That’s the question posed by Tyler Moss in interviewing George Saunders for Writer’s Digest (“The WD Interview: Author George Saunders Talks Structure, Outlining and Lincoln in the Bardo”: see interview HERE
Saunders is a firm believer in letting the story lead the way, and not mapping out everything beforehand. He says: “My normal idea on stories is to try to know as little as possible at every step, because then you’re open to the actual energy that’s coming off the page.” He says if you want the story to go left but it wants to go right, then you should let it go right, and having fewer preconceptions about where you want the story to go allows you to make that swerve more easily.
Saunders acknowledges there are different approaches. There are those who prefer to map out details, structure, themes, and plot before commencing the journey, but for him the preferred method is to say, “Well, I’m going to know nothing.” To map out everything beforehand, for him, is “almost like somebody walking through Paris with a map right in front of their face. They’re concentrating on the map, but they’re not really seeing the actual Paris.” He prefers to be seized by “this magical thing from beyond, maybe the subconscious or whatever you want to call it,” that might “lurch forward” and give the writer “a little gift that they hadn’t been expecting.”
I’m in agreement. These characters who leap at me in the middle of the night, making demands, suggesting twists and turns I had never contemplated. They’re a persistent bunch. They keep me going.
Very good to read this, thank you. I like to see a story unfolding through the experiences of a central character, rather than have a complex plot set out at the beginning, where one feels the writer is just colouring in the blocks. So I agree with the sentiments here.
I agree with all of this. I find books that are too carefully plotted sometimes too contrived. There are a lot of Netflix movies and series of movies that are brilliant to start off with then the scriptwriters seem to try and force things into a preconceived format and it all becomes unbelievable as they wrap up everything: almost as if the map had been laid out for them and they had to squeeze the juice out to fit it all in. The link you provide is very helpful. I enjoyed that article very much.
Very interesting indeed. I like your website. Will have to read the books, now. I also liked the review of Tolkien.
Well said, Harold. “An expedition into the unknown”. I like that. Thanks, too, Lana, for your comment. And also the comment about that review of the Tolkien biography. For the benefit of others here’s the link to that: https://tinyurl.com/y78ohy37
Having written with a plot almost defined I struggled to keep it within the lines. Effort increased, enjoyment diminished and what started out as enjoyable, became labour. And that subliminal feeling of falling out of love with ones own book is probably transferred to readers.
So perhaps one takes readers on an expedition into the unknown where along with them one shares the infectious excitement without fully understanding the process. This is certainly my experience with my next book where the focus is on, or more precisely, within the characters.
How interesting. I have found the same as you (but I haven’t finished my first book yet). This is a helpful comment (as is the article above – I really learned from it and I love the whole idea of NOT setting out a plot framework).
I loved the review on Goodreads of Tolkien, too, Mr Patrick.
I agree. Sometimes I read stories that appear to have been written by the numbers, and one can predict the plot so easily because the author has prepared a tapestry and is just colouring in the squares. I prefer stories with strong characters who just set out on a journey and things happen to them. That’s why Michael Connelly and Lee Child and Ian Rankin succeed. I’ll follow their heroes – like Harry Bosch, Jack Reacher and John Rebus – anywhere, because they make stories happen, the stories don’t happen to them because of some pre-planned (over-planned) journey. The story must flow from the character, not from the author’s guide to writing.
Thank you for your thought on this, Francesca. You’ve also identified three of my thriller heroes: Harry, Jack and John. I love following their adventures and I agree with your useful insight about the importance of characters on a journey. I can remember many fictitious characters (my imagined ‘picture’ of their looks, along with their idiosyncrasies, occasional comments, attitudes, demeanour, etc.) long after I’ve forgotten the details of the plots in which they are involved.
I’m in total agreement. Probably because I have never managed to draw the map 🤣.
👏 which is why your stories are organic and the action seems logically interwoven with the characters.
Me too. My book is a fantasy thriller and I almost don’t care if I don’t finish it because I’m having such fun discovering characters and plot lines that I had never planned. Very exciting. I agree with what people are saying here.