Build or Layer

This weekend was another push to complete the first draft of Revelations of Tomorrow. I have 6 planned scenes remaining, which in reality will probably end up being 8 or 9 (I usually find I've missed a few gaps along the way).

I know I've talked - er, written - about my writing method before, but I thought with the timing it would be appropriate to again. There are two types of writer methods in my thoughts. (I know there are probably more detailed versions, but my mind always groups them into two broad categories.) Those who build from the ground up and those who layer.

(A note before I go into this. Either group can have a developed plot line or not.)

Okay.

The Ground Up folks work each scene to its fullest potential at the moment it comes down on paper, then move on to the next.

The Layering group (aka Bakers) write out the basic concept and plot line of the story. Then they flesh out details, layer by layer.

I'm more of the Layering type. Some scenes capture my attention enough that I flesh them out on the first draft, but for the most part, it's rather minimal. The next layers, usually, are the emotional and cultural scenes (as the culture usually dictates part of the emotional reaction). Then I have layers for scenery, scene transitioning, technical consistency. After all those layers, I take a couple weeks breather and then return to see how everything meshed together.

So that's my writing method and my thoughts on the two main types of writer methods.

Good writing all! (What kind of writing method do you all use?)

Tradition Versus Modern

There's been a lot of talk in my various writing groups lately about writing style. There are many stating that untrained writers are using "writing style" as an excuse to write bad and avoid learning the writing rules. The opposing argument is that the formally trained writers are suffocating the creative process of writing.

Obviously, this argument is divided into two camps of writers. The first group are people who have followed an education or training/learning path of formal English education. They have a passion for writing, but also a passion for the rules of writing. I think of this group as the Traditionalists.

The second group are those who have the same passion for writing, but haven't focused their education or training in the formal education. These people learn by sight and instinct. They know good writing from bad but can't tell you the why of it. I think of this group as the Modernists.

Both the Traditionalists and the Modernists are passionate about the art and craft of writing. Their difference comes in approach, which fit their individual personalities and are the core strength of their writing styles.

Modernists have the strength and creative angst to break through the latest rigid rules of writing and to form a new method of expression. They are cocky enough to do it without apologies. Traditionalists have the respect of the founding rules that transcend the various evolutions. They are cocky enough to fight off the desecration of those basic rules.

Both groups have qualities that the other can learn from and hopefully one day appreciate. As with the late 1700 through mid-1800, and then again through the 1940-1970s there were evolutions of writing that changed the way readers look at the core stories of values, morals, and, well...life.

Hope my little rant wasn't too much or too boring. Good writing all!