Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/27921
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/27921
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

A story is an experience, but it is an experience in which all the threads of that experience point at something, like the pattern the iron filings assume around the head of a magnet.

If you have a very strong sense of how the magnetic fields of your story align, then I think you are in a position to write each chapter and immediately edit it to tweak its alignment to the pattern that is clearly in your head.

But if you as yet have only a vague idea of how the overall magnetic field of your story is shaped, then I suspect there will be little value in tweaking each chapter as you write it. You won't have any strong sense of what you are aligning it to.

This distinction is not the plotter/pantser distinction that Thomas describes. Someone in search of the magnetic field of their story could search for it by exploring the terrain in detail by writing chapters or they could do it by attempting to make a map of the terrain in the form of an outline. Either way, they are searching for the magnetic field.

I find that in some pieces of writing (and I think this applies to fiction and nonfiction alike) the magnetic field of the piece is clear to me from the start, and for other pieces it may take many drafts before I find it. Thus I think a chapter by chapter edit may make sense for one piece, where the magnetic field is clear, and make no sense at all when it is not. When it is not, it makes more sense to hack away at the writing -- or even to switch back and forth from outlining to writing -- until you start to feel the pull of the magnetic field.

So I don't think this is inherently about the habits of different writers, I think it is about the nature of different ideas.

Original score: 5