Eddy's mountain analogy

I came up with an analogy about plotting that works for me.

Me, I don't like to plot. Like I think I said elsewhere, I like to let my characters tell me the story. I don't like to shoehorn the events that come up as I write into some master plan I wrote weeks or months before. If I don't, I find everything just kinda works out as I go along. Plus my story entertains me as I write it. I get to watch it unfold before my eyes.

This obviously won't work for everyone. Some people prefer to plot everything in advance. That keeps the story tight, but I find it kills my urge to write.

I thought plotting everything in advance was "the" way until I found out Stephen King doesn't plot either. Whew.

Now... I do plan. I create reasonably detailed character sketches, think up a theme and a major conflict, create maps maybe.

And I do I plot a little, but only as I go. I always keep in mind my next set piece, or mini-climax, that the scenes I'm writing are leading up to.

So I think of it like hiking up a mountain. I can see the next peak, and I can see the summit, but I can't see all the peaks along the way. But that's okay. I know I will reach the summit eventually if I just keep my eye on the next peak.

Then once I reach the top, I take a breather, then go back down and start editing my trail. I go up and down a few more times. Each time, I groom the trail by removing all the stones and sawing away the fallen logs and big roots. I make the going smoother for the next guy, who will hopefully be my reader. It should look like a paved road by the time I'm done, and he will never know I didn't plan it all out in detail in the first place.

To extend the analogy...

It's okay to see a peak, head toward it, then suddenly see another trail and take it instead. You changed peaks, but you still have the same final destination. This makes for a more interesting journey, and your reader will probably be thrilled.

However, it is not okay to see a different mountain and go over to it instead. That means you have to climb back down the mountain and start all over on a new mountain. Your reader is going to be awfully pissed at you for dragging him along for nothing. You should just start him on the more interesting mountain in the first place, and save the first mountain trail for another story.

So when a protagonist dies halfway through the story, it's like changing mountains. I hate hate hate that.

Or what Melville did at the beginning of Moby Dick -- he switched protagonists altogether. That would never be tolerated by today's editors.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
camidon's picture

Mountain analogy response

I do like this analogy. It's very apt to compare writing a story or book to climbing a mountain. It's certainly one step after another, or one word after another. Then once you reach the top, wow.

I'm rather intrigued by this:
>>So when a protagonist dies halfway through the story, it's like changing mountains. I hate hate hate that.

It's not that I diagree, rather I'm opening debate, and trying to see a different perspective.
I can see why the killing of a protagonist would upset you, that's what it should do. It would certainly upset me. For adventure oriented material this would not be the way to go. However, to automatically throw this out as a writing possibility is to say a certain potential style for a book or story is wrong. I don't think killing a protagonist is wrong if there are other view points that have at least been explored. Granted, any writer attempting to kill off their main protagonist better know darn well what they are doing and have a mastery of the craft. But who's to say in fifty years the killing of protagonist's won't become the next "hot" trend?

----

Life is a lot like caving: Most of the time you grope around in the dark.

DaveK's picture

Re:Eddy's mountain analogy

By plot I'll assume you mean outline. I think it depends on the length of what you're writing and your mind of course. The longer it is the more pre-planning I would need. For a typical short story I write down the major scenes, a phrase per and then start writing longhand. If things change I edit the outline. Otherwise I'll forget where I'm headed. I can't imagine writing a novel without an outline. I've got one story typed in where I didn't do that. Half way through I changed the cosmology and the begining does not match the end. I'll have to fix that.

I like the mountain climbing analogy. In that analogy I get up the mountain once or twice but then look for the next one. I don't groom the trail enough for a reader before I get bored and move on.

Killing the protagonist is a major POV change. It can be done but you need to be careful. I think I'm too lazy for that. If I spend the effort to create a character I would want to use him for as long as I can. Several stories at least.

camidon's picture

Re:Eddy's mountain analogy

>>I think I'm too lazy for that. If I spend the effort to create a character I would want to use him for as long as I can.
I think that's one of the most honest things I've ever heard someone say. That makes a lot of sense for the sheer work of creating a great character, though not for what's best for a story.

----

Life is a lot like caving: Most of the time you grope around in the dark.

Re:Eddy's mountain analogy

I definitely agree with the mountain anaolgy.

I'm working on my first full length novel, and I tried to lay out a detailed plot before I started -- I'm a compulsive planner. However, I found that by creating living characters and aiming them towards ambiguous mileposts along the way, I get to discover the story as I go along.

I have experienced similar plot inconcistencies as mentioned by DaveK and I've had to work around them. When I'm ready to release chapters for critique, I'll see if anyone can tell.

DaveK's picture

Re:Eddy's mountain analogy

Well, I've always said that my three character traits are: lazy, cheap, and nosey. Or if I'm in an interview: efficient, frugal, and curious.

Also I think that a continuing character will intice some readers. It could be a main character like Jack Ryan or a minor character like John Clark from Tom Clancy's books. Do it right and you can spin off the minor character into their own book.

Your comment about the character not being right for the story does make me think. On one hand if the character is not right for the story then they should not be in it. But if like me you're lazy and are trying to milk a character for all its worth then you have to be careful.

I just sent in a couple of short-short stories into the group. The first one came from the idea and I created the characters in order to write it. For the second story I had an idea and then it occured to me how to write it using those same two characters.