I find the pantster v plotter debate fascinating. I've only really become aware of it as my first two books were being published - Hitting the Jackpot (2023) and The Last App (2024). Note the dates of publication, because my writing journey is in reverse; I wrote The Last App first.
I was very excited with the idea of The Last App: an app that would calculate when you would die, so excited that I started writing without too much of an idea about where the story might go. The classic pantster. All was going well, I created a family of quite interesting characters, set the ball rolling with the MC buying the app for himself and his extended family - all the way down to great-grandson Will, and a few sub-plots sprouted as if by magic. 20,000 words, 30,000 words, 40,000 words, I was flying.
I made it to about 50,000 words and took stock - took fright might be a better way of describing it. How was this going to end? I couldn't see it. The main plot and sub-plots had panned out in different directions and I couldn't see how I could pull them all into a satisfying conclusion. Writers' block? Not really; I felt able to write more, but not in a way that would end in a suitable place inside another 30,000 words.
So I stopped writing; it seemed like I was digging a deeper and deeper hole if I didn't. I spent a couple of months mulling over my options, trying out different endings, and came to an awful conclusion. I'd found a good ending to the story, that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the only way I could navigate to my favoured ending would be if I deleted and rewrote nearly 30,000 words: this character would have to die; a sub-plot would have to disappear. If I wanted to arrive at my chosen end point, I discovered that I had no choice.
So, with a heavy heart, and my finger on the delete key, I made my adjustments. There were a few other 'issues' with my draft (see the Editing: Second Time Around post), but the storyline was done. I was happy with it. Not so happy about the wasted time and the bruising on my finger. I vowed to do things differently second time around...
The idea for Hitting the Jackpot (hiding a big lottery win) came from my mother. She used to do the football pools and always put a cross in the 'No Publicity' box for fear of 'begging letters'. I became fascinated with the idea of hiding a 'big win'. But, having had my finger burned by pantsing The Last App, I was determined not to make the same mistake again; I had become a plotter - well, sort of...
Rather luckily, I knew how Hitting the Jackpot would end even before I'd invented any characters or plotted the storyline. This seemed a revelation to me: know your ending before you begin. The plotting then became an exercise in navigating from point A (the beginning) to point B (the end). I found this part immensely stimulating as I could invent characters and sub-plots, always aware of where they had to end up, with a fail-safe option that I could ditch them if necessary without any pain to my index finger. It took a couple of months, but I ended up with what I thought was a pretty good storyline for my comedy. I was ready to write.
As I detail in another post (How I Wrote a Romcom - by Accident) all went smoothly until I finished, and found myself with 50,000 words, about 30,000 short of traditional novel length. I was forced to add a plot-twist (and a new character) that had come to me while writing, which changed the book from a comedy into a romcom. So, not exactly a smooth 'plotters' journey, but infinitely less painful than my attempt at pantsing.
I'm now writing book three - a follow-up to Hitting the Jackpot. I have my idea, I have my ending, I have a route map of events leading from A to B, I have a cast of characters I feel are 'right'. I also have a mindset that tells me a bit of flexibility might be necessary along the way.
Pantster? Plotter? Maybe I've discovered that I'm actually a plotster. Time might tell...
Comments