The average writer...

[steeves]

In another thread, Tom De told a new writer that oft-quoted stat that the average writer writes eight or ten scripts before the sell one.

First a clarification: the average writer never sells a script -- it is the average writer *of the writers who make a sale* that takes that eight or ten to make that sale.

As I have said before (and in my sweet ol' pedantic way will likely say again): Who on earth wants to be an average writer?

Write to make it. Write that idea into a script that will bend the odds, that will win the Nicholl's, that will rate that front-page of Variety "First-time Scribe Sells Million Dollar Spec" headline... otherwise, why bother? Just go play poker for matchsticks or kiss your sister.

I am not an average anything and I do not wish to be an average screenwriter -- make that your mantra. I could not possibly face the PC to write something while thinking "Well, golly gee, this is just practice".

Analogy time: If you were to start playing golf for fun OR with an eye to becoming a professional would not every single drive have the goal of that stupid little ball landing on the green and rolling into the hole? Sure enough it may not make it... but is that not your goal?

Yes, you need be aware of the averages, particularly to the point that average never makes it and maybe you will not... but to aim for mediocre because it is your first and not expect success until your tenth??? I don't think so, Tim.

Aim high... or don't aim at all.

[Tom De]

Aim to be mediocre? Don't expect success until your tenth? Who said that? I didn't.

My comment was directed at those that think their first spec is a masterpiece. Yes, I wanted to discourage trying to market your first script. Odds are that it's a festering piece of crap. That's just the odds. It might be the next "American Beauty", who knows? However, odds are that it's not. It's much better to do your rewrites, write a new spec, then come back to your first one. You'll see things you never saw before in your first spec and have a craft that's better from writing your second spec.

It was also not my intent to say you couldn't be the reincarnation of some Ubermensch version of Shakespeare. That your script isn't the one that will reshape humanity for the new millennium. That your voice isn't so amazing that it sends chills down the backs of sweating steelworkers. Not at all. Your first script could sell. It could get produced. You could be the greatest thing since the invention of Spam and the soapbox.

I used the example of the average number of screenplays written to show a new writer that it takes a lot of work to become a professional writer. In no way, do I suggest you should not care about your work or aim to be mediocre.

I think Strange Mind got my drift. Good job on finishing your first spec. Now go out and write another.

Tom
(Whose first festering piece of crap will make a kick ass screenplay the likes of which will revolutionize the cinematic experience, make eyes water with emotion in audiences globally, achieve a $50 million box office in the first week, and win Best Screenplay at the Oscars. I just need a chance to go back and rewrite it based on what I've learned writing three other scripts.)

BTW Darabont was called a first time scribe by Variety when he sold his first spec. He'd written, I think, seven or eight previously.

[lilybet]

I think Tom was pointing out that you have to learn the craft and maybe the best way is by doing it. Everyone who tries their hand at writing a screenplay or many does not start out with the same background. Some have related writing experience or other factors that may contribute to their abilities at this craft. Others think "Oh, I can do this lickity split and make one of those big money deals I keep reading about."

I think his point is quite valid for the arrogant youngster or midster or oldster who don't think they have to learn and work at the process. Or those who will start to learn what they have jumped into and work at getting better at it. Then the world may be filled with lanquishing "great" scripts.

Actually finishing that first one is a terrific accomplishment but doesn't insure anyone will be interested in it. It may not work at all and the writer who sticks at it, may look back at their first work or works and laugh.

I don't laugh at my first one because I think I will find a way with it. The third might end in the "Oh, God, why ever did I think that might be good?" pile. Maybe not. But I know now the first and third are not really there enough to send out with any realistic expectations or dreaming expectations.

Didn't realize that until they both had lots of work and sat for awile. Everyone's kumquats are not peaches. Hmm ... that didn't work at all as a play off someone's "mileage may vary." Needs to be abandoned, reworked or perfected.

OK, OK, silly attempt at illustrating my point. Going to bed.

lil

[screenwright]

Have to agree with Steeves here.

Many people will finish that first script and then jump right into the next one. I think this is a great idea because it allows your mind to focus on something else for a while, giving you new perspectives.

The step they seem to skip is the rewrite or for many the prewrite. I think there are writers who just jump in to a script with a half-realized inkling of a notion. They struggle through with the help of a cliche here, a plot contrivance there. At the end, it sucks and they know it but "WHEW! I got through it". They chalk it up to a learning experience and move on, repeating most of the same mistakes yet again.

Without going back to learn from their mistakes, they are really making things worse, reinforcing bad habits through repetition in script after script.

My first script was absolute total crap because I took little time to learn anything about what I needed beforehand. I've tried for years to fix it, but I realize now, after all that time trying to rewrite it, that it is a fundamentally flawed concept. That's learning from your mistakes.

