How do you roof it without any scaffolding?

[Rich.]

You've heard that infernal (non-)debate, right? Are you a plotter or pantser? Are you someone who plans your story, or do you discover it as you write? I say it's a non-debate because I'd bet the farm that almost every writer employs both strategies, often simultaneously.

Every artform has form, by definition. And those forms are recognizable, established, expected. Critics discuss them endlessly. And artists play with form, push it, mould it, distort it, and occasionally make it into something new, sometimes gloriously.

For a writer, form is structure, the shape of the story, the acts, beats, genre conventions, and all that jazz. A commercial-fiction writer must have an awareness of it. And to those who cry foul, I would raise my colours and run out the guns. You can't write commercial fiction if you don't master structure. There I've said it. And it's a walk off the plank (or at least civil debate) if you challenge it.

So, how do you do it? How do you approach the issue of structure? How aware are you of the conventions of your chosen genre? How much do you intentionally subvert them?

In short, how do you handle the form?

 

[CageSage]

A long time ago, in a dark alley far from this place, I found a deep truth. If you wish to know the secret I found, keep reading. If not, go now. Do not look back. Do not look back.

Stephen King, the man who states categorically that pantsers rule, went through a particular uni, studied particular subjects, taught English to students. As part of the curriculum of his university studies (and some of his wife's subjects, where he attended lectures with her), there were subjects about writing, about structure, about form. What that means is that he learned it, and probably uses it in the background of the boys in the basement. His later works don't fit structure too well, but he has a following now, so he's one of the few who can get away with rambling.
From that moment, I was free.

For my own writing, I use several forms of planning, outlining, plotting, browsing, beating and interviewing and chaining events together.
Once I sit to write the story though, I almost never go back to look at the planning or notes. I've spent enough time that all I need is an occasional glance (and to know the notes are close at hand) and I put that character's story together (usually better than the original plan/notes) on the fly.
And I've found that each story is slightly different in terms of the best form for the structure/plan/outline preparation. Each one flies differently. Well, of course, I say -- each story is different, each character is different, so why shouldn't their form of transport to that world also be different?

Planning? Love it. Writing the story is when full comprehension of the boundaries leaps into reality.

 

[Steve C]

I think there is an argument which says a pantser's first draught is their way of planning,plotting etc. It's a longer version of an outline and much of it gets rewritten. I think that's the way I write. I have 50k words down on my second novel which I dashed of in double quick time and have a vague idea of where it is heading and I know the ending. I also know I will rewrite it at least five times during which things will change so it really is an outline which will need filling and trimming and moulding and shaping and refining and everything else a thesaurus can think of.
In that sense, pantsers and plotters are the same.

 

[Victoria Bastedo]

As a confirmed pantser, I believe the distinction only exists before you begin writing. Do you have the entire novel planned out, chapter by chapter, character backstory on little cards, before you even script 'Chapter One' of your story? You're a planner. Do you, like me right now, have no idea whatsoever about the story you're going to write next? Pantser. Most people are both, i.e. plantsers. They've got a vague or sometimes general idea of what they're going to write about. They've done some prep, but intend to let the characters live a little and inform them as they go along.

 

[Victoria Bastedo]

I think there is an argument which says a pantser's first draught is their way of planning,plotting etc. It's a longer version of an outline and much of it gets rewritten. I think that's the way I write. I have 50k words down on my second novel which I dashed of in double quick time and have a vague idea of where it is heading and I know the ending. I also know I will rewrite it at least five times during which things will change so it really is an outline which will need filling and trimming and moulding and shaping and refining and everything else a thesaurus can think of.
In that sense, pantsers and plotters are the same.

I don't do drafts. I tidy and polish as I go along. Editing the previous scene helps me get into the story the next time I sit down. I fill in the scenes now, as I'm writing them. Inspiration comes and I take note. Sometimes it comes while I'm driving or in the shower and I have to scramble and scribble it out before I forget the nuggets of info. Then, when I have that time, I make it live. Half way through the story, sometimes I'll see the ending, or a scene which is five chapters ahead, and that's when I become a planner. The more of the story I write, the clearer it all becomes until I'm almost rushing to get down the whole world. But if I take good notes, I can luxuriate in each scene. I finish the story, and then I edit the stubborn little mistakes I missed. But I've known a lot of other writers with process just like yours.

