What’s better when writing - plotting or pantsing?
What’s better when writing - plotting or pantsing?
Readers and writers can have opposing views.
Anyone writing a fiction book will probably be aware of the ‘plotting vs pantsing’ debate. But what is better from the point of view of a writer and does it affect the reader? Do you have to pick one or the other? Do you prefer Ken Follet or Stephen King?
Each approach has fierce advocates, with incredibly successful authors backing either side.
So what are ‘plotting’ and ‘pantsing’?
In case you were blissfully unaware of this hot topic, some explanation is in order. I will start with a brief quote from George RR Martin who uses the slightly more eloquent terminology of ‘architects’ and ‘gardeners’.
“I think there are two types of writers, the architects and the gardeners. The architects plan out everything ahead of time, and the gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it.” George RR Martin.
In other words:
Plotting
Plotting – or being an architect - is the more obvious one. This is where details, events, character arcs and so forth are worked out in advance. Famous proponents include Ken Follet, J.K. Rowling (see above), James Patterson, Brandon Sanderson, Silvia Plath, and Joseph Heller.
Pantsing
Pantsing is when a writer has an idea but only a vague one and no real plan for how things will pan out or develop. They may even start with no idea at all and just start. Essentially, they write ‘by the seat of their pants’. Stephen King and George RR Martin are famous pantsers and so are Margaret Atwood and Pierce Brown (which surprised me).
There are benefits and problems with each approach
Plotting it all out first
A well-plotted book can feel more ‘complete’ (assuming it is done properly). Everything that happens is for a purpose and every loose end is tied up neatly. Readers are much less likely to finish a book and say, “Wait a minute, what happened to…” or “So what was the deal with…” in a tightly plotted novel.
While this is great, it can also cause some predictability. If a character does something that is seemingly irrelevant but is described in detail, or someone says some seemingly off-hand comment, you might suspect it will be significant later on.
If you read lots of thrillers, for example, you may spot a supposedly throwaway bit of character backstory that you just know will be crucial later on. Like their dad taught them to shoot a pistol, or they spent time abroad learning a language, or whatever.
To combat this, however, a good writer will add in enough red herrings that this doesn’t occur too blatantly. Things shouldn’t be too neat.
When it comes to writing, an argument pantsers sometimes use against plotters is that it can be boring if you know everything that is going to happen in advance. But I think this is purely personal and depends on which aspect the writer enjoys about the writing process.
There are some major benefits to plotting:
- Plotters rarely get writer’s block. They sit down, know what they are going to write about, and just do it. Consequently, once the plotting is done, they tend to write books a lot faster and require less editing. If you hate editing, this is a huge plus.
- This also means they don’t experience that horrible sensation that they’ve written themselves into a corner - which is particularly painful if the series is a long one. Like A Song of Ice and Fire for example. But it also hurts with a normal-length work when you realise a huge rewrite is needed.
- It is a lot easier to pace and structure a plotted book. Whether a writer uses a 3/5/7 part structure, plotters tend to pace things well. In contrast, pantsers can have long boring bits, or the novel ends too quickly.
Pantsing it and trusting the Muse
With pantsing, the characters and/or ideas are what matters. It can somehow feel more organic as the novelist is just ‘seeing where this goes’ and isn’t making characters act to facilitate story events. A lot of pantsers write in-depth backstories for their characters and really know them, before thrusting them into a plot or conflict. Others wing the characters as well.
Some writers find the process more creative and enjoyable when pantsing. The gap between having the initial idea and getting to write it can be minimal or even non-existent. There are no plotting Excel sheets or multicolored charts, or lengthy documents to work on first. Just get in there.
Another downside with this is that story threads, characters, or plot-lines can end up going nowhere. This might lead to a revelation that entire sections need to be rewritten. Or even worse, the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ kicks in, where the writer has spent the last month going down the wrong path, but instead of rewriting the lot, they try and somehow force things to work out differently.
However, the biggest flaw in my humble opinion, is that the books can end badly because the author had just written 80,000 words and didn’t really have an ending in mind. This doesn’t always occur, obviously, but it does happen a lot more often with this method. It is something I personally find frustrating.
