I hate the "pantser vs plotter" framework

Anyone who knows me will be going “Of course you do. It’s an arbitrary invented dichotomy, and you hate those with unreasonable fury because you always seem to sit awkwardly between the two poles and you take that personally. I mean, you still haven’t forgiven Marmite.”
To which I say “Love you but SHUSH”.

Admittedly that is a big part of it BUT there is more.

Because if I was the only person who didn’t fit into this framework we wouldn’t have contorted terms like “plantser” cropping up. Clearly there is a systemic issue here. And rather than invent a million graduations between these two imaginary poles I say throw the whole framework out and build something sensible.

Let’s start with my understanding of the existing dichotomy. A “plotter” is someone who writes a plot (a series of significant events) and then fills in the gaps with story. Whereas a “pantser” is someone who writes a story inserting plot as they go.

This framework is useful because advice to help with one approach is often unhelpful to someone taking the other approach. And most people will agree that common sense says this is a spectrum and people fall along it.

Buuuut I don’t think that’s true. It’s not a spectrum, because the two approaches aren’t opposed. You can do both. And I suspect most people do. Not in a “you can be a plotter for one type of writing and a pantser for another” way, but within the same piece of writing.

Let’s consider another, similar framework: “planner” vs “discovery writer”. A “planner” starts by deciding on their end point, possibly a chain of points, then constructs a story to reach that point. Whereas a “discovery writer” starts building a story and sees where they end up.

I think this framework is closer to how the process actually works, but less useful for filtering advice. Because it highlights how much overlap there is.
How many points do you need decided on your route to be “planning”? If you know what the ending is going to be but nothing else does that count? And what if you have one crystal clear scene you know falls somewhere in the middle, so you have an idea of the arc, but not the story itself?

So, what alternative am I suggesting? Because if I don’t have an alternative this is just complaining. Which admittedly I don’t shy away from. However, I do have a proposal!
I think the problem with both these frameworks is they try and sort writers into camps. People are complex and don’t fit into tidy boxes. But I do think there’s a kernel of truth here, in that the varied approaches people take to writing tend to fall on a spectrum between “structured” and “intuitive”.

When examining techniques recommended for “plotters”/“planners”, they tend to be methodical, analytical, and centred around conscious thinking. Teasing out the core elements of a story, identifying genre expectations, making sure that plot points form a proper curve.
Whereas techniques recommended for “pantsers”/“discoverers” tend towards immersing yourself in the story, embodying the characters, and centring subconscious thinking.
“What do I understand makes a good story?” vs “How do I feel this story should go?”

And while approaches are usually intuition-based or structure-based, the USERS aren’t. You can pick and mix to suit your personal preferences and your current project. Based on the conversations I’ve had, especially with other writers who don’t find the “pantser”/“plotter” framework helpful, I believe all writers employ both structured and intuitive writing in their projects, though everyone has a mix and application which works for them.

Some people much prefer structured systems, planning down to the scene level, and reserve intuitive writing for sketching out the flow between the list of beats.
Some people lean hard towards intuitive systems, only bringing structure in for a single developmental pass before doing a full rewrite using the same intuitive approach as their first draft.
Some people jump between the two every time they feel stuck/bored. Some employ structure for the first pass and then do the rest of the process intuitively, or vice versa. Some alternate between approaches for each pass/revision.

Personally, my stories tend to start from a concept/scene and grow outwards. Sometimes that’s a beginning, sometimes it’s an ending, most often it’s a point in the middle. At first the process is highly intuitive, jotting down scenes as they occur to me and shuffling (and reshuffling) them into rough chronological order. Once I have enough pieces to see the overall shape I shift to a more structured mindset; figuring out what the current plot is, what I want the plot to be, and how to form what I have into that shape. But if I’m setting out to fill a gap in the narrative, my writing process still leans strongly towards intuitive, even though I’m writing towards a specific outcome. I can’t tell you ahead of time how the scene will go, just where it’s going.

Crucially, my experience is that not only are both structured and intuitive approaches equally valid and important, I need both. Stories I’ve written in a more structured manner benefit from a thorough intuitive tuneup to make sure characters are formed such that the plot flows naturally, dialogue isn’t stilted, the setting feels solid, etc. Meanwhile stories I wrote using a more intuitive approach need a deep analysis and restructuring to get them into a coherent, meaningful shape that’s actually going somewhere.

Since hitting on this framework I’ve tried identifying what approach I used when writing a first draft and taking a contrasting approach for revising/editing into the second draft, and that’s really helped! Because I’m looking through a new lens, rather than looking closer through the same lens, I spend much less time spinning my wheels or getting frustrated at issues I can see but can’t figure out how to solve.

This also helps during the writing process:
If I’ve been doing intuitive writing and hit a block, applying a structured analysis helps me take a metaphorical step back and examine fresh angles and possibilities.
If I’ve been doing structured writing and am struggling to bridge a void, turning to an intuitive exercise helps me get my head into the scene and feel out how it would/should flow.

And when I label techniques as “intuitive” or “structured”, I find it much easier to see how and when they might be helpful to apply to my work. (Or whether they might have no application to my brain at all.) It encourages me to inspect each one and consider its individual merits/disadvantages rather than miss out on stuff designed for “the other kind of writer”.

Best of all, I am no longer faced with arbitrary dichotomies which force me to fumble together answers like “Uhhh… am I allowed to say ‘both’? It kinda depends on the story, and what stage in the writing I’m at, and-” or “Er… I guess I’m a ‘discovery’ writer, but I don’t find that a helpful-” and can instead skip straight to talking favourite techniques with people!

What about you? Do you find the “pantser”/“plotter” or “discovery”/“planner” frameworks satisfactory? Do you use both structured and intuitive processes in your writing? If so, which approaches do you use where (or does it vary)? Are there approaches which are equally intuitive and structured? And were you, too, betrayed by Marmite?