Usually don’t even get past the first full chapter before I’m exporting or copy/pasting into Word instead.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ah, so you’ve used both! I’ve tried YWriter, which is another database style app, but never got around to trying Scrivener because it wasn’t available on the pc when I found StoryBox. Nice to know I was right about them being similar.
As for which app you use, that really is personal preference. 🙂
Yeppers, I have. 🙂
And way back in late 2007, my first NaNoWriMo run, I used Ywriter. 🙂
-grin- Would you believe I wrote my first nano in 2004…with Word? Small world. 😀
Learning to write is a lot about creating a process that works for you.
Hot tip: No one else’s process works for you.
For me personally I “Sign Post”. It’s not pantsing or plotting. It’s having a few ideas and scenes I want to hit. More a skeleton than a sturdy frame, and not at all like pantsing or outlining.
As for writing tools? I can use anything. I’ve handwritten. I’ve used Word. I’ve used Notepad. I’ve talked into microphones. Dabbled with Scrivner.
I write linear, mostly, so this works for me.
I knew I had to drop in and read the comments. Not disappointed. 🙂
I’m a pantser. I get the first few sentences, have a vague idea how it’ll end, and write until I get there. Plotting makes me second guess myself too much.
I use Word. I handwrote and then typed into Word for years, but trained myself to just type into Word a couple years back because I was killing my wrists. Sometimes have to handwrite when I get bogged down to break things loose.
And I’ve used YWriter, Storybox, Scrivener, and various other “for novelists” software. They’re fun, sometimes the learning curve is a little frustrating, but for me, they’ve each proven not to be the right tool. I don’t write much when I use them. Too many distractions/trying to remember how to do this or that. They’ve proven not useful enough to keep me as a user.
I honestly thought something was wrong with me as a writer that I didn’t prefer any of them over Word or handwriting.
Finally realized the smart thing is to use what works for me and keeps me productive. So it’s Word, with the occasional break to handwrite if I get stuck, and back to Word once the story shakes loose again.
>I’m a pantser. I get the first few sentences, have a vague idea how it’ll end, and write until I get there. Plotting makes me second guess myself too much.
Yeah, this is sort of how it goes for me. I’ll often have the main parts of the story, pretty much know the ending. The fun is the journey getting there, and the surprises I find along the way. Sometimes things don’t turn out how I’d thought at all.
I tried hard to outline, but I found once I had it done I had no interest in the story anymore. I’d told it to my main reader, me. Bored now.
It doesn’t matter what tool anyone uses, so I’m befuddled about why it’s even being debated. Find what works for you, and get on with telling the story. Gee.
>I tried hard to outline, but I found once I had it done I had no interest in the story anymore. I’d told it to my main reader, me. Bored now.
YES! That is me too. 🙂
Signpost-ing.
Great term.
I’m pretty sure you’re not alone in your process. 😉
Another like me! I generally know the end. Know points I want to hit along the way. But if something happens and sends characters in a different direction, that works too.
I’ve tried Scrivener. Then I had to export and reformat in Word for my editor and pretty much decided I’d stick with Word. So long as my style sheets behave, it works beautifully for me. And since I write linear too, being able to drag and drop scenes around wasn’t as useful to me as it is to some. Different strokes and all 😉
Xywrite.
Made me look.
It’s still around!
And Nota Bene,too.
Looks like choice of word processor is still a religioys affair. 😀
Ohmigod… My first job was typesetting in Atex, which is the system that inspired XyWrite. I still have XyWrite and all the stories and novels I wrote in it.
There you go.
Do any of these programs produce a line and box diagram like a CPM or PERT chart?
Several.
Which one to use depends on the intended use and source data.
It also depends on whether you just want a drawing or a dynamic “live” chart that changes with the source data.
You can generate Pert charts in Excel, Access, Project, and Vizio. They can be embedded in Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, OneNote and pretty much any other app that supoorts Object Linking and Embedding in Windows. Which is a long list.
The cheapest way is via Excel:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ms+office+pert+charts+excel+tutorial&qpvt=ms+office+pert+charts+excel+tutorial&FORM=VDRE
But if you just want to draw one, SmartArt in Word or PowerPoint will do.
Been ages since I worried about that kind of stuff.
MS Project does a great job of producing CPM charts. It has forward and backward linking, multiple links per node, and links from nodes to Word files. Histograms, resource constraints, auto date calculation from node duration, etc.
