I still didn't say anything about process below, did I?
But that's the thing that's got me kind of intrigued with Book #2.
I wrote Book #1 according to an outline: Part One, Part Two Part Three. Beginning, Middle, End. But Book #2 hasn't been like that. I did write a beginning. Then I sort of mapped out the rest of it (not an outline, more a big, narrative mess, but in order of events).
But I found that the scenes that were popping up for me to write on any given day were not popping up in order. Its been happening in this rather random, weird way. I know the plot will go, ABCDEFG, but exactly what F looks like will appear in my head and persist until I've written it out, long before C has taken shape, for example.
This bothered me at first. I felt like I was cheating. Seriously. I thought I was breaking some rule. I would never write nonfiction this way, though I know some people do. On the other hand, it's exactly how I write nonfiction--thesis up front, right? Because in a traditionally plotted novel, (beginning at the beginning, middle in the middle, end at the end), the end is sort of the thesis.
What I've found is that I have to know where the people are going to end up and who they are going to become before I've written where they've been and who they began as. Which is what was wrong with the first part of Book #1. I had no idea who those people were. They were like stock characters in a melodrama until I wrote their stories out and got to know them and found out who they were under duress and how they acted when challenged, etc.
Now I've had to go back and rewrite them in the beginning to reflect who I found out they were, having written their fates.
And maybe that's why Book #2 is easier. Even though I'm writing it sort of backwards--or really, from the middle, spreading out in either direction--I feel that I already know much more about the central character at least, than I did about anybody in the beginning of Book #1. Because in Book #2, the central character is a grown child featured in Book #1. I kind of know her.
All the same, I've written more about where she ends up than about where she began at this point. Rather than separate the waters from the waters with a dome and fill the thing with light, I'm more setting little islands of sense in the dark, whirling waters of chaos, and slowly filling in the dark chaos until it all makes sense.
I wonder if Book #3 will be like this, or something entirely different that I learn from Book #2?