Craft is important to writing. Creativity is way more important.

Some people seem to think the number of scripts they have registered with the WGA is a measurement of their ability as a writer. One guy on the Project Greenlight boards held up his WGA registration as if it were an Oscar.

Storytelling has little to do with putting pen to paper or fingers on computer keys. That's why it predates the written word by years and years.

No amount of typing will make you a good writer.

My test for the quality of any script is this. When you finish that last page, do you say "I'm glad that's over." If so, chances are your audience will say the same thing. I've yet to pass this test myself, but, hey, I'm a perfectionist.

I'm not trying to discount anyone's accomplishment by having the dedication to finish a script. I am saying that if you are serious about it, take the time and effort to become better than average.

[StRogue]

uh, I understood what Tom meant..and it had nothing about being an "average" anything, but all about ratios (don't ask me to do math)..

Charli

[steeves]

But I don't like spam... and here is a rewrite of 2nd paragraph of my original post, edited for force and directness:
Below-average screenwriters produce crap+one.
Average screenwriters make of 99.whatever percent of the others, and they never, ever sell a script.
Above-average screenwriters sell scripts, and some of them even get to see a movie made.

Now, paragraph 3, rewritten for dramatic effect:
Who wants to be average?

And to sum up the rest of it in a single line
Quantity, not quality: shoot for the stars.

And now, added into the director's cut edition dvd, the following deleted scenes:
...Yes, to make that first script all that it can be, take your time, listen and learn at places like this and rewrite, whether that is while you write or after putting it aside - whatever works for you


Now, Tom - I wasn't criticising you or even objecting to what you said... those numbers were correct. And I did get your drift completely... I was just presenting another take on the point. My approach, far from unique, I hope, is outlined a Appendix A. And I do know that I may not succeed - in fact my script and story could be utter crap. But the story I chose to write for my first is one that makes me want to write a screenplay

Shoot for the stars, baby... if you don't aim high you won't hit high.


Appendix A: Daniel's Approach to Screenwriting
1. (otherwise, why would I be writing it?).
2. I am enjoying studying the craft and writing the story
(otherwise, why would I be doing it?).
3. My story works, and I think it makes for a good movie(otherwise, why would I be writing it?).
4. I plan to enter and place in the finals in the Nicholls... (otherwise, why would I be entering it?)
5. I plan to sell my script and maybe even get some of them produced (otherwise, why would I be writing it?)
6. I plan to work on a subsequent screenplays. Repeat #s 2, 3 and 5. (otherwise, why would I be writing them?)

[jacinthee]

I have to agree with both Steeves and Tom...

I think new writers should be shooting for the stars, yet keep their feet on the ground. The attitude of the writer towards his writing plays a big part in whether (s)he will become an excellent writer or not, much more than a mandatory number of scripts.

It is hard to keep a balance between confidence and realism. The low self-esteemed new talented writer will thrive on knowing that hard work will pay off. The overly confident (perhaps also) talented new writer might need to be told "shut up and listen good. You won't be the best thing since unflawed chads if you keep navel-gazing and don't objectively evaluate your prose once in a while".

[Steve]

You shouldn't think about the law of averages when you're writing your first script. You should think about it after you've sent it out and you haven't placed in the finals of the Nichol and no one has bought it. That's when you need to stop saying "This is the greatest script ever written and all these people are idiots" and say to yourself "I'm going to write another script and it's going to be better than the last one."

You're getting confused by semantics. The law of averages is not about BEING average. Mark McGuire has a batting average. That doesn't mean he steps up to the plate and says to himself "gee I hope I can be average today."

[TonyRob]

This thread is both hilarious and informative...

"go play poker for matchsticks or kiss your sister"? I couldn't have even conceived of saying it better (or more uniquely) myself.

However, I would like to take issue with one point, Steeves:

Above-average screenwriters actually very rarely sell anything and generally don't get to see a movie made from their work.

Top-notch, superior storytelling, gifted at vivid visual word weaving and deliciously devastating dialogue, reader couldn't even, for a split second, entertain the thought of putting their script down to void their aching bladder/bowels type screenwriters who create masterpieces with an impact not unlike placing one's head in a lion's mouth while said lion roars at the top of its lungs, or standing right next to the Loma Prieta fault during the 1989 Northern California earthquake...

Those are the writers that sell screenplays.

Digressing a smidgen...

