Pantsing isn't Pantsing

Hot take: most ‘pantsing’ isn’t actually pantsing. By pantsing, I mean writing a story with zero regard for structure—no planning, no intent, just dumping words and hoping it works.

What actually bothers me is the implication that ‘pantsers’ have some kind of creative high ground and that ‘plotters’ aren’t writing with a muse or inspiration.

Following your muse, writing organically, and letting inspiration fill in the gaps as you go is not pantsing. It’s just writing, and EVERYONE does it.

The real question is how much structure works for you. This is a broad spectrum—not a binary choice with pantsers on one side and dry, uninspired plotters on the other. It is about how much structure you use, not IF you use structure. Because once you use any structure at all, you’re not a pantser, you’re a writer somewhere on that spectrum.

To me, when people latch onto “pantsing it” as a battle cry, it comes across like they just don’t want to do the harder work of actually understanding their story. Sure, that work can be hard. But it’s also what elevates your story into something marketable.

If you build a house with no design, you get a ramshackle shanty that falls apart under scrutiny. If you want something functional, you need some level of design and structure. Thinking otherwise is no different than believing that once you type “The End,” your book is ready to ship off for publication. (Reality check: that’s the first step—now you have many more before it is publishable).

And yeah, I’m being blunt on purpose. Because intentional or not, the message sent is "structure is uninspired and means less creativity." And that’s just not right.