How we write

     I've been doing some work recently, and picked up a few books on writing. Almost anyone who has set out to write a novel is familiar with the argument - to outline, or not to outline? The slang I've heard for this is "Plotters and Pantsers".
   
     On one side you have the 'Plotters' (those who set out to outline the entire novel before they begin) on the other, the 'Pantsers' (those who start with only a vague idea of where they want the novel to go.) The Plotters would say "I couldn't 'pants' it! How could I write a book if I don't know what's going to happen?" The Pantsters retort with "I don't wanna outline my book! That just ties me down."

     In almost any discussion or book about how to write a book, with plotters or pantsers, I've heard the same arguments -

"A novel has a beginning, a middle, and an end.",
"A book is written with three acts."
"A book has an introduction, rising action, a climax, and a denoument."

- and so on and so forth. While all of these are true, I'm here to disagree.

    This is not how to write a book.

     Now before all of you writing students and literature buffs get yourselves upset, keep reading. As I said, these previous statements are true. But they are NOT how to write a book.

     These arguments are how you Analyze a book. Let me explain.

     When someone talks about the structure of a book, they're talking about a book that has already been written. When a book is finished, if it follows some of the basic structures of storytelling, it will naturally have a setup, a development, and a finale.
    
     But writing a novel is a lot messier than that. At least for some people.
    
     Some writers (like myself) have little to no idea what's going to happen in their book, except for a few key plot points. But they know that things will have to be set up, that things will have to get harder for the protagonist, and that they will have to wrap up the book in a satisfactory fashion. When starting a story no one says "Hm, what kind of structures of classical struggles in literature can I use as a basis for the next scene in my novel?"
    
     At least not many of us.
    
     ... at least not me.
    
     What happens is a writer says something like "OK, my hero is trapped at the bottom of an old well that's filling up with dirt, and he can't escape. His girl's gone, so he's distracted, but he has to find a way to stop the mad scientist from throwing the country into a panic with a mutated virus." (Cooties are a thing, apparently.) "How do I get him out of this mess?"
    
     When a writer follows the natural progression of their story, they're not thinking about the structures of successful novels, they're working to tell a good story.

     So if you're trying to figure out how to tell a story, studying books on writing can be helpful. Learning about the structures of fiction, how it's put together and how successful fiction works, is great. But don't let the analysis of fiction become a recipe. Let it be something that helps you understand how fiction works so that you can be free to write the way you do.