 

[Barbara]

Are you someone who plans your story, or do you discover it as you write?

I used to be a pantser. I'm now a planner who discovers and who pantses as I write. I think we need both.

Three pantsed novels in a drawer made me think. What am I getting wrong? I looked at them. They all have structure etc, but what they lack is conscious thought. They don't have deliberate manipulation, deliberate craft that makes them A) commercial or B) a story that consciously affects the reader. When I wrote them, I tried to write a good novel, I didn't try to write a good story which readers will find exciting, upsetting, unputdownable, interesting, moving, satisfying etc. I didn't create an experience for the reader. In a sense, I forgot the audience. I fully believe a writer can only create an experience if they plan it in advance and put themselves in control of it (unless you're super gifted or experienced which I'm neither).

I now don't write a novel. I write a story. I've been looking into story writing and what makes a good one and the more I learn the more I want to plan in order to be in control over it. Like a film director who deliberately chooses a piece of music, or a lens filter, or a setting to create a mood to touch the viewers. This is done in advance because doing it later (fixing it) can be costly. In writing, fixing it later costs time. And can we ever truly let go of what we already wrote?

Filmmakers are planners. They decide in advance, then give everyone their brief. The actors get their script. The actors can still improvise within that script. Robin Williams was a genius at this and much of his efforts made it into his movies. And sometimes the plan is changed a lot because of an idea this throws up. As writers we are filmmaker and actors in one.

I planned my current novel, Mia. I looked at the plan, ran it by fresh eyes who picked it apart. I saw why it didn't work. If I hadn't done this plan and looked at it, I would have pantsed that idea and spent a year going down the wrong path, an unfixable path. So I started looking at story. And I planned accordingly. I asked who is this MC, what is she trying to achieve and how do I show this, how do I show her journey to her becoming xyz. What makes this scene interesting, what do I want to achieve with this chapter and how does this further the story, what makes the reader want to find out more, what do I want the reader to feel and how do I make them feel it, how can I manipulate the readers to like Mia despite her ways. Etc. I want to deliberately hit those emotional buttons in the reader.

I don't go to town with the planning. I don't care what my MC has for breakfast or what her fave toy was as a child unless it's necessary for the story. I pants this in the story. But I believe that conscious thought and deliberate crafting in advance will make the story so much stronger and cohesive.

But I still pants within my plan. I still want to have that fun. Just yesterday, while I was writing chapter 3 according to plan, I discovered that Mia has a wooden box containing various locks and handcuffs which she picks open every day. Not only does that show her as fixated (which is what I planned her to be), she now practices breaking out which fits the story. I couldn't have planned that little detail, but it came from my plan because I know exactly who she is. It was improvised within the framework. So pantsing within the structure is still necessary.

Anyhoo you might be yawning by now and I wouldn't blame you. And I might be totally wrong with all of this. So I'm going to sum my ramble up by saying that I used to pants for myself. I now plan for the readers allowing myself the indulgence of pansting the details.

 

[Jake E]

I'm a plotter.

I have an entire binder filled with notes about where each story is going. I feel it necessary if I'm going to write a complex book - or serise of connected complex books - with twsits as I need to plan where to put the breadcrumbs. I like to make it possible for the reader to guess the outcome or twist before it arrives, and for that to be achieved, I need to plot each scene. Certain information needs to be revealed at certain points and carefully so it's not too obvious.
I used to be a pantser, and all of my stories were awful.
That being said, Pantsing is more fun. I started a Fantasy story a few weeks ago with no plan and I had great fun with the openning. I have no idea where the story is going, but I like the premise. I may sit down and plot it on the back of the initial pantsed idea.
J

 

[Victoria Bastedo]

I used to be a pantser. I'm now a planner who discovers and who pantses as I write. I think we need both.

Three pantsed novels in a drawer made me think. What am I getting wrong? I looked at them. They all have structure etc, but what they lack is conscious thought. They don't have deliberate manipulation, deliberate craft that makes them A) commercial or B) a story that consciously affects the reader. When I wrote them, I tried to write a good novel, I didn't try to write a good story which readers will find exciting, upsetting, unputdownable, interesting, moving, satisfying etc. I didn't create an experience for the reader. In a sense, I forgot the audience. I fully believe a writer can only create an experience if they plan it in advance and put themselves in control of it (unless you're super gifted or experienced which I'm neither).