For example, I love Stephen King and you get the feeling he knows how some books will end, while with others he was exploring an idea and then had to think of an ending. Carrie or Misery have superb endings. Whereas I found the end of Tommyknockers, The Stand and It to be dreadful.
I am still a huge King fan though, he’s a superb writer, with incredible ideas.
Another example using a very different, but still a personal favourite, is Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is one of my favourite books of all time. But it was famously pantsed. It is an absolute joy to read, but that is mostly down to the characters, ideas, humour, and philosophy. It most definitely isn’t down to the plot.
But the Dirk Gently books were plotted and feel more like complete novels, rather than a random ongoing adventure. Both are valid.
Let’s hear what some of the authors themselves have to say:
Plotters:
John Grisham: “I don’t start a novel until I have lived with the story for awhile to the point of actually writing an outline and after a number of books I’ve learned that the more time I spend on the outline the easier the book is to write. And if I cheat on the outline I get in trouble with the book.” (Source)
J.K. Rowling once said: “I always have a basic plot outline, but I like to leave some things to be decided while I write.”
Whatever you think of Rowling, most will agree she can write well, and has found ludicrous levers of success. She seems to be arguing a blend of both approaches, but if you read Harry Potter or her detective books, it is clear there is a lot of planning involved.
Pantsers:
Stephen King: “Outlines are the last resource of bad fiction writers who wish to God they were writing masters’ theses.”
Pretty harsh I think. Also, he is on record saying that he thinks J.K. Rowling is a good author (although he disagrees with her opinions) so maybe he is just being controversial.
Margaret Atwood: “When I’m writing a novel, what comes first is an image, scene, or voice. Something fairly small. Sometimes that seed is contained in a poem I’ve already written. The structure or design gets worked out in the course of the writing. I couldn’t write the other way round, with structure first. It would be too much like paint-by-numbers.”
The essential difference between the two approaches is that with plotters the idea is made to fit into a structure, whereas pantsers just like to run with the idea and/or characters and see what happens.
So what is best as a writer and does it differ for readers?
You can probably guess by now how inconclusive this conclusion is going to be. Given the huge success stories coming from each camp, there are clearly no definitive answers for readers or writers. Sometimes a nicely wrapped, well-paced and complete package is best, other times the journey itself is what is fun.
Speaking as a reader, it shouldn’t theoretically matter. The distinction should only apply to the first couple of drafts, assuming there are readers and professional editors involved. In reality, as some of the examples above prove, this isn’t always the case and you can often guess if the writer or book was pantsed or plotted.
For writers, it’s down to whatever works, with aspects such as genre and personality also playing a part. Some writers struggle to be creative within the straight-jacket of a structure, while others will meander down a dead end without one.
A blend of the two approaches is also permissible
I suspect this is where quite a lot of us sit on the debate. I am currently plotting in a way similar to authors like Sir Terry Pratchett. (I am obviously talking technique not ability).
This approach is to have a good idea of the story and the characters and plan where they will end up at the conclusion of the tale. You know roughly what will happen, but with a good ending, you have something to aim for. The first draft might still be meandering and full of plot-holes but there will be a lot fewer than if you just went with the flow. If you have the characters and the ending, you will also be more likely to find the writing and pacing easier.
I’ve started at least two dozen books. I’ve written one. Kind of. It is a fantasy book which I initially tried to ‘pants’. It is all over the place but the characters and ideas are pure gold (I might be biased). I am now plotting it out, deleting entire scenes, and will probably rewrite the whole thing. But as I know how it will pan out and have a deep understanding of the characters, it will be a lot easier. I will also be able to plan very rough plot points and pace it a little better.
But pantsing and then plotting clearly isn’t the most efficient method. I will definitely be turning the dial toward plotting in the future.
To those writers who are already firmly in one camp or another, this article is unlikely to alter anything. For everyone else struggling with writing a book, I urge experimentation. There is a weird amount of snobbery attached to both points of view, so go with what works for you. You may surprise yourself which camp you find yourself in.
nice