It’s great for plotting. I was wondering if the same approach had been incorporated into any of the writing programs so one would not have to coordinate between MS Project and Word.
Ah. Sorry.
My own past experience with project was as a front end to (the departed) TEAM MANAGER. It worked reasonably well at tracking the projects that the team was working and who did what on which one.
Hadn’t really thought of using it as a writing tool.
Hmm…
MS Project is superb at plotting. It’s made for zillion dollar projects, and easily handles plots.
You can drag nodes around in the screen, connect and disconnect any number of nodes to any others, set up forward and backward dependencies, etc. Need a guy killed in Tokyo before the president’s news conference? Just draw a dependency line.
Change your mind and want the news conference before the murder? Just move the dependency line. Based on the duration of the murder scene and the news conference, both scenes get dated and timed stamped when they move.
In the pant/plot world, one pants the MS Project network, and then writes the scenes from the resulting network.
Word processors like Word, WordPerfect, and WordStar were designed to produce business letters. That is the reason they came packaged with a template for such letters. Using a word processor to write a novel is kind of like using a wrench for a hammer — you can do it if you have to but it is not the best tool for the job.
I put words on the page. A simple word processor allows me to do that with minimal distraction. I have tried Scrivener – annoyed me to no end. I pre-plan in my head, and pantser on the page. Give me simplicity.
Yet if you could morph a wrench into a hammer, and have one single, handy, all-purpose tool, wouldn’t it make sense to do so?
My publisher has a preferred format, which I also use for my indie novels, ’cause lazy. Into this I begin my writing on any new project. I don’t have to worry at all about reformatting anything for my publisher or for Amazon when I finish writing.
It’s “saved” as a macro, I suppose you’d call it, not in the templates but just in the default style that crops up when I open Word. If I want something else for a different usage, I change it.
lol – another take on the old plotter/pantster dichotomy. Trouble is, it isn’t one or the other. I ‘pants in the beginning, pull my hair our and ‘plot’ in the middle and coast at the end. I also do NOT use Word. I use a dedicated writing app. called StoryBox. It is very similar to Scrivener and both act like project managers. More importantly, both allow the writer to both pants and plot by organising the WIP in discrete scenes and chapters. Thus, when I realise [somewhere in the middle] that scene X should have come in between scenes A and B, I can move it there with a simple click of the mouse.
Apologies, this is not a plug for either app., I just can’t believe people are still using a business tool to write fiction. 🙁
For me, writing my business, and that’s why I use a business tool to write (namely LibreOffice, although I’ve been known to use FocusWriter or my Alphasmart NEO).
You can certainly rearrange chapters (scenes are a bit harder) in either Word or LibreOffice Writer with just a click.
The dedicated tools offered by fiction-writing software is usually just an enhancement on what word processing software gives you. They’re not worthless, but I use a simple outline (more like a thumbnail sketch for short stories) to make those additions unnecessary.
The most important thing, of course, is the writing. The most important thing when it comes to tools is that they let you write. The second-most important thing is, of course, that you don’t wander off in all the pretty options and get lost instead of writing. (This is something I’ve been guilty of in the past, but of course I’m now able to make a couple settings and then get to work, so I guess it wasn’t all bad.)
If your system works for you, Nathan, then I won’t argue against it, but I do have to correct one thing:
‘The dedicated tools offered by fiction-writing software is usually just an enhancement on what word processing software gives you.’
Neither StoryBox nor Scrivener are wordprocessors. They are database/project management tools that treat scenes and chapters as data. That means you can view your data in different ways – e.g. as cards in a storyboard, as an outline or in editor view [as just a story].
It also means you can manipulate your writing as data. Those cards in storyboard mode? Each of those cards is a chapter, and those chapters can be moved around by simply clicking and dragging. The same technique applies to scenes within chapters. Those, too, can be moved around in storyboard view.
These are incredibly powerful tools for a writer and would have made the job of restructuring the author’s first draft quick and simple. I know, because I’m a pantster and I need to restructure all the time.
So no, these apps are not wordprocessers with extras. That is just how the interface of the good ones makes them appear – simple and easy with all the hard grunt happening out of sight behind the scenes.
