BL> Once I have the plot in mind, the rest flows at its own rate...

RB> Do you work with plot outlines, so you have at least an outline
RB> structure to work to?

 No. I've tried writing an outline, step-by-step, but it only lasted
till the end of the first chapter. I find it easier to create the
characters first, with just a vague idea of where I want them to go,
and let them work it out for themselves.

 For instance, my latest SF epic starts with the harmless hero trying
to live a quiet life and keep out of trouble...and the *idea* is that
events conspire to force him to rule the Universe (classic Fantasy
plot). All that remains is the voyage, and a way to make it happen
sensibly step-by-step. My idea of an "outline" is just the start and
the finish.

 The beauty about writing on computer is that planning is not really
needed, or even desirable. If the story runs into a dead end or turns
silly, you can go back in time, and remove the block. There is no need
for the "with one leap Jack was free" type of plotting, or Dickens
coincidence... you can just write in a new character or a new subplot,
three or four chapters back so that it makes sense when required. I
find it better nto to be structured... the necessary revisions add
density to the plot and the characters.

RB> I'd be worried about being tempted into major plot changes.

 Why not? The whole point is to make the story *better*. Why does it
matter what route you take to get there?  

 I *scream* when an author traps himself into an Agatha Christie
moment, and spends pages trying to justify a hole in the plotting or
explain the inexplicable, when all he has to do is go back a few
chapters and fix it back there. Before computers, the only way was to
work it out first with an outline, and then stick to it. It is a
*huge* temptation when you reach a point in the story where you want
something to happen but it doesn't make sense... to spend a few pages
of dialog "explaining," when the real solution is fifty pages back,
and the "crunch" would then become a revelation rather than a
sticking point.

 Maybe I'm just not clever enough to work out plot-twists in advance.

RB> I looked through a book about UK childrens' authors recently.
RB> It was surprising how many of them said they worked their ideas
RB> out during long walks. Crawford Kilian said much the same -
RB> walk the dog, or even mow the lawn (!), but you had to be doing
RB> _something_.

 (grin) I mow the lawn too. The (mindless) action does seem to be an
essential part.

RB> Ian MacLeod, author of THE LIGHT AGES, started writing his
RB> first book "under the desk" while working in the UK Civil
RB> Service...

 ROFL! I *love* the names bureaucrats give themselves. "Public
Servants" is my favourite, but Civil Service is nearly as good. They
are always civil (but totally useless lazy-bastards whose main aim is
to make you go away).

 I have no idea how anyone could write on the sly, or even write in
their spare time. For me, it has to be full-time, with gaps. I might
go for a month and not write a word, but then the dam bursts and I
write 12 finished pages a day, for a month. If I tried to cut that
into an hour at a time, I'd lose the plot.

BL> Occasionally, a story just can't be saved... and I have to go
BL> *right* back and basically start again.

RB> Can you generally salvage any of the bits, and maybe recycle
RB> events or characters somewhere else?

 I used to do that, but it always ends in writer's block. Now when I
run into a block, first I try *reading* furiously to "balance" the
flow, but if I'm still blocked and the story just won't move on, I
accept that it's my subconscious trying to send me a message.

 I've always been better at starting than finishing. The first few
chapters are always easy for me, I always like my characters, but
quite often it just runs down and stops... or simply won't go where I
want it to go.

 My one success was a crime novel where I wanted the hero to be a
psycho. I was sick of politically-corect heroes like Rambo doing awful
things after extreme justification, or Vaachs' and Parker's 
dark-heroes using a faithful sidekick like Tonto to get the blood on
their hands. To me, the idea that it's okay to do awful things for
a good cause was sick! My idea was the make my hero irredeemably
awful, a conscienceless killer... but of course it didn't work. I
hated him! That one I saved by making him funny. I made him henpecked
and set upon, still without a conscience but bemused. He was able to
murder as many people as I liked.

RB> Nix has worked at other book-related jobs in between, but seems
RB> to be currently full-time, especially as he has the rest of the
RB> "Keeper of the Keys" series to get out. He's one of the few
RB> that could be headed for becoming a full-time author. 

 Our best-selling author here in Oz, writing rubbish one-a-year,
likes to talk about money, and so far as I can work out, he earns
about $50K, roughly what a low-level bureaucrat/teacher/nurse earns.
He's a best-seller, but only in Oz. My guess is that someone like Nix
selling into the UK as well as Oz, would earn $30K - enough to try
full-time but not a "good" living. Our high-class writers like Malouf,
Carey, Patrick White, etc, rely on literary prizes, government subsidy
and academia.

 I'd like to see government subsidy swung away from the academic to
publisher and other commercial interestss. Here in Oz we suffer
cultural cringe, promoting "culture" that simply does not exist. We
should promote what we do best, which is entertain ourselves, and
encourage authors who can actually sell a few books and make money...
the way we do with our movies.   

Regards,
Bob
 


--- BQWK Alpha 0.5