I now don't write a novel. I write a story. I've been looking into story writing and what makes a good one and the more I learn the more I want to plan in order to be in control over it. Like a film director who deliberately chooses a piece of music, or a lens filter, or a setting to create a mood to touch the viewers. This is done in advance because doing it later (fixing it) can be costly. In writing, fixing it later costs time. And can we ever truly let go of what we already wrote?

Filmmakers are planners. They decide in advance, then give everyone their brief. The actors get their script. The actors can still improvise within that script. Robin Williams was a genius at this and much of his efforts made it into his movies. And sometimes the plan is changed a lot because of an idea this throws up. As writers we are filmmaker and actors in one.

I planned my current novel, Mia. I looked at the plan, ran it by fresh eyes who picked it apart. I saw why it didn't work. If I hadn't done this plan and looked at it, I would have pantsed that idea and spent a year going down the wrong path, an unfixable path. So I started looking at story. And I planned accordingly. I asked who is this MC, what is she trying to achieve and how do I show this, how do I show her journey to her becoming xyz. What makes this scene interesting, what do I want to achieve with this chapter and how does this further the story, what makes the reader want to find out more, what do I want the reader to feel and how do I make them feel it, how can I manipulate the readers to like Mia despite her ways. Etc. I want to deliberately hit those emotional buttons in the reader.

I don't go to town with the planning. I don't care what my MC has for breakfast or what her fave toy was as a child unless it's necessary for the story. I pants this in the story. But I believe that conscious thought and deliberate crafting in advance will make the story so much stronger and cohesive.

But I still pants within my plan. I still want to have that fun. Just yesterday, while I was writing chapter 3 according to plan, I discovered that Mia has a wooden box containing various locks and handcuffs which she picks open every day. Not only does that show her as fixated (which is what I planned her to be), she now practices breaking out which fits the story. I couldn't have planned that little detail, but it came from my plan because I know exactly who she is. It was improvised within the framework. So pantsing within the structure is still necessary.

Anyhoo you might be yawning by now and I wouldn't blame you. And I might be totally wrong with all of this. So I'm going to sum my ramble up by saying that I used to pants for myself. I now plan for the readers allowing myself the indulgence of pansting the details.

I think, as the story goes on, every pantser must plan and every planner must allow for pantsering sometimes. (Note I didn't say 'pantsing'. The last time I said that in conversation my son-in-law laughed at me.)

 

[Rich.]

INTERMISSION...

Plotting vs pantsing, the debate is like a black hole whose gravity we can't escape. But like I said in the opening post, I think it's a non-debate. It's like arguments in Britain about putting milk in the tea first or last. That is, it's pointless. It's a discussion that obscures a deeper conversation about form in commercial fiction, and the need for and reader expectation of it. It serves me right for writing such a bombastic opening post that the point has become a little lost.​

​

Whether you plan or write by second nature, I think an understanding of form is essential: the character arc, the midpoint turn, a romance's meet-cute scene, a thriller's hero-at-the-mercy-of-the-villain scene, the fact the stuff gets worse before it gets better at the end (or the reverse in a tragedy), and a million other tricks of the trade.​

​

All these things are genre staples (and even literary fiction is a genre). They are there to be used, celebrated, subverted, or consciously ignored. Same goes for scenes and all the other subdivisions of a story. There must be conflict, goals snatched away, new goals introduced, and as scenes lock together the story must turn, turn and turn again, keeping the reader engaged. It's a rare writer who can keep up engagement with wordplay alone, and a rarer reader who will tolerate it.​

​

What I'm trying to say is that how we approach these things is irrelevant (Are you a plotter or pantser? Who cares!). What is important is that we do approach them. Cage's Steven King comment is magic, and precisely the point. The how you write is superficial. Knowledge of what you're writing is not.​

ACT II...

How do you approach the issue of structure? How aware are you of the conventions of your chosen genre? How much do you intentionally subvert them?

