What is a discovery writer?
From an answer to this question: How do I successfully structure a long fiction piece?
I think I can infer the meaning from the usage but some elaboration would be helpful.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/4027. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I am a discovery writer. The main and broad definition is that a discovery writer does not outline stories beat by beat, or chapter by chapter, or even Act by Act.
The reason for this, as I found for myself about 35 years ago, and have heard from many other discovery writers, is a psychological quirk we have: For us, outlining drains the life out of the story. For us, it feels like the story has been told, all the creative work is done, and with an outline in hand that we have to follow, writing the actual novel is a six month slog to the end.
For us, it also makes the characters feel forced and artificial. Because for us, our characters feel like real people in our imagination, that develop their own personality. We make up a lot of their past history on the fly. Their personality develops and changes, and we come to know them, and think about how they would "really" respond and behave in new situations.
This is opposed to the plotter's approach; because they write an outline first, and that gets done if a very short time span relative to writing the whole novel. In that outline, the characters and what they will do is all laid out, in super-condensed form. Any personality changes are not informed by the actual dialogue and action that occurred in the full-length book form; and that can ring very false to readers.
I think readers sense inconsistencies and character forcing, and enough of that reduces their immersion in the story.
Discovery writers do have problems, however. There may be a tendency toward wish fulfillment; making things too easy on your hero. That's a mistake, and boring, heroes have to struggle, emotionally and/or physically, it is their perseverance through struggles that endears them to readers. There is no perseverance if everything falls into your lap!
Discovery writing doesn't have to mean there is no plan at all!
I am very familiar with story structure; the 3AS (Three Act Structure) is one useful one. I use a 4AS that is quite similar, it just breaks Act II into two equal parts, with different purposes (increasing complications in Act IIa, decreasing complications in Act IIb).
I know, based on page count, approximately where I am in a story, and I write the kinds of things that are supposed to appear in that part, for a good story structure.
Also, I have thought about at least my hero for a few weeks, I have thought about her "main problem" (what the book is about), and most importantly, I know at least one plausible way she can eventually resolve it. Usually by changing something about herself and overcoming a weakness.
I always give my characters an important weakness, something that will get in the way of their success in this particular mission. They always have some great skill at something, but it is never enough on its own to complete the mission. When they try to rely solely on their skill, they fail. I make sure they succeed at something with that skill unrelated to their main problem, but also ensure their failure trying to use their skill is realized, too, when it comes to the main problem.
Likewise, anytime I introduce a mystery, or love relationship, or enemy relationship, I keep a note on how it can plausibly be resolved. I'm not plotting it out, but I need to keep some idea of how it can end, and subconsciously I will write toward that resolution.
I check these "end points" after I complete each scene, and if my new scene poisons an end point (makes it implausible or impossible), I have to fix it, scrap it, or come up with a new end point that will fit. And then possible revise what I have written so far, so the story will remain coherent with the new end-point.
There is a lot of revision, and scrapping, in discovery writing. A novel has to be a coherent whole, everything must seem to fit together, the events and decisions have to follow each other plausibly. In discovery writing, the individual scenes will naturally flow and feel coherent, but you may have to work extra weeks to make the overall flow of scenes, the entire story, feel coherent.
So it isn't entirely a free for all, we can still write with constraints. The inciting incident still occurs in the middle of Act I, which is 25% of the story, so around 12.5%, give or take. The beginning of the story introduces the hero and their Normal World and them interacting with others in that Normal World. The Inciting Incident grows until, at the end of Act I, the hero is forced out of their Normal World and mindset. Complications pile up to seem overwhelming in Act IIa, 25% of the book. In Act IIb (25%) of the book, new complications cease, and old ones are getting resolved. Until Act III, when the final conundrum that started it all, the Inciting Incident, is what is left, and the final confrontation is planned and executed, around the middle-to-end of ACT III. Then the hero returns to their Normal World, or a new Normal, as the end of the story.
Discovery writing is more of a bottom-up approach, Plotting is a top-down approach. They are equally valid, which you prefer is up to your personality type.
0 comment threads
Stephen King, by my understanding, was a discovery writer. I will paraphrase what he wrote in his book On Writing.
You create some real, believable characters, put them in a challenging situation, and then let them decide where the book would go. If you have done enough work on character development, then your characters should be able to decide how they would act in a certain situation.
The writer should not then try to force the characters to act in the way he would want to act. If the characters you created would want to run away from danger, for example, you should not force them to be brave.
The fun in this approach is that the book can take strange, surprising turns, which can surprise both the readers and the author. The disadvantages that I know about are, it is very hard to pull off, and not a good approach if you are under a deadline by an editor.
Also, this approach works well, if like Stephen King, you can easily type 300,000 words for a novel, and then trim it down. If like me, you struggle to reach even the 50,000 of Nanowrimo, this approach will fail miserably.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/4030. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Expounding on John Smithers's excellent answer:
I would say if you have not plotted out your story (which happens in which chapter and why) before you start writing it down, then you are a discovery writer....But normally you are likely to get consistency problems (and other issues).
Yes, and I would take this definition even a step further: if you have not plotted out anything about your story — where it goes, what happens, how it ends, not just each chapter — that makes you a discovery writer. I worked with a writer like this once; she told me that sat down at the keyboard and typed to see what the characters would do, because as the writer, she herself didn't know.
This may be fun for the writer, like doing improv acting, but the result is not necessarily satisfying to the reader. (Or the editor.) A good story needs a coherent plot which hangs together from beginning to end and characters who behave believably (not just arbitrarily). This is, IMHO, hard enough to do when you do have a thoroughly outlined plot beforehand, so doing it on the fly is even more difficult.
One of the issues I find with, for example, Stephen King's suggestion (see what the characters do) is that what real people would do in real situations may not make for a good story! :) It may be typical and believable for two friends having a disagreement to have a fight and then stop talking forever, or to talk the issue out and make up calmly, but neither of those outcomes are dramatic, or allow the story to move forward.
I would distinguish this from having a goal for a section (chapter, scene), and saying "I need Peter to do this, Nathan to do that, and Claire to have this reaction" and just writing to see how you get there. To me, that's being flexible and allowing your characters to be themselves.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads