I think I like to write from beginning to end because I have a tendency to discover something in the beginning that will effect the end, and if I have an outline, the discovery usually won't be in it. Do you ever have a problem like that?
just the opposite ~ ! when you write from both sides turning in on themselves, you can see the larger picture in a way that makes the details of the story far more available. like: i didn't know that the story had to begin in the chapel except that i realized that at the end there's a pile of reward money that needs to be dealt with ~ and what better way to deal with the money than give it to the parish? so the story has to start with the parish in need so that it can come full circle. none of this is what the story is actially about ~ but it's metaphorical closure on a whole lot of different levels for what's actually going on (a spiritual battle). the outline led me to this discovery and the actual writing will continue to reveal even more. because in all cases you are connecting things through the center ~
~ i am a huge continuity freak. huge. the first thing i peck at in a crit are any continuity issues. you would be amazed how many more errors you can make by just plowing through chronologically. writers have a bad tendency to make assumptions about what the reader already knows or has been told. for me, keeping myself off balance means i'm all the more focused on how things connect and where there are ends left untied. not sure i can make more sense of it than that. it just works for me.
Do you mind if I ask where your stories ideas come from?
i don't mind you asking at all ~ ! problem is, i doubt i have a satisfactory answer. hahahahaha ~
the stories usually start with a very simple image. in this case, the image of someone stealing the tabernacle from a church. then things just logically progressed from there: what would happen? morse would pursue them. he would pursue them to his death if need be. and what if they tried to kill him? then someone would need to rescue him. and who would rescue him? someone who has no compuction whatsoever about killing others so that one can be saved. and what happens then, when two best friends find themselves on opposite ends of a moral spectrum? and what happens when that conflict turns out to be strictly religious? and what happens when the source of the religious conflict is past spiritual abuse? etc. etc. etc. and then all the what ifs that fill in the supporting story: what would L's wife say about him killing people? what would she say on the cusp of the birth of their first child? what would happen if the people who have been shot turned out to be wanted by the law with a bounty on their heads? etc.
~ and it just keeps unraveling ~ as complicated as i want to make it. and when it seems like there are enough complications for one story that are complementary and supporting of the major themes, then i stop asking questions ~ hahahaha ~ but you can bet i am asking well into the process and usually it's when i'm finished with the book that i stop asking.
but like you, it's important to state: i'm just following them on their journey (a journey unconcerned with chronology) ~ i follow them and see what they do and just report on it . like watching a movie in my head. and every question prompts a new reel to get slapped on.
: D
this was fun answering. haven't really stretched myself to think about these things in a while.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 04:46 am (UTC)~ i am a huge continuity freak. huge. the first thing i peck at in a crit are any continuity issues. you would be amazed how many more errors you can make by just plowing through chronologically. writers have a bad tendency to make assumptions about what the reader already knows or has been told. for me, keeping myself off balance means i'm all the more focused on how things connect and where there are ends left untied. not sure i can make more sense of it than that. it just works for me.i don't mind you asking at all ~ ! problem is, i doubt i have a satisfactory answer. hahahahaha ~
the stories usually start with a very simple image. in this case, the image of someone stealing the tabernacle from a church. then things just logically progressed from there: what would happen? morse would pursue them. he would pursue them to his death if need be. and what if they tried to kill him? then someone would need to rescue him. and who would rescue him? someone who has no compuction whatsoever about killing others so that one can be saved. and what happens then, when two best friends find themselves on opposite ends of a moral spectrum? and what happens when that conflict turns out to be strictly religious? and what happens when the source of the religious conflict is past spiritual abuse? etc. etc. etc. and then all the what ifs that fill in the supporting story: what would L's wife say about him killing people? what would she say on the cusp of the birth of their first child? what would happen if the people who have been shot turned out to be wanted by the law with a bounty on their heads? etc.
~ and it just keeps unraveling ~ as complicated as i want to make it. and when it seems like there are enough complications for one story that are complementary and supporting of the major themes, then i stop asking questions ~ hahahaha ~ but you can bet i am asking well into the process and usually it's when i'm finished with the book that i stop asking.
but like you, it's important to state: i'm just following them on their journey (a journey unconcerned with chronology) ~ i follow them and see what they do and just report on it . like watching a movie in my head. and every question prompts a new reel to get slapped on.
: D
this was fun answering. haven't really stretched myself to think about these things in a while.