There's more than one way to skin a cat. A lot depends on an individual writer's personality, temperament, and possibly psychology. Bell and Dean Wesley Smith both helped me a lot. I don't think it's fair to assume Bell hurt so many writers. I opened my mind to plotting a bit when, frankly, I compared Bell's recent fiction to Smith's recent fiction. Sure it's a matter of taste, but I found Bell's fiction to be light years more readable and exciting than Smith's. My advice to all writers is to try everything and see what works best for you. Lord knows Smith's methods have paid massive dividends for you because your output is legendary. Otherwise, to remain exclusively loyal to one writing guru is almost a writing myth unto itself.
Okay, first, they aren't Smith's methods. It's Heinlein's Rules and WITD, which boils down to trusting yourself.
Still, I will never say (and never have said) WITD is the only way to write fiction. Conversely, that you MUST outline, revise, rewrite ad nauseam, invite external critique, etc. is repeated constantly 24/7/365. Which is perfectly fine. I don't mind being a lone voice in the wilderness.
It's a lot more honest than repeating the standard lies just so you can sell more nonfiction books that say exactly the same things all the other nonfiction books say. How do people NOT see through that?
It just pisses me off when others say you should do "Whatever works" and then if you mention WITD they all do a quick dogpile on you. Happened to me several times over on KillZone blog.
And I'm not loyal to one writing "guru" or ANY writing guru. As I've often said, I set out to prove DWS and WITD wrong. Fortunately for me, I sucked up a big breath and gave it a reaI try, and it actually worked. In other words, I trusted myself and my characters. I was as surprised as anyone else when it worked. I even thought it must be a fluke, but it kept happening.
And WITD doesn't work for me because I'm prolific. I'm prolific because I trust myself and write off into the dark.
The fact remains that anyone who outlines a novel or tries to "plot" what hasn't happened yet are doing so only because they're bowing to fear. That isn't opinion; it's simple fact.
But you're right. Every Writer Is Different (and DWS says that all the time). If feeling "safe" from whatever they think is going to befall them because they wrote a "bad" story is their bag, that's fine by me. Doesn't affect my bottom line, so what do I care? I just want to show them they CAN trust themselves and they ARE capaple, that it doesn't take a village.
In teaching WITD, the most I've ever done is encourage people to step out of the lemming line and TRY it. Because you can ALWAYS go back to the safety of the nets. Know what? Most people won't even try it. The fear is just too great.
But if I had to follow a formula, which is WIDELY taught in our society, I wouldn't write at all. I'd be fishing.
Smith, to his credit, popularized Heinlein's rules and WITD. He's helped me a lot just from those. But again, I think you're putting a lot of baggage onto plotters that may not exist. Plenty of people have written excellent books by at least partially outlining. Did some do it out of fear? Perhaps but certainly not all or even a majority.
Dean was among the first in my generation to promote HR and WITD, but nobody's popularized it. It isn't and will never be popular. Too scary. And so the "trunk novels" will continue to be a thing down into the future because they "aren't good enough".
But hey, that's fine. As Bradbury said, "Plot is only the footprints that are left in the story by the passing of the characters." But again, doesn't matter to me. I don't mind. If I refuse to even try to do anything because I'm afraid of the conseuqences, I don't mind admitting that.
If others do mind, that's none of my business. I just feel bad for them and keep living my life. Ask any plotter why s/he has to know what's going to happen in advance (when s/he can't even know that in his or her own life) and see what s/he says.
I've always found it a bit strange that if a writer thinks his work is GOOD, suddenly he remembers "Ooh, I'm the worst judge of my own work." But if he thinks it sucks canal water from all 50 states, suddenly he believes his opinion is right. That shit's just weird.
Anyway, I've had numerous writers at TKZ say they would never read my work because they know it MUST be "bad" because I didn't follow the standard myths. Why should I feel any differently about reading or promoting works that I know were outlined and planned to within an inch of their life?