I remember my first screenplay. It was an epic apocalyptic loosely-based-on-Revelations type horror along the lines of an End of Days with a hint of The Exorcist (what else). It was a horrid mess of overwrought scene build-ups, weak characters, ludicriously unrealistic dialogue (the first draft's dialogue contained NO contractions at all... anywhere in the script... and this was set in the present), a "trick ending" that a five year old could have seen coming the first time the "mentor" character was introduced (think Unbreakable, for those who've seen it... in fact, I think M Night mighta' ripped me off and changed the basic nature of my story from Devils and Archangels to comic book villains and heroes... hmmmmmmm, I wonder who my professor REALLY showed that script to), etc., etc. But it had promise. It was a great premise very, I emphasize VERY, poorly executed (though, to be fair to myself, it had its moments and it actually scared my professor... why or how, I'll never know). A couple of years ago and three feature screenplays (and one teleplay) more experienced I pulled it off the shelf, nearly choked on the dust while trying to blow it off, called up my professor (an agent) who originally thought said screenplay had such promise, told him I was going to re-write it, re-wrote it and sent it down to him and waited all of a day to get a rejection and my screenplay back (hey, at least he was quick). This time the screenplay was better, but still wasn't quite there by a long shot. Sure, it was worlds apart in quality from its father, but... I realized at that point that I still had sooooooooo much to learn. And I still do.

So my advice echoes Tom's and Steeves: Write many, many, many (at least five feature or teleplay) screenplays before you even begin to get it into your head that you should possibly try to send your work to Hollywood.

[GirlinGray]

Well. Instead or arguing about why he said it, listen to what he said because Steeves made a good point.

The average writer never makes a sale. Only excellent writers make sales.

I would add, the average writer does not pound out ten scripts trying. Average people give up. Extraordinary people keep trying.

The reason it often takes many scripts for a writer to make it often has very little to do with the quality of the work. Some of it could be the quality of the work, but starting out writers often know no one in the business and can only get read by people very low down the food chain, when they can get read at all. As they keep going, writing and knocking on doors, the number of people they know increases and the people they know who started out just story editors and assistants move up through the heirarchy. So the story editor or agent's assistant who likes your writing today and will read more of it, five or ten scripts from today may be a studio executive or agent who can actually do something with it.

[gryffin]

I have to agree about the first spec - I am only writing my second one, and already I can see the glaring errors in my first one that were totally invisable to me while I was writing it. I was convinced that it was perfect, or at least perfection in the making, and that all I needed to do was get it into the right hands to have it produced. lol... I can't believe how wrong I was! It makes me wonder at the actual value of the one I'm working on currently, but I know I learned a lot from the first attempt and I'm sure I at least chose *different* mistakes to make this time around. Keep specing and learn from each one, that's what I say :) . And maybe a small excerpt of brilliance from the overall crap of your previous attempts is worth either revisiting or even making into a "short" for little indi people to launch
their careers on (and yours with theirs :) .


gryff.

[TeenaRM]

I hate being average and so I refuse to be (about some things :) )

OK...I can't imagine working on a screenplay and then NOT sending it out to agents. If I wasn't planning to send it out to anyone (just because it was my first) then I wouldn't write it to begin with (steeves I think this was your point, but I'm stealing it for a minute ;) ).

I definitely understand that most likely subsequent works will get better, but I sent out my first screenplay with total expectations of landing an agent and selling that puppy. Well, I haven't sold it yet - but I still think I will someday. In the meantime, I have moved on to other projects because writing is what I like to do.

Tina

[ksk2]

checked that e-mail lately? :)

[Meltdown]

Hmm... When I got into screenwriting I kept the notion that my FIRST screenplay had to be good enough to sell. Then again it's an engineering thing - you don't put out quality work, you get shitcanned... end of story.

My first screenplay was based on a book which I'm sure made it easier and I had an agent that beat me around the skull the first few drafts to make sure I got it right (She loved the story enough that she decided to take a risk and sign/work with me.)

[Tom De]

(This message was left blank)

[Tom De]

Steeves,
No harm. No foul. I had to respond though. My name was mentioned in a post with words like "kiss your sister" and "aim high or don't aim at all".

Cheers to you,
Tom
(stepping off his own soapbox)

[TonyRob]

I still stand by my advice...

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't come back to your first script and revise and rewrite it after you've gained more knowledge and experience. But one of the major mistakes people make (and I know this from firsthand experience) is submitting their work before it's ready.

I wrote my first script with no intention of submitting it to anyone "as is". Then again, it was written in a classroom setting where we were learning structure, rhythm and pacing, word choice, dialogue, plotting techniques, build-up and payoff and all sorts of other goodies as we were writing it and it was designed to be, essentially, a practice script (for the time being)... a hands-on learning script. None of us had any intention of sending it anywhere at that point in time because we had about four more semesters to gain more experience and learn more about our craft/art and our professors would have killed us if we had shown any signs of wanting to show it to any other industry professionals besides them because none of us were ready. That was the purpose of the class. Get the crap out of our system, learn how to write a screenplay (our first) and then move onto the next one with the knowledge that we had done what very few scribes ever actually do: complete a script.

