Dual Survival: Two Methods…One Result

There’s this show on television here in the US (it was likely ripped off of a show in the UK…we do that.) called Dual Survival. It takes two men and drops them out in the middle of nowhere (a la Bear Ghrylls, who I KNOW we stole from the UK…) and they have to survive the elements while awaiting rescue.

The twist on this show is that one of the men is trained in military survival techniques, while the other has studied Native American survival techniques. Of course, part of the show is that they’re as opposite as two people can be in method, approach and hairstyle. (Crew cut! Braids! Hilarity ensues!)

My husband was watching the show the other day and it really got me thinking. Not so much about surviving by killing a porcupine with an oar and eating its heart raw, but about method.

The show is about people with vastly different ideas on how to survive in the wild. But the end goal is the same: Survive.

So to with writing (you knew this was coming!). There are many different methods, some poles apart in execution, yet at the end is the same goal: A manuscript.

Different methods work best for different people, and some methods aren’t advisable for everyone. Case in point, the more natural survivalist is able to go without shoes in freezing conditions, because he’s studied the difference in people’s feet from back before shoes, and has trained himself to be able to do this. He does NOT recommend that everyone do this. In this case, people need to do like Army Man and keep their boots on.

But it works for Nature Man.

Plotters and Pantsers are easy opposites to pick on. But then you have the plotsers. Who, I guess for the purposes of out Dual Survival analogy would be standing between Army Man and Nature Man, with big thick muk luks playing the lute and eating rations from a can.

Plotters plot. And they do this in all different ways, to all different degrees. They may have charts and synopses and story boards done before they ever sit down to write a word.

Pantsers write and figure things out as they go, again, to different degrees. Both of these methods are fine, and I’ve used both depending on the MS. Some MSs, I have in my head from moment one. Beginning to end, character arc. (And by some I mean 2. 2 out of twelve isn’t bad, right?) while others require more…feeling around.

The method is different, the goal is the same. And the goal can be accomplished using those two very different approaches.

This is true, not just in the actual construction of a manuscript, but in the planning of your career. We all have different needs. Different expectations. And those are going to be served in unique ways, even if the ultimate goal is the same.

So many times on the big wide interwebs you see people touting a one-size-fits all approach to things, but that’s just…well, it’s ridiculous to be honest.

Not everyone needs to sit down a write a synopsis before they write the book. Some of us would rather poke ourselves in the eye with a pen. Still, some of us do it anyway. *cough* but I digress.

The point is this: We might go about it differently. We might plan our careers differently. But in the end, we’re all survivors. Er..writers. We have the same goal, just different methods.

And if there’s something I’ve learned from Dual Survival it’s that…both methods work. But I would want waterproof boots.