You say potayto, someone else says potahto and I say taters. And never the twain shall meet. And that's fine.
If this stuff didn't shed off my back like water off a duck, I wouldn't be turning out around 4,000 to 5,000 words per day between TNDJ and my fiction. That's why it's so easy for me to say it just doesn't matter. I know I'm not gonna change any minds, and that's fine. When I free one writer from the myths now and then, that's more than enough.
And for the record, I refuse to promote people who promote the myths NOT because I'm mean spirited but because practically everybody else in America's already promoting them (and the myths) so they certainly don't need my help. I'm happy within myself knowing my fiction's good and my nonfiction doesn't lie or repeat the same tired stuff everyone else is repeating. :-)
This is what I love about Substack, we can discuss these topics at length. I know where you stand and I know you're killing it in production and publishing. Keep at it.
Thanks for listening. Appreciate the compliment. I'm not sure how many of his books I have but they're a 50-50 mix of fiction and craft books. Bell is also a great guy, always generous with advice if you reach out to him.
Decided to pull out Bell's classic, "Plot & Structure" just to refresh my memory, because I didn't recall it teaching any "myths" that might derail the efforts of new writers to find their stride. Glad I did. It turns out the book was born out of a very disheartening experience for an aspiring writer. Bell himself had believed a "Big Lie": that either you had what it takes to be a great writer, or you didn't -- but it couldn't be taught. More to the point, it couldn't be learned.
But Bell kept at it, and he DID learn to write things that sold and made readers happy. And he decided to encapsulate what he learned into book form so that other writers wouldn't give up on their dream. He still makes it very clear from the start that "plot happens", whether you know how to do it or not. But the plot that happens when you write may be good or lousy, messy or beautiful, and the question that really matters is, "Does it work?" Does it actually connect with readers?
Re-reading through the opening chapters of "Plot & Structure", I don't find anything that would encourage someone to believe they have to follow some formula or plot things exactly some magical way in order to succeed as a writer. It simply offers lessons in "what works" and breaks it all down so you can make informed decisions about what you're doing with your story. The burden of how we apply those principles as a writer is on us.
Plenty of awesome fiction was written without formal teaching or knowledge of these principles. Lots of people have an innate sense of storytelling, or have grasped it by osmosis -- by exposure to great storytelling and unconsciously internalizing the rhythms of good stories. When we "write into the dark" it's not like we're starting with nothing. We venture into the dark carrying with us every story we've ever read or seen on TV and movies. But it doesn't hurt to carry with us a more refined understanding of why those stories work, too. At least that's how I see it! :-)
I'm a huge fan of Bell's work, both the fiction and non-fiction. Also have a lot of respect for him as a person, having done business with him for years. It's interesting to read in the comments here about the idea that sharing techniques for plotting is spreading "myths". Have to chuckle that creative people can be so dogmatic that they'd resist basic tenets of good design. I'm both a writer and an artist, and something of a maverick who tends to WITD in my life as well as my writing. But I still value having someone out there pointing out basic principles.
Knowing what works well for readers and what doesn't might come naturally to some folks, but others benefit greatly from having somebody deconstruct how a "good novel" is structured and analyze it. Seeing the moving parts, understanding how they affect the reader experience -- lots of people find that useful, whether or not they sit down and "plot" their stories.
That said, I do think a lot of authors may take such teaching as if it's "gospel" and yes, their growth as writers may be "delayed or derailed". But not because the teaching is flat-out "wrong". Simply because they are looking to the teaching as a golden ticket to success, instead of using it as information to integrate into their own process. Those who are derailed may be thinking, "If I just follow this formula well enough, closely enough, then I am guaranteed success." They want assurances for a creative activity and product that has no such guarantees.
Lots of details here. Thanks for such thoughtful contributions. I read those same books and agree. I really recommend Bell's How to Write Pulp Fiction.
Yes, he is friendly and responsive if you write to him.