That being said, there were about two scripts in my class that could have actually been passed around to industry players at the time because the writers were that damned good. But even those scripts didn't approach those same writers' third and fourth endeavors and probably would have been summarily rejected, and those third and fourth endeavors were what actually opened doors for both of them (in various capacities in the industry).

Our professor at the time suggested that both of those writers hold off until they had more experience even as good as their first scripts were... and their scripts got A+'s in his class. Mine got an A-, and as much as I've criticized it, there were others whose scripts got in the B and even the C range (profs in our school in the major screenwriting classes as a rule didn't go below a C), so mine was better than a lot of folks and it still didn't even come close to cutting the mustard. Hell, the A+ scripts, which were closer, didn't come close...

Just something to think about.

[Justice]

It does over do it sometimes.

[lilybet]

Agree with Tone, this whole discussion is both informative and hilarious.

Hilarious because the whole thing started over semantics -- the definition of average, when it was being used in two different contexts to illustrate two quite different things.

I really haven't disagreed with anything anyone has said, but then I don't think I've overinterpreted anyone's points. The discussion is quite interesting.

I do have to take issue with any notion that only excellent scripts sell. And only excellent writers "make it." Crap sells, crap gets produced, crap sometimes makes big box office. Crap even gets published in other "literary" areas. Yeah, yeah, I do know there has to be some level of craft even with this "crap." Ah ... most of the time ...

I don't aim for crap. I work hard on each script. That doesn't mean it may not turn out that way. Different kind of crap than above mentioned crap. I am a stern self-critic, harder on myself than on others.

Confidence in your work is one thing, over-confidence with only your own opinion to back it up -- may be folly. Ultimately, you are not the final judge of the quality of your work. There will be a broad range of opinions about your work no matter what. Even "great" writers fall on their face sometimes. Some only have so many stories to tell.

lil

[TonyRob]

Excellent post, Lil.

However, I have to take issue with ya on one teeny-tiny little thing... well, it's more of a clarification than anything: the crap I'm talking about that doesn't sell is nowhere near the quality of the writing of the crap that does sell (personal tastes not an issue here, btw). And a lot of the crap that's produced didn't start out as crap on the page (which I know you are well aware of, but it bears repeating for others' sake, and should be beaten into the noggins of every movie critic who states that "the directing was great... it's too bad the filmmakers didn't have a decent script to work with"... most likely they did originally).

All that said, I don't think any of us are planning on crapping out any time soon as I see a lot of talent (evident in the posts/stories) and passion on this board.

Cheers,

[lilybet]

Tee hee, Tone. Not going there. Don't find those discussions of any value and passions get too high and frequently a bit silly. Funny, I suspect we wouldn't have much disagreement anyway. Perhaps a few on matters related to personal tastes.

I guess I have a category beneath all that. When I used to read a lot of new plays, there was the "Oh, my God, throw it across the room. Not worthy of any comment, don't give it another thought." Sadly, when I picked them off the floor, they made the largest pile.

lil

[RubyToo]

I have to admit that every time I hear that old adage about how many scripts the average writer writes before being sold I'm left wondering what defines the average writer. I tend to assume that the first script of said writer is the first bit of writing s/he has done, so the average seems about right. I've taught creative writing, so I know what kind of crap new writers can come up with and how few of them have developed a built-in @#%$ detector. Because of this, I tend not to throw myself in to that lot of averages. So, am I wrong? Or are those of you who subscribe to this theory actually speaking of writers who already know how to create story and character and tension, etc.?

I tend to think my first *completed* script is not @#%$. I've been working on the craft of writing (mostly fiction, some poetry) for almost 20 years. I've studied screenwriting in the classroom and out. At this point I don't view any of my writing as "practice" but intend to try and sell all of it. I will allow that because I'm jumping genres, there might be problems in my script that I can't see due to the new form, but I still don't believe the story is "crap" that should be shelved immediately or never sent out. Am I kidding myself?

I am working on the second script, btw...
Ruby

[wcmartell]

First: TonyRob is right - most crappy films didn't start out with crappy scripts. Directors and stars and producers and D-folks "improved them".

Next: Since entertaining America (& the world) is our job, you have to include "entertainment value" in your definition of "good". Some of that crap is "good crap". Think of it as a well made Quarter Pounder With Cheese. You aren't going to find a restaurant guide that gives McDonald's 5 stars but they make food that works. It does what it's supposed to, and it doesn't taste bad. Too many big dumb Hollywood movies probably aren't good for you, but they cure that entertainment hunger... and that's what they were designed to do. In my book, that's "good".