I'm currently writing a historical spy thriller. For the historical part, I'm aware that a common approach, especially in historical action-adventure, is to paint the fictional story in the foreground, while the background (not backstory) comprises real events, and the trick is to slot the fiction into the historical gaps. As for the spy thriller part, there must be action, intrigue, high stakes, and all-round general cleverness. So those, in the broadest strokes, are my conventions for this project, and I'm telling it in four acts, because... why not? I'm a big fan of the mixed-tone ending, when you have an external story (the main plot) and an internal story (the protagonist's emotional arc) that resolve as opposites – one up, one down (one happy, one sad, if you like). And the subversion? Well, that comes in the writing, I find, not in the thinking beforehand. But I think I have an original way to tell a well-told tale. We'll see...


What about you? What are the conventions you typically work with? Why are you drawn to them? And how, structurally, do you endeavor to make your stories stand out from the crowd?

 

[Jonny]

In the past I have had a flashes of inspiration and began writing almost immediately, pantsing merrily on my way. I got two of these ideas finished too. Quite an investment of around 170,000 words not to mention countless hours, which I now look back on and can only say they served to help me learn how not to write two novels.

And of course I did the whole "I can fix this this in redrafting" thing and dug in. But after about the first 5 chapters the phrase about polishing something and how it can't be done (yes that one), forced me to stick both manuscripts in a file and they'll never see the light of day - except for when I chance across them and kid myself - hey, maybe you can still make something out of these? - thankfully I will then remember how long they both took, but more importantly, the attempted fixes. I will pour myself a large drink of something restoring, shudder and quickly close the files again.

Nowadays I'm another believer in the plotter / pantser approach, and it seems to be working better. I'm in the process of redrafting something I finished in February, over a quarter of the way through now and not bothering The Samaritans twice a day.

One of my problems is still that when I get stuck in I can easily pants out 1500-2000 a day. It is however a matter of conjecture if they are the right ones, presented in the right order and with the brain having been in gear at the time of their composing.

You read about authors who do 250 a day and profess to be happy with this. My reaction used to be - Ha! call yourself a writer? - their sales would seem to indicate that they are indeed writers.

There's a lot to be said for writing the right words first time around. It must make the next bit somewhat easier. The old maxim - sometimes less is more - might just have something going for it.

 

[Robert M Derry]

In response to Act 1:

I'm a plotter, although I'm not tied to it if the story evolves differently. My plot keeps me on the straight and narrow, ensuring that the story has a clear structure and a goal. Pantsing works for some people, but I have a sprawling unconnected 200K first novel, which says that it don't work for me!

In response to Act 2:

I don't really consider structure too much in terms of acts, although I have rough character arcs. Really, I write the stories I want to write and don't worry too much about trying to be original or subverting the genre. I suppose I often write new takes on concepts/stories that I haven't read, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't done it before. There are 7.5 Billion people on this planet; one of them has had the same idea as me...

 

[RK Wallis]

This video by Brandon Sanderson just came up on my feed. Seems relevant:

 

[Barbara]

I hear you @Rich. , it's not about which is better, plotting or pantsing, but I think the plotting v pantsing thing does come into it because it makes a difference when putting up the scaffold. A pantser might never put up a scaffold. Maybe they will by doing a brief outline or something else. Maybe they do it subconsciously with knowledge in the background. All good. But I think the way we put up the scaffold and what that scaffold looks like will influence the house. The way we approach it IS relevant because it decides our choices. The choices I make when planning as opposed to pantsing are different and affect the story differently too.

When I pantsed I didn't think 'genre staples', or act l , act ll, midpoint turn etc. Story structure, oh never mind. (I just wrote. I had a vague idea of where I was going, and structure happened to be there at the end. Beginners luck). All the things you raised (conventions, expectations etc) never came into it. Even in my editing phase I never read over the story with those things in mind. But they matter to me now, because I'm consciously looking at them in advance (planning) in the hope to deploy them to effect, which means my novel will be different (not better or worse, different) from when I pantsed. When I pantsed, your question about how, structurally, do we endeavour to make our stories stand out from the crowd, never came into it. I never gave it a thought.

And I agree with CageSage, each baby calls for a different upbringing.

You mention this:

the trick is to slot the fiction into the historical gaps. As for the spy thriller part, there must be action, intrigue, high stakes, and all-round general cleverness

That is a conscious decision to add to a part of the scaffold to make your story better. If you pantsed this novel, would you have slotted those historic parts into it in the same way? You might have made different decisions to slot them in differently as you went (again I'm not saying better or worse, but different). Could you add this in hindsight? Most likely. Would it be the same? Not sure, maybe.