Bottom line: writing software allows me to be both a pantster and a plotter, at least in retrospect. If you are a plotter by nature then being able to restructure easily may not be a selling point. But for pantsters?
Wordprocessing is a cruel and unusual way to write.
AMEN to A.C.’s post.
I’m a pantser and LOVE Scrivener.
And yet, within those scenes and chapters, the typing you do is word processing.
You can use “heading” styles in any modern office suite to be able to view your document as an outline and drag and drop the chapters (or sections) and manipulate your writing as data. All without the incredibly complex and wasteful overhead of databases and project management.
FocusWriter specifically lets you do this with scenes as well, and also has the advantage of being a minimalist interface.
So no, they’re not word processors with extras (which is not what I said). They’re taking features that are already available in word processors and extending them. Not in a bad way, and not in an unusable way. In many cases, in quite useful ways. And although the behind-the-scenes work is extremely dangerous and hazardous to the written words (I’m a programmer, furthermore I’ve seen corrupted databases), they’re typically reliable enough that this does not pose a major threat, especially (or only) with good incremental backup software.
I’m not saying StoryBox or Scrivener are bad and you should feel bad. I’m saying that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using professional word processing software, and most of them offer similar or simpler reorganizational tools as the ones you described.
Now as to the things like note cards and non-printing reference spaces to keep notes in and so on, that’s a different matter, but I’ve always preferred to keep that separate (either in OneNote when I used proprietary software, or text files, or a TiddlyWiki file, or so on.)
I outline non-fiction and long form fiction, and I pants short stories. Word processors are neither cruel nor unusual. That’s not to say that dedicated story management software is frivolous, but neither are modern word processing applications harmfully inadequate.
My point isn’t to try to change what software you’re happy using (because if you’re productive then you’re not wrong to use it), but to counterbalance your assertion that authors using word processing software to write fiction are wrong. They’re not wrong, either.
As A.C. said, you misunderstand what the programs are and what they can do. Many of the core features aren’t found in word processors at all.
Personally, I’ve found that the word count targets, snapshot ability, annotation ability of Scrivener dramatically increase my output compared to a word processor. There are other features that I use less often but are still useful when I do (and don’t exist in word processors). There are even more that I don’t use at all.
(And Scrivener files are packages that save each scene as an RTF file, so even if something gets corrupted, your words are salvageable even if the metadata gets corrupted.)
That explains your comment, sorta, but you’re both reading into and missing the point of what A.C. said. Looks as if you two have conflicting communication styles.
I don’t. I’ve tried them out, used them a bit. For me, they’re distractions overall. Which doesn’t make them bad, or wrong for everyone. But his comment…
…seems to imply that word processors are inappropriate for writing fiction. I think that’s a silly assumption.
LibreOffice doesn’t have word count targets (FocusWriter does). LibreOffice does have snapshot abilities. And plenty of annotation features (although I do not remember how this applies to Scrivener, so I do not know if they are comparable).
Scrivener is software that gets things right (although RTF is problematic for other, technical reasons). Not all software does so.
I’m reply only to “I just can’t believe people are still using a business tool to write fiction.” and “Wordprocessing is a cruel and unusual way to write.”
I remember the bad old days in the 80s and 90s. Being able to make corrections, move text around, search, find and replace, and copy/paste were the point of word processing software back then, too. This hasn’t changed, it’s just become much more sophisticated and convenient (and thank goodness for that!). But it doesn’t make Scrivener or StoryBox “not word processors” either. They’re just fancier word processors, and while every author should evaluate the tools they have available, authors writing in Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer are not at some kind of unsurmountable disadvantage.
Especially is they are “pantsers” or do their planning in their heads.
Different strokes for different folks.
I adore Word. Word and Scrivener are apples and oranges.
One is the writing processor part and it’s feature-rich, which is why I ended up not using Libre or OpenOffice after trying them.
Scrivener is an organizer and INCLUDES a barebones word processor. For rich word processing, it can’t do it. It can output it, but it’s just not a word processor. It has one. A really simple one.
This. I am a “plantser,” though for years I was in denial about how much planning I did. I was also a hardcore WordPerfect fan girl. WordPerfect is a word processor.
But Scrivener is a dream, and for writing a book WordPerfect is not even close. Scrivener has revolutionized the way I write and self-edit, for all the reasons A.C. says.