Meanwhile, worms and crickets may be higher in nutritional value than a McDonald's QPwC, but I'm not going to start eating them. Some exotic foods may be good for you, but keep them off my plate! There are films that have no "entertainment value" at all... They're "bad" in my book. Why? Well, nutritious food that no one wants to eat is garbage waiting for the can. You can't force people to eat what's good for them.

The best foods are things that are both good for you AND taste good.

- Bill (loves junk food)

[lilybet]

Meester Martell, you know perfectly well that "all big, dumb movies aren't 'crap.'" I've read a lot of your articles and advice, respect and have learned from what you have to say. I've said so frequently. Sorry, I haven't read your scripts or seen your movies. Not because I fear they would be "crap." Just not a genre that's my cuppa.

Sure, scripts can be ruined especially in that nutty Hollywood system with too many cooks stirring the pot. Even in the theatre where writers are respected, productions can destroy the work. I had a play produced in two theatres, only a month apart. One was excellent, the other made me want to cry or throw-up.

Now your food analogies, them there are fighting words. McDonalds strikes me the same way as Scary Movie. I'm selective, even with my preferences in junk food. Hey, I like a lot of junk food, sometimes even in entertainment.

Ruby, you aren't exactly starting from ground zero. Lot of difference between you and someone who's never written much of anything, knows nothing about story and structure -- but has seen a lot of movies and thinks it's easy.

That new work you saw in your classes? You could probably multiply that with a lot of first time scripts.

Yeah, you might have some trouble at first with "genre jumping." Maybe not.

lil

[ksk2]

...sung in the tune of "Oh Christmas Tree"... Everybody sing along!

***

Crappy-script, oh crappy-script,
Why must they all lambast you?
Since you must count for something more,
Though purists often bash you.

Since if the "back-end" means so much,
In VHS, the 'Net and stuff,

Crappy-script, oh crappy-script,
I think we should respect you.

Crappy-script, oh crappy-script,
The cable stations love you.
TBS and "Skin-a-Max"
Could not exist without you.

"Pinhead" flicks? Yeah sure they suck,
But their success comes not from luck...

Crappy-script, oh crappy-script,
Your Sun may soon be Rising.

Crappy-script, oh crappy-script,
You may not "read" like Mamet.
Maybe just keep folks employed,
Though others often "slam-it".

But studios, they need the bucks
From scripts just written for the "Yucks",

That tow the line for dollar-signs,
Demanded by...

By...

(fill-in-your-favourite, successful, "artistic" screenwriter here)

Merry above-average wishes to all, kosk

[TonyRob]

"I've been working on the craft of writing (mostly fiction, some poetry) for almost 20 years".

Based on your post, you're way ahead of most folks, Ruby, and I would say that your first script is probably very good. However my advice (and you can do what ya want with it... it's unchanging) is to write the second script and then go back and look at the first script again and see what strikes you before you send the first one out. It may be just the way you want it. But have the patience, oh I implore you (just kidding... getting a little carried away), to wait and see. You may discover problems in your first script that you never thought about before.

Good luck!!!!!

[TonyRob]

Kosk,

Has anyone here on this thread equated "crap" with "genre" or "venue"? Boy, you just can't let this thing go, can you? ;)

BTW, kick-ass song.

[ksk2]

No, they didn't.

And likewise, with similar savoire faire, show me ANY stanza that I wrote that included the words "Genre" or "Venue". Words from your post? ;)

What're those lines from Jesus Christ Superstar? Ahh, yes, there they are...

"Your words, not mine."

Always after the Kicks and Giggles,

kosk

[TonyRob]

Touche, Kosk. Touche.

After re-reading your song, I get the intended "flavor" of it... sorry for the misinterpretation. You've got me jumpin' at shadows the last couple of days regarding the aforementioned genre topic.

Still think it's a good song,

[Daughter of Lir]

Oh my... Tone is jumping the gun & Kosk is delirious with fever... heeheehee...

still, it was an inspired tune, Koskins, I are impressed...

DoL
(who realized today just HOW far she has to go & how much work still to be done and looks forward to the learning process with delight)

[ksk2]

...always get "stocking-stuffers" in their e-mails...

Especially after The "Bin-Hex Beast" has been slain like the dragon via St. George.

Check yours soon... :evil

But always remember: "The Power of Context compells you!"

:rollin

And thanks for appreciating the ditty of doggerel-rhyme. Few others would (nor will).

Ain't it always the little moments that mean so much? ;)

[lilybet]

Koskie, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. I thought your song was funny. Those of us who "board know" you the best, long ago got your number. Oh, well ... too bad, Petunia.

Despite your giggly pleasure in what might strike some as odd, you damn well know the difference. Guess what? A lot of us know that.

Do carry on, and carry on and on and ...

Winks of mostly appreciation.

lil

[TeenaRM]

What about a good script that turned into a crappy movie? Apparently this happens quite often.

