[thdrdt]

Masters in all kinds of areas have in common that they start with the big picture and then start refining level by level. But they can keep themselves from refining details that are smaller than the current level.

I think this works for writing as well.

Personally I also use this in programming. When I was young I directly dove into the details but that just doesn't work. Now I'm more like a painter. First big strokes and taking smaller brushes as I move along.

[tyre]

> I think this works for writing as well.

Many many many fiction writers have said they don't plan things out this way. A vast majority of writers I've read interviews of do not plan things out this way. Salman Rushdie, Zadie Smith, Jeffrey Eugenides, Stephen King, and George Saunders are a few I've seen talk about this in person.

Reported pieces are sometimes different, but even then in narrative non-fiction that narrative can evolve along the way. For technical pieces it could be the same.

The reason it works is that it is far easier to futz around with the master plan/outline than it is to get your ass in a chair and write. Also, in fiction certainly, the characters reveal themselves as they go. You can't build more than a pastiche of a human with an outline.

[alpaca128]

It also makes it easier to still make larger changes early on; details often depend on how the basic structure looks, so they make changes more difficult.