I just can't support a guy who teaches the myths. For every writer he's helped, I suspect he's delayed or derailed at least 100.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. A lot depends on an individual writer's personality, temperament, and possibly psychology. Bell and Dean Wesley Smith both helped me a lot. I don't think it's fair to assume Bell hurt so many writers. I opened my mind to plotting a bit when, frankly, I compared Bell's recent fiction to Smith's recent fiction. Sure it's a matter of taste, but I found Bell's fiction to be light years more readable and exciting than Smith's. My advice to all writers is to try everything and see what works best for you. Lord knows Smith's methods have paid massive dividends for you because your output is legendary. Otherwise, to remain exclusively loyal to one writing guru is almost a writing myth unto itself.
Okay, first, they aren't Smith's methods. It's Heinlein's Rules and WITD, which boils down to trusting yourself.
Still, I will never say (and never have said) WITD is the only way to write fiction. Conversely, that you MUST outline, revise, rewrite ad nauseam, invite external critique, etc. is repeated constantly 24/7/365. Which is perfectly fine. I don't mind being a lone voice in the wilderness.
It's a lot more honest than repeating the standard lies just so you can sell more nonfiction books that say exactly the same things all the other nonfiction books say. How do people NOT see through that?
It just pisses me off when others say you should do "Whatever works" and then if you mention WITD they all do a quick dogpile on you. Happened to me several times over on KillZone blog.
And I'm not loyal to one writing "guru" or ANY writing guru. As I've often said, I set out to prove DWS and WITD wrong. Fortunately for me, I sucked up a big breath and gave it a reaI try, and it actually worked. In other words, I trusted myself and my characters. I was as surprised as anyone else when it worked. I even thought it must be a fluke, but it kept happening.
And WITD doesn't work for me because I'm prolific. I'm prolific because I trust myself and write off into the dark.
The fact remains that anyone who outlines a novel or tries to "plot" what hasn't happened yet are doing so only because they're bowing to fear. That isn't opinion; it's simple fact.
But you're right. Every Writer Is Different (and DWS says that all the time). If feeling "safe" from whatever they think is going to befall them because they wrote a "bad" story is their bag, that's fine by me. Doesn't affect my bottom line, so what do I care? I just want to show them they CAN trust themselves and they ARE capaple, that it doesn't take a village.
In teaching WITD, the most I've ever done is encourage people to step out of the lemming line and TRY it. Because you can ALWAYS go back to the safety of the nets. Know what? Most people won't even try it. The fear is just too great.
But if I had to follow a formula, which is WIDELY taught in our society, I wouldn't write at all. I'd be fishing.
Smith, to his credit, popularized Heinlein's rules and WITD. He's helped me a lot just from those. But again, I think you're putting a lot of baggage onto plotters that may not exist. Plenty of people have written excellent books by at least partially outlining. Did some do it out of fear? Perhaps but certainly not all or even a majority.
Dean was among the first in my generation to promote HR and WITD, but nobody's popularized it. It isn't and will never be popular. Too scary. And so the "trunk novels" will continue to be a thing down into the future because they "aren't good enough".
But hey, that's fine. As Bradbury said, "Plot is only the footprints that are left in the story by the passing of the characters." But again, doesn't matter to me. I don't mind. If I refuse to even try to do anything because I'm afraid of the conseuqences, I don't mind admitting that.
If others do mind, that's none of my business. I just feel bad for them and keep living my life. Ask any plotter why s/he has to know what's going to happen in advance (when s/he can't even know that in his or her own life) and see what s/he says.
I've always found it a bit strange that if a writer thinks his work is GOOD, suddenly he remembers "Ooh, I'm the worst judge of my own work." But if he thinks it sucks canal water from all 50 states, suddenly he believes his opinion is right. That shit's just weird.
Anyway, I've had numerous writers at TKZ say they would never read my work because they know it MUST be "bad" because I didn't follow the standard myths. Why should I feel any differently about reading or promoting works that I know were outlined and planned to within an inch of their life?