We had a little discussion about this over at Project GLight and since someone was ripping apart Forces of Nature and 200 Cigarettes (I have never seen 200 Cigs, therefore, have no opinion) Ben Affleck came on and put in his two cents.

There were many exchanges, but I'm only including those from May7025, who started the thread (and was a top 250 person who sent a 3 minute bio-video of himself to Ben) and Ben.

Here was how the exchange went:

----------------------
(from May 7025)

Ben,

After seeing Forces of Nature I felt like 2 hours had been stolen from my life. The only thing to comfort me was the thought that I made the Top250 and got to steal 3 minutes back. I know you remember my writing partner and me. He was the funny looking guy in the cheetah underwear. I was the weenie in the suit.

I just want you to know that I aim to take that hour and 57 minutes back. You won't know when, you won't know where, but it's coming.

May0725

--------------------

(from May again)

I'm gonna be honest now. I'm a guy and my girlfriend dragged me to it and I actually didn't mind it (I was just being a smart ass in my earlier post). It had some moments, but being a chick flick it's hard for me to really love it.
One movie that Ben was in that truly stunk was 200 Cigarettes (and I'd bet he'd agree). It looked funny on the preview but it just fell flat. He actually looked funny though when he did that little dance behind the bar (it was one of the funny parts in the preview).

A movie that Ben was in that was awesome was Armageddon - a guy flic. I'm sure all the girls thought that one was pretty cheesy.

May0725

-------------------------
(from Ben Affleck)

That three minutes of yours felt like a thousand. As far as I'm concerned, you owe me nine hundred... But don't pay me in tapes of you talking, one was enough for this lifetime.

How was that for a reply (there'll be no mercy for this lost soul...)

Incidentally, you are right about 200 cigarettes. That was the worst piece of @#%$ I've ever seen, imagine my shame being in it. I have to say, I did contribute the "scrambled or fertilized" line (which I thought was the only good thing in the movie) but that woman should never be allowed to direct again. Talented cast (look at all the people in the movie!) and, if you can imagine, the original script read as funny. That was the classic examle of director bungling.

And admit it, did your heart skip a beat when you read my first post? Imagine that in the NY times and you see why some actors turn into *******s. Enough bitter criticism will turn anyone but the thickest skinned fellow quite sour after a while...

Ben

--------------------
(from Ben again)

Okay, for the humor-impaired, I was joking with May7025, although not about 200 cigarettes (and the effect of negativity on creativity.)

-----------------------------

Anyway - just thought I'd share that because imagine that someone in the industry bought your script - they loved it - they raved about it - it was the talk of the town. Then it came out and because of whatever reason, it absolutely sucked!!! Who really gets blamed? The director, the actors or the writer? I really don't know? In this case it seems that Ben put the blame on the director.

Tina

[Ralphy W]

My GOD, I was an arrogant windbag back in 2000/2001.

My. Flubbin'. God.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting thread that's worth dragging out of the abyss.

[EJ Pennypacker]

You just totally blew away my personal best of bumping an old thread, which is 5 years old.

This thread is eight!

You basterd!

EJ

[Ralphy W]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

[sarajb]

No doodling on the cave markings. Now, get back to your group.

[FADE IN]

Aim to be mediocre? Don't expect success until your tenth? Who said that? I didn't.

My comment was directed at those that think their first spec is a masterpiece. Yes, I wanted to discourage trying to market your first script. Odds are that it's a festering piece of crap. That's just the odds. It might be the next "American Beauty", who knows? However, odds are that it's not. It's much better to do your rewrites, write a new spec, then come back to your first one. You'll see things you never saw before in your first spec and have a craft that's better from writing your second spec.

It was also not my intent to say you couldn't be the reincarnation of some Ubermensch version of Shakespeare. That your script isn't the one that will reshape humanity for the new millennium. That your voice isn't so amazing that it sends chills down the backs of sweating steelworkers. Not at all. Your first script could sell. It could get produced. You could be the greatest thing since the invention of Spam and the soapbox.

I used the example of the average number of screenplays written to show a new writer that it takes a lot of work to become a professional writer. In no way, do I suggest you should not care about your work or aim to be mediocre.

I think Strange Mind got my drift. Good job on finishing your first spec. Now go out and write another.

Tom
(Whose first festering piece of crap will make a kick ass screenplay the likes of which will revolutionize the cinematic experience, make eyes water with emotion in audiences globally, achieve a $50 million box office in the first week, and win Best Screenplay at the Oscars. I just need a chance to go back and rewrite it based on what I've learned writing three other scripts.)

BTW Darabont was called a first time scribe by Variety when he sold his first spec. He'd written, I think, seven or eight previously.
Indeed. Well said here.

