![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
i finished my outline for The Kidnapped Christ last night ~ the ending is still warbly and meandery, but i think i should prolly have enough words before i get there that i can squeeze it down by then. and on the other hand ~ there's a good chance i won't be writing this in chronological order from the first scene.
especially since the first scene is rather complicated and requires some nuances that at the moment i don't really have the brain power to navigate. it involves L & M in the makeshift chapel of the converted saw mill talking about the Eucharist.
uh ~ huh?
yeah.
i have some thoughts on how i will accomplish that without turning it into a treatise on the Real Presence and getting all mired down into the theology of the business ~ the scene is mostly to set up the diametrically opposed attitudes of the primary characters (belief vs. a hostile sort of skepticism), as well as to establish a few plot necessities: mainly the financial situation of the parish (finances? what finances?), and the importance of what will be a central silent character throughout this melodrama: mainly God Himself, who's about to be kidnapped.
but yeah, i don't really feel too much like starting there.
i might start with the kidnapping itself. or perhaps at the ending (i often write the endings first).
either way, that's the beauty of the outline: i can just pick a scene, any scene, and leap right in ~ i'll worry about assembling the puzzle later.
interestingly (for someone, i am sure), this is the same way i used to write my college papers. never in order, always sort of simultaneously spiraling inward and outward. books "happen" to me, the way i see it. they emerge like those magic trees that grow when you stick the chemically treated paper trunk into a little pan of water ~ the way the crystals bloom.
i think this is why the so-called "Snowflake" method doesn't work for me personally. because i've always created in fractals intuitively. when someone breaks down the process and defines it, i get all rumpled because it creates the semblance of verbal rules over something that mathematically complete without them. it's spontaneous. it shouldn't be explained or need explaining.
not that i don't appreciate that someone bothered to explain it ~ and i hope it works like gangbusters for those of you who are doing it ~ because as a process it has tons to offer.
but i just cringe at it personally. can't explain that except that i feel like it's too much of a reduction of the creative side of the work ~ there's just soooo much more that goes on than simply piling words onto words.
i'm blithering. it's official.
be forwarned ~ the more my brain goes, the more i shall likely be posting.
: D
~ this has been an official NaNoish posting.
especially since the first scene is rather complicated and requires some nuances that at the moment i don't really have the brain power to navigate. it involves L & M in the makeshift chapel of the converted saw mill talking about the Eucharist.
uh ~ huh?
yeah.
i have some thoughts on how i will accomplish that without turning it into a treatise on the Real Presence and getting all mired down into the theology of the business ~ the scene is mostly to set up the diametrically opposed attitudes of the primary characters (belief vs. a hostile sort of skepticism), as well as to establish a few plot necessities: mainly the financial situation of the parish (finances? what finances?), and the importance of what will be a central silent character throughout this melodrama: mainly God Himself, who's about to be kidnapped.
but yeah, i don't really feel too much like starting there.
i might start with the kidnapping itself. or perhaps at the ending (i often write the endings first).
either way, that's the beauty of the outline: i can just pick a scene, any scene, and leap right in ~ i'll worry about assembling the puzzle later.
interestingly (for someone, i am sure), this is the same way i used to write my college papers. never in order, always sort of simultaneously spiraling inward and outward. books "happen" to me, the way i see it. they emerge like those magic trees that grow when you stick the chemically treated paper trunk into a little pan of water ~ the way the crystals bloom.
i think this is why the so-called "Snowflake" method doesn't work for me personally. because i've always created in fractals intuitively. when someone breaks down the process and defines it, i get all rumpled because it creates the semblance of verbal rules over something that mathematically complete without them. it's spontaneous. it shouldn't be explained or need explaining.
not that i don't appreciate that someone bothered to explain it ~ and i hope it works like gangbusters for those of you who are doing it ~ because as a process it has tons to offer.
but i just cringe at it personally. can't explain that except that i feel like it's too much of a reduction of the creative side of the work ~ there's just soooo much more that goes on than simply piling words onto words.
i'm blithering. it's official.
be forwarned ~ the more my brain goes, the more i shall likely be posting.
: D
~ this has been an official NaNoish posting.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
~ trust me, i am totally unprepared. i can just talk a good talk. as an inveterate outliner, this is standard fare for me. i haven't actually put hardly any work into NaNo yet ~ and now that i am trying to relocate to St. Paul in the midst of all this, i have no idea whether i will be up to the task this year.
you may be green ~ but that just means you're not jaded with the whole thing ~ or will be sloppy in your attack!
: D