Do you (insert he if you are not OSC) write, or attempt to write, your books chapter by chapter in the order they will be read, or do you skip around more often. I am assuming that you do go back and add in extra material and/or take things out or otherwise revise, but I am asking about a first draft.
I am sorry if this has been asked before.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In a thread about NaNoWriMo he said that he generally writes his novels within a month, but they tend to be 100,000 words or more, when a NaNo is minimum 50,000. I guess it's possible he skips around, but I would guess it's more in the order the story happens (Is meant to be read), subject to some rearrangement.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
If you read the afterword in the recently released "Magic Street" OSC discribes a process of writing, for that book, that stretched over several years. It was not written in order, with the middle of the book being blocked out last.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I only write stories in the order I want them to be read. The few times I've departed from that (i.e., adding a new beginning onto the front of something) have not worked out very well.
The reason is that each chapter assumes the reader's knowledge of what has gone before - and LACK of knowledge of what comes after. That is, I'm not necessarily telling the story in the order in which the events happen, but I AM creating the reader's experience in the order I want THAT to happen.
Therefore, to write a chapter out of order seems absurd. Why bother writing chapter 8 before writing 6 and 7, when I know perfectly well that whatever I come up with in 6 and 7 will force me to rewrite 8 anyway - and it will be better for the rewrite!
That doesn't mean that I don't ever move backward - but I move backward with the backspace key, not the back arrow key, metaphorically speaking. That is, if I have written 8, and then go back and revise 7, I am in effect throwing out both 8 and 7 and writing them again, as new material. So I'm still writing the story in order.
Exceptions are when two threads in a story stand completely apart for a while - then it doesn't matter which you write first, as long as you've finished BOTH of them before they overlap or come together again.
I've known writers who do it otherwise - often these are screenwriters who are used to juggling scenes. But novels are not experienced the way movies are; because everything is language, it's not so easily cut and pasted without damage. Movies are constructed in scenes, so you can pick them up and move them around - each is a coherent entity. But in books, chapters flow with the narrative interrupting itself, moving in and out of scenes, putting in asides and thoughts etc., so that you can't juggle things around because they DON'T stand alone and often make no sense when moved into another place.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
By the way, when the process of writing a novel stretches over years, that doesn't mean that the TYPING takes years. It means that the development of characters and events in my mind takes years. When I start writing, that's all I do. If a novel takes six weeks from chapter 1 to the last word, that suggests it's either unusually long, unusually problematical, or I had to go give a speech somewhere in the middle.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is utterly fascinating. Seriously. <grin>
I recently read the collection of Douglas Adams material "Salmon of Doubt," which was published after his death, partly collecting published works, and presenting a novel he had been working on some time before he died. The novel, tentatively called "The Salmon of Doubt," was possibly a Dirk Gently novel, and Adams speculated in one memo that it might become a Hitchikers Guide novel in the future. The funny thing is, he wrote material with almost no foreknowledge of how the story worked or what elements would remain! His chapters in fact DO read like scenes in a movie, rarely seeming to have a relationship from one to the other. He suggests, as do the editors of this collection, that this process was especially important in his later novels the Dirk Gently novels, in creating a unique esthetic not based on linear storytelling. He would write all of these lines and chapters and ideas, sometimes just a fragment of dialogue or a description of a car or a person, and then weave all those peices into a collage. His editor talked about a process Adams once followed where the editor would sit in the living room and Adams would go upstairs and madly copy and paste material into a handful of pages, then run down and deliver them, then run back and collate another set.
In a way ALL storytelling is linear because it tells you a story from page 1 to 100, but Adams' later novels, when read, seem to have a common effect: almost everyone goes right back to the beginning and starts reading it again. It was the experience I had when I read "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," and its the same one his editor describes, that his novels became like Romantic musical compositions, where themes were presented as countermelodies, and only later revealed as important material. The process was totally ad-hoc, and the effect is totally cool.
In my writing, though I follow the events more linearly, I think this is only because I haven't written much longer than 10 pages. If I did, maybe I would follow another path.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Were I to guess, I'd say that's because Adams' books tend to be about a string of funny ideas and satirical concepts with a story arc loosely gathered around the edges. He has no match for great lines and hilarious scenes, but he wasn't the best novelist in the world (something he himself admitted).
That is, I'm not necessarily telling the story in the order in which the events happen, but I AM creating the reader's experience in the order I want THAT to happen.
Not quite the same thing, but this is why I tend to read books in the order written even when one comes before a previous one chronologically. You can tell, I think, when you're reading a book that was written after the "next" one. The author knows more about the people and settings. I prefer to read them and experience the same discovery I had the first time. Personal preference.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I agree with you, Chris Bridges, about the reading order. Perfect example, while I dig Ender's Shadow, I'm really glad I read Ender's Game before it. I felt like the story was developing as I was reading as opposed to hearing about it after the fact. Hopefully that explaination makes sense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I dunno CB, I dig what you're saying, but I am not sure Adams was entirely correct in saying he was not a great novelist. Of course, any writer says this, but for my money, DGHDA is one of the best novels I have ever read. It isn't pleasing in the way that some novels are, and it is disconcerting in its lack of certain elements, but it is really a visionary work to my mind.
I just wouldn't write off the fact that his work was constructed of a bunch of loose elements as a reason to dismiss his novelistic abilities. I suggest you read Dirk Gently before you decide, (if you haven't), because it is by far IMO, the better of his efforts.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I agree, actually, although I think the resolution was a bit forced -- I had to reread it a few times to be sure what happened, and why. I'm not dismissing him as a novelist, but his skills did not lie in story arcs or character development. Instead he turned his weaknesses into strengths and produced some of the funniest books ever written.