It's just plain silly to think any writer can write a masterpiece script the first time out. Sure, it's possible, but what are the odds, about a billion-to-one?

Everything we do in life takes experience to master, whether making love, dancing, playing a musical instrument, drawing figures, singing tunes, crafting ceramics, weaving rugs, sculpting ... it all takes an inordinate amount of time and studied effort, and practice. Hell, it takes four or five years to get an MFA in screenwriting at USC or UCLA; those programs would die tomorrow if anyone could write a great screenplay their first time out and last I knew, they were going strong.

It is demeaning to the craft to claim otherwise. I think those who do claim otherwise just flat have no handle on what it takes to pen a dynamite script. I've never seen anyone do anything well on their first attempt, let alone write a great screenplay.

[camshell]

Indeed. Well said here.

It's just plain silly to think any writer can write a masterpiece script the first time out. Sure, it's possible, but what are the odds, about a billion-to-one?

Everything we do in life takes experience to master, whether making love, dancing, playing a musical instrument, drawing figures, singing tunes, crafting ceramics, weaving rugs, sculpting ... it all takes an inordinate amount of time and studied effort, and practice. Hell, it takes four or five years to get an MFA in screenwriting at USC or UCLA; those programs would die tomorrow if anyone could write a great screenplay their first time out and last I knew, they were going strong.

It is demeaning to the craft to claim otherwise. I think those who do claim otherwise just flat have no handle on what it takes to pen a dynamite script. I've never seen anyone do anything well on their first attempt,let alone write a great screenplay.

Citizen Kane.

[winter dreams]

Citizen Kane.

Mankiewicz wrote that. Or most of it.

[camshell]

Mankiewicz wrote that. Or most of it.

It was a response to "I've never seen anyone do anything well on their first attempt..." which was why I made it bold in the quote.

[Charisma]

Indeed. Well said here.

It's just plain silly to think any writer can write a masterpiece script the first time out. Sure, it's possible, but what are the odds, about a billion-to-one?

Everything we do in life takes experience to master, whether making love, dancing, playing a musical instrument, drawing figures, singing tunes, crafting ceramics, weaving rugs, sculpting ... it all takes an inordinate amount of time and studied effort, and practice. Hell, it takes four or five years to get an MFA in screenwriting at USC or UCLA; those programs would die tomorrow if anyone could write a great screenplay their first time out and last I knew, they were going strong.

It is demeaning to the craft to claim otherwise. I think those who do claim otherwise just flat have no handle on what it takes to pen a dynamite script. I've never seen anyone do anything well on their first attempt, let alone write a great screenplay.

My first two scripts were optioned. Never produced, which is all that counts. What was missing. In a word... experience. Don't submit without it. Even if you get interest, what are you gonna say in the room when the talk gets deep? Um.. wha... eh... goodbye.

[grant]

It was a response to "I've never seen anyone do anything well on their first attempt..." which was why I made it bold in the quote.

But that's kind of like saying that M:I3 was J.J. Abrams' first movie. It's technically true, but both guys had a wealth of professional entertainment experience before either movie was made.

[camshell]

But that's kind of like saying that M:I3 was J.J. Abrams' first movie. It's technically true, but both guys had a wealth of professional entertainment experience before either movie was made.

So you're saying that expertise in one medium = expertise in any similar medium.

[grant]

So you're saying that expertise in one medium = expertise in any similar medium.

No. But they had a lot better odds of succeeding than, say, a janitor or a heart surgeon.

[bioprofessor]

No. But they had a lot better odds of succeeding than, say, a janitor or a heart surgeon.

From Michael Crichton's website:

Crichton's interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.crichton-official.com/images/holder.gif
Crichton's first bestseller, The Andromeda Strain, was published while he was still a medical student. He later worked full time on film and writing. One of the most popular writers in the world, his books have been translated into thirty-six languages, and thirteen have been made into films.

Clearly Crichton possessed excellent writing skills before AS, but it is also likely that he never went toe to toe with an EP before penning his masterpiece. I'd also bet he didn't have an MFA sheepskin tacked to the wall of his research lab.

[maralyn]

But writing novels is very different to writing screenplays.

You can just rabbit on about anything, as long as it's engaging.

But imagine if a novelist was told that he had to write a book that had to be able to be read in exactly an hour and a half. And how many books would be published if every publication cost an average of 20 million dollars?

[bioprofessor]

But writing novels is very different to writing screenplays.

You can just rabbit on about anything, as long as it's engaging.

But imagine if a novelist was told that he had to write a book that had to be able to be read in exactly an hour and a half. And how many books would be published if every publication cost an average of 20 million dollars?

I understand the apples and oranges argument, but at some point along the way Crichton, the genius that he was, figured out how to make delicious apple-orange-mango, etc, etc salad! Again from his website...