… just an enhancement on what word processing software gives you
No. Nope. Not at all. Not even in the same galaxy 🙂
Okay, you’ve sold me. I’ll try it with my next book, but I’m going to finish The Catmage Chronicles in Word. Already have book five going in it and I’m very used to the setup by now.
I’m with you — I still miss WordPerfect after so many years. They dragged me kicking and screaming into MS Word at work. Of course, those of us who actually did the writing were given no choice of which software was easier to perform daily functions in, and no voice as to which was chosen to go forward.
Jamie, are you using a mac? I tried Scrivner for windows and it was the poor cousin in almost every regard. All the neat features I’d heard about were only for the mac but slated to come to the Windows version ‘soon’. I finished one novel using it and then ended up having to export it to word just to get the formatting I wanted before converting it to an eBook.
If I had a Mac, I might give it another try but I need a computer that can handle heavy graphics-rendering and Mac’s aren’t really known for that kind of thing.
If you like Scrivener or Storybox, I think that is wonderful and you should use them.
On the other hand, as a software architect who has designed and implemented text management, mark up, workflow, and project management tools, I have to say that I would not make such a sharp distinction between tools like LibreOffice and Word versus Scrivener and Storybox. The internal architectures don’t warrant such a distinction. An XML document like a docx or an odt can be characterized as a hierarchical database which will support almost any reorganization and their contents can be displayed in many different ways. Further, mapping an XML structure to other forms such as a relational database is pretty much a matter of finding the right software library to do the conversion. The important thing is that all of these tools emphasize certain aspects of data manipulation, but with the right code, they can all do the same things. The difference is what the product builder chooses to do.
What does this mean to a writer? If the software does the job for you, you like using it and you get reliable support, all at the right price (LibreOffice is hard to top on price), use it.
I am one of those who has never found a Scrivener feature that beat Word, but that is dependent on my skills, experience, and preferences. As an industry insider who knows how hard it is to support large market products, I like Microsoft support. They have their bad moments, but so do I.
Your skills and talents as a writer are more important than any tool. I believe the old adage “A poor workman blames his tools.” It’s not the tool, it’s how you use it. A fully tricked out tool like Word or LibreOffice can do more than most people will ever use. So will Scrivener. Vacillation will get you nowhere.
Just write your book.
And the meta data you can add to each scene in Scrivener is amazing! I have the scene window and project notes window open and I make little notes as I pants along!
“Neither StoryBox nor Scrivener are wordprocessors.”
That’s actually why I dropped Scrivener in the end. Taking the completed novel and then formatting for print (e.g. getting rid of most of the hyphenation and widows and orphans) was too much work compared to just writing in print format to start with.
Huh! Maybe I should try that on the WIP that’s refusing to be in progress.
I tried a variety of methods with the first book in my series before I found one that worked. I’m half-plotter, half-pantser. I write notes when they occur to me as I’m working on other books, then take those notes and turn them into 4×6 index cards with plot points. I put them on two large corkboards in my office and stare at them until my brain comes up with more plot points. Then I start writing, always from the beginning. I stop when I get bored and jump around to scenes that interest me. If I get stuck in the middle, I’ve learned that I’m a visual plotter. One of my methods of getting unstuck is to take Post-it pads and dot matrix paper, spread the paper along my living room floor, put one- or two-line chapter summaries in order along the paper, chase the cats away, and then walk up and down until something clicks. You just keep pushing until you find what works for you.
I’ve always thought those were two extremes and most people write in the middle. Whenever I expressed that among trad authors, they always told me, oh, you’re a plotter or outliner. That is so laughably untrue. I can’t plot to save my life and writing an outline is a literal story-killer for me. I just hold a lot of info about my characters and my world and their problems before I start writing and do a whole mess of a lot of prewriting if you use a loose definition.
Most writers are somewhere in the middle of that very broad spectrum.
you should try the same method on Trello. If nothing else, you’ll gain a wall back.
Every time I talk about my Outline Boards people tell me I can do them on the computer. Yeah, I know. Don’t want to. I like having the Outline Boards. I like sitting in front of them thinking of plot points and putting new index cards on the boards. It works for me, and it works quite well.
I spend enough time in front of the screen at work and again at home. Don’t need any more time with it, thank you.
As for gaining a wall back–it’s my office. That’s what it’s for–writing.
It’s a feature, not a bug!
🙂