So I think the way we work does influence the result. You're right, all roads lead to Rome, but the journey will probably read differently (again, no judgement on better or worse).

Good grief, I'm having a wordy day.

Like you say, your question is not about plotting v pantsing.

I've been looking at the Save the Cat structure. I like the way it builds. Hopefully it will help me send Mia to her low point. For me the All is Lost Moment is the point which affects me as a reader deeply, but only if the built up is paced right. (That was terrible English, sorry). I aim for that point. It's my main point. I like the moment in a story when the character starts to have a catharsis. The stories where this is done right are the ones which stay with me, so that's something I'm aiming for.

I hope Mia will stand out from the crowd not by using techniques of story structure, but with depth of character and by mood and grittiness of setting. I hope she stands her ground away from structure if I decide to completely rip structure from under her (I'm currently considering telling it out if sync - I prob won't) I'd like her emotional journey, her arc, to be intense, big, and moving. I hope to do this by giving her a goal that is existential (is that the right word? - live or die emotionally) and by giving her a big crisis and epiphany. So yeah, I need to look at structure.

I usually aim to concentrate on goals, needs, flaws, emotional depths, conflicts thwarts. I'm less bothered about genre conventions and expectations (although I do consider that) because I believe if the story is strong it will find an audience.

 

[CageSage]

started a Fantasy story a few weeks ago with no plan and I had great fun with the openning. I have no idea where the story is going, but I like the premise.

Ah, these things are what I call: initiators. They can be a sentence, a paragraph, a scene, or even an opening. The fun stuff. What would we do without it? These are ideas brought out to see light, and once in the light ... well, that's where story may light the way forward. These are the blessings of a mind wandering the shores of possibility.

Where is the emoji of a dreamer? I want that one.

 

[CageSage]

Now, to get back to the point at hand. Structure. What to use? How? Why?

I seem to be a masochist. I like planning, I like preparation. Even when building a house or doing renovations, I like all the prep, the planning, the paperwork, the work (and that it's good!), and the end result.
Same with writing stories.
I write a beat sheet for each character who has a POV, and the antag, and any other character who's in more than one scene. Why? Because they aren't props. If they're there for no reason but to prop up the protag/main character, it's a waste of words -- because they will feel flat to me as I write them.
After the beat sheets are done and 'married' to each other, I can write up a chain of events (using words I've chosen to suit the metaphor and verb family of the MC) to braid the pieces together.
Beat sheets have 'parts' and most of the beats are big moments or scenes. During the CofEvents, I can build toward those moments. For example, for the MC, the beat of 'mid-point' disaster would be another beat for another character (a win for the baddie, perhaps?). This is where the ironing out the kinks happens. Then I'll do a scene outline to merge the CofEvents with the Beats to determine how many Parts there are in the story (most of my novellas come in five parts, not four or three, so the flow of beats is different, or merges more than one in a scene).
Then, after I feel comfortable about the 'what happens where' things, I'll write up an epilogue (this never ends up in the story, it's a planning process piece) to see how they feel, what's changed, where they are and why. If they are not much different, or if they win only what they asked for (despite the fight to get it), it's a flat character arc. That means I need to work the plot archetype arc into something very powerful or the reading experience will also be flat.
The story arc (plot and beats) and the character arc (use of archetypes and journeys and psych patterns) are my two main constructs apart from theme. It's like a pyramid. Theme is at the top, influencing everything else in the story (rarely stated, unless it's for a younger audience). Within the pyramid are the other major elements that go into the story, but always influenced by the plot archetype and the character/s. Conflict, Setting (this is your historical non-fiction, @Rich., the setting for the story, not a separate element), Goals, etc. must be enfolded within the three major constructs.

It's a lot of work, but once it's done I know all this person knows. I can sit down and become that person (and I often use something, like a hat or scarf or watch, that makes me become the method writer for this character suit) and just write it like a pantser. Sometimes, I have to check the notes (which is why I like Scrivener, the notes are close enough to not take me out of character).
The story itself doesn't take long to write because, like painting a house, when the prep is good, the work is fast and easy/ier.
The editing, however, is another story ... a much longer one, so I'm not going to do that.

