Instinct vs Intellect

I hate writing discussions. They always make me feel dumb. There's nothing like hopping on a blog and seeing a good juicy discussion about plot and characterization, only to find that about ten posts in people have gotten into context and sub-context, primary versus secondary levels of conflict, the seven layers of strength, and whatever other molecular writing aspects there are out there. It's not long before my eyes start to glaze over, my brain freezes, and I start feeling as though my books must certainly be lacking the intimate depth everyone else is apparently writing into their novels.

Until my books are reviewed, and the reviewer points out all kinds of nuances I hadn't realized were there. It's then that I realize that my writing is as complex as the next person's, I just don't intellectualize it. For me, those subtleties of character and plot are written instinctively. Sort of a plotter vs pantster but not in a general book kind of way. I plot my books, pantst the depth. Which I think makes me an instinctual writer versus an intellectual one.

I'll never forget the time I read Debra Dixon's book, Goal, Motivation and Conflict. It was very early in my writing career, I was far from being published, and had only recently started working with a CP. The book had come highly recommended, and as I read it, I kept going back to my WIP and trying to find the GMC in my book. It was nowhere. In fact, I couldn't even fill out the charts in Deb's book, and, of course, I panicked. Apparently, I was learning, you can't have a good book without GMC, and my WIP had none. So I promptly e-mailed my woes to my CP.

Who responded by outlining the GMC in my book for me. It was there. I just hadn't seen it.

It could be that the people who intellectualize the writing process are those who've studied literature. I do admit that the more I write and learn, the more I'm consciously plotting in the concepts. I now more readily recognize conflict and character dynamics and intentionally work them into books as I'm planning them. But I don't think I'll ever be one of those writers who can think too far below the basics before I sit down to start writing. Instead, my approach tends to be one born out of logic and driven by plot points that need to connect from A to B. I throw action into a scene, then think logically how my character would react--or logically how I need them to react in order to get to the next point. Somehow, out of that, a character is shaped, but it's very organic as opposed to intellectually mapped.

And it never fails that at some point when someone has read my work, they'll make a comment that gives me revelations about what I've written. It's as if the discovery process isn't even complete once I've finished the story. It continues with every new viewpoint that is added to the mix.

So tell me, are you someone who likes to dissect the books you've read? If you're a writer, do you think you write more from intellect or from instinct?

Lori's latest Harlequin Blaze, "Unleashed", was awarded the Romantic Times BookClub Magazine's Top Pick! It's on sale now through the end of November at your local bookstores.

For more information, check out her website at http://www.loriborrill.com/, or her daily blog at http://www.loriborrill.blogspot.com/.