You say potayto, someone else says potahto and I say taters. And never the twain shall meet. And that's fine.
If this stuff didn't shed off my back like water off a duck, I wouldn't be turning out around 4,000 to 5,000 words per day between TNDJ and my fiction. That's why it's so easy for me to say it just doesn't matter. I know I'm not gonna change any minds, and that's fine. When I free one writer from the myths now and then, that's more than enough.
And for the record, I refuse to promote people who promote the myths NOT because I'm mean spirited but because practically everybody else in America's already promoting them (and the myths) so they certainly don't need my help. I'm happy within myself knowing my fiction's good and my nonfiction doesn't lie or repeat the same tired stuff everyone else is repeating. :-)
Peace out, little brother. Getting close to the end of my day.
This is what I love about Substack, we can discuss these topics at length. I know where you stand and I know you're killing it in production and publishing. Keep at it.
Great podcast, Big. I've got 18 of Bell's books. He's awesome.
Thanks for listening. Appreciate the compliment. I'm not sure how many of his books I have but they're a 50-50 mix of fiction and craft books. Bell is also a great guy, always generous with advice if you reach out to him.
Decided to pull out Bell's classic, "Plot & Structure" just to refresh my memory, because I didn't recall it teaching any "myths" that might derail the efforts of new writers to find their stride. Glad I did. It turns out the book was born out of a very disheartening experience for an aspiring writer. Bell himself had believed a "Big Lie": that either you had what it takes to be a great writer, or you didn't -- but it couldn't be taught. More to the point, it couldn't be learned.
But Bell kept at it, and he DID learn to write things that sold and made readers happy. And he decided to encapsulate what he learned into book form so that other writers wouldn't give up on their dream. He still makes it very clear from the start that "plot happens", whether you know how to do it or not. But the plot that happens when you write may be good or lousy, messy or beautiful, and the question that really matters is, "Does it work?" Does it actually connect with readers?
Re-reading through the opening chapters of "Plot & Structure", I don't find anything that would encourage someone to believe they have to follow some formula or plot things exactly some magical way in order to succeed as a writer. It simply offers lessons in "what works" and breaks it all down so you can make informed decisions about what you're doing with your story. The burden of how we apply those principles as a writer is on us.
Plenty of awesome fiction was written without formal teaching or knowledge of these principles. Lots of people have an innate sense of storytelling, or have grasped it by osmosis -- by exposure to great storytelling and unconsciously internalizing the rhythms of good stories. When we "write into the dark" it's not like we're starting with nothing. We venture into the dark carrying with us every story we've ever read or seen on TV and movies. But it doesn't hurt to carry with us a more refined understanding of why those stories work, too. At least that's how I see it! :-)
I'm a huge fan of Bell's work, both the fiction and non-fiction. Also have a lot of respect for him as a person, having done business with him for years. It's interesting to read in the comments here about the idea that sharing techniques for plotting is spreading "myths". Have to chuckle that creative people can be so dogmatic that they'd resist basic tenets of good design. I'm both a writer and an artist, and something of a maverick who tends to WITD in my life as well as my writing. But I still value having someone out there pointing out basic principles.
Knowing what works well for readers and what doesn't might come naturally to some folks, but others benefit greatly from having somebody deconstruct how a "good novel" is structured and analyze it. Seeing the moving parts, understanding how they affect the reader experience -- lots of people find that useful, whether or not they sit down and "plot" their stories.
That said, I do think a lot of authors may take such teaching as if it's "gospel" and yes, their growth as writers may be "delayed or derailed". But not because the teaching is flat-out "wrong". Simply because they are looking to the teaching as a golden ticket to success, instead of using it as information to integrate into their own process. Those who are derailed may be thinking, "If I just follow this formula well enough, closely enough, then I am guaranteed success." They want assurances for a creative activity and product that has no such guarantees.
Lots of details here. Thanks for such thoughtful contributions. I read those same books and agree. I really recommend Bell's How to Write Pulp Fiction.