 

[Hannah F]

I plot. I work out the beginning and end, then I get to know my characters. I spend time with them: chatting over coffee/wine/milk (depending on the character), meeting their friends/being with them to see their enemies. and being a fly on the wall, watching what they're doing. I move with them in their environment (which also involves research on my part) so that i become really familiar with the setting Then I draw their character and emotional arcs. This tends to be the point at which they inspire scenes between the beginning and end that allow me to form my 3 or 5 act structure. Then I work out what the twists/turns/major plot points are at each of these act boundary lines. Then I write a list of chapter headings. Now my scaffolding is up. Now I pants the contents of the chapters with a clear idea where I'm going and enough leeway to let the story start writing itself. I have the confidence the scaffolding gives me - if I fall, I won't fall far - and the story writing becomes super-fun!

 

[Catherine Le Bars]

And to those who cry foul, I would raise my colours and run out the guns. You can't write commercial fiction if you don't master structure. There I've said it. And it's a walk off the plank (or at least civil debate) if you challenge it.

Please, might we also cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war?
I strongly believe in the strength of planning, unless inspiration has fled, in which case pantsing can help get me back on track

 

[Rich.]

Please, might we also cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war?

A thousand times and a thousand more!

A distraught Mark Anthony stands over the murdered body of Caesar:

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,​

That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!​

Thou art the ruins of the noblest man​

That ever livèd in the tide of times.​

Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!​

Over thy wounds now do I prophesy—​

Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips​

To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue—​

A curse shall light upon the limbs of men.​

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife​

Shall cumber all the parts of Italy.​

Blood and destruction shall be so in use,​

And dreadful objects so familiar,​

That mothers shall but smile when they behold​

Their infants quartered with the hands of war,​

All pity choked with custom of fell deeds,​

And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,​

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,​

Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice​

Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,​

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth​

With carrion men, groaning for burial.​

Irrelevant to the discussion, but it's such a good speech I couldn't help but post a copy. I wonder if Shakespeare pantsed it?

 

[Catherine Le Bars]

One of my greatest pleasures, on moving to England, was joining the RSC and dropping into The Swan theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon between locums to watch the latest performance.
I see your Mark Anthony and raise you a Henry V Harfleur.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

 

[Rich.]

One of my greatest pleasures, on moving to England, was joining the RSC and dropping into The Swan theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon between locums to watch the latest performance.

Mocked am I by the green-eyed monster!

 

[Barbara]

Mocked am I by the green-eyed monster!

Thou should have dressed as a girl, pretendeth to be Catherine then spent the Twelfth Night at the Swan Theatre as an impostor who does Much Ado about Nothing.

WHAT???

I'll get my coat.

 

[Rich.]

Donneth thy garment if you must
But mead flows and outside air doth chill the bones
To get, or not to get, that is the question
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrages parody
Or to raise mirth against a sea of writers and by jesting charm them

 

[Barbara]

Hang on while I run that through Google translate....

 

[Barbara]

.... turns out Google translate wasn't around during Shakespeare's time.

 

[Barbara]

Donneth thy garment if you must
But mead flows and outside air doth chill the bones
To get, or not to get, that is the question
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrages parody
Or to raise mirth against a sea of writers and by jesting charm them

I take it this means

'Get some clothes on woman, it's cold outside, then go crack some jokes with your fellow writers.'

 

[Rich.]

.... turns out Google translate wasn't around during Shakespeare's time.

Cry 'Google!' and let slip the words of now...

Donneth thy garment if you must
But mead flows and outside air doth chill the bones
To get, or not to get, that is the question
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrages parody
Or to raise mirth against a sea of writers and by jesting charm them

Get your coat if you must
But there's beer in here and it's cold outside
Do you really want to leave?
Don't be embarrassed
Your joke was a cracker

 

[Steve C]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

That was another of his weren't it?

Then of course there was Jack and Jill the forerunner to Romeo and Julie.

See, I was educated don't you know?

 

[Rich.]

Shakespeare's pen scratches across the page.​

Ten green bottles dancing playing hanging on a wall​

Ten green bottles...​

"Oi, Shaky, get a wriggle on, will ya? Curtain up in five minutes and we need a script!"​

"All right all right, I'm working on it."​

"Bottles? What's that all about?"​

"You think we should do something else?"​

"Humpty Dumpty?"​

"What? The one about the egg."​

"Yeah. The Egg. Everyone loves a good egg."​

True story.