Novels
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-andromedastrain-history.html)</B>, Knopf, 1969
THE TERMINAL MAN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-andromedastrain.html)</B>, Knopf, 1972
THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-greattrainrobbery.html)</B>, Knopf, 1975
EATERS OF THE DEAD (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-eatersofthedead.html)</B>, Knopf, 1976
CONGO (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-congo.html)</B>, Knopf, 1980
SPHERE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-sphere.html)</B>, Knopf, 1987
JURASSIC PARK (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-jurassicpark.html)</B>, Knopf, 1990
RISING SUN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-risingsun.html)</B>, Knopf, 1992
DISCLOSURE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-disclosure.html)</B>, Knopf, 1994
THE LOST WORLD (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-lostworld-history.html)</B>, Knopf, 1995
AIRFRAME (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-airframe-history.html)</B>, Knopf, 1996
TIMELINE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-timeline.html)</B>, Knopf, 1999
PREY (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-prey.html)</B>, HarperCollins, 2002
STATE OF FEAR (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-stateoffear.html)</B>, HarperCollins, 2004
NEXT (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-next-history.html)</B>, HarperCollins, 2006

Non-Fiction
FIVE PATIENTS: The Hospital Explained (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-fivepatients.html)</B>, Knopf, 1970
JASPER JOHNS (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-jasperjohns.html)</B>, Abrams, 1977
ELECTRONIC LIFE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-electroniclife.html)</B>, Knopf, 1983
TRAVELS (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-travels.html)</B>, Knopf, 1988
JASPER JOHNS (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-jasperjohns.html)</B> (revised edition), Abrams, 1994

Published Screenplays
WESTWORLD (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-westworld.html)</B>, Bantam Books, 1975
TWISTER (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-twister.html)</B> (with Anne-Marie Martin), Ballantine Books, 1996

Films
PURSUIT, ABC Movie of the Week, 1972. (Director)
WESTWORLD (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-westworld.html)</B>, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1973. (Writer/Director)
COMA (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-coma.html)</B>, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1978. (Writer/Director)
THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-greattrainrobbery.html)</B>, United Artists, 1979. (Writer/Director)
LOOKER (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-looker.html)</B>, The Ladd Company, 1981. (Writer/Director)
RUNAWAY (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-runaway.html)</B>, Tri-Star Pictures, 1984. (Writer/Director)
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, Columbia Pictures, 1989. (Director)
JURASSIC PARK (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-jurassicpark.html)</B>, Universal, 1993 (Co-writer)
RISING SUN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-risingsun.html)</B>, Twentieth Century Fox, 1993 (Co-writer)
DISCLOSURE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-disclosure.html)</B>, Warner Brothers, 1994 (Co-producer)
TWISTER (http://www.crichton-official.com/movies-twister.html)</B>, Warner Brothers/Universal, 1996 (Co-writer, Co-producer)
SPHERE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-sphere.html)</B>, Warner Brothers, 1998 (Co-producer)
13TH WARRIOR (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-eatersofthedead.html)</B>, Touchstone, 1999 (Co-producer)

Other Films From Crichton's Books
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-andromedastrain-history.html)</B>, Universal, 1971
THE CAREY TREATMENT, MGM, 1972
DEALING: OR THE BERKLEY TO BOST0N FORTY-BRICK LOST BAG BLUES, Warner Bros, 1972
THE TERMINAL MAN (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-terminalman.html)</B>, Warner Bros, 1974
CONGO (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-congo.html)</B>, Paramount, 1995
LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK II (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-lostworld-history.html)</B>, Universal, 1997
TIMELINE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-timeline.html)</B>, Paramount, 2003

Television
ER (http://www.crichton-official.com/tv-er.html)</B>, NBC, 1994 Creator, (co-exec. producer)

Computer Games
AMAZON, Tellarium, 1982
TIMELINE (http://www.crichton-official.com/books-timeline.html)</B>, Eidos, 2000

[maralyn]

Oh well, the chronology shows a progression. First a novel, before that probably some years of writing "stuff", then some directing, then some writing/directing, then a few years later, about 10 or so, a movie everyone has heard of.

[maralyn]

And then, 25 years later, the pinnacle of his career, Jurrasic Park, which had to be co-written with someone who DID bother to get the sheepskin on the wall.

So, let's not scoff at the sheepskin.

[bioprofessor]

And then, 25 years later, the pinnacle of his career, Jurrasic Park, which had to be co-written with someone who DID bother to get the sheepskin on the wall.

So, let's not scoff at the sheepskin.

Maralyn,

You're right, that was inappropriate. As an educator, I deeply respect acheivements in higher ed within all disciplines. I apologize. The best chance for one to become successful at any profession is to obtain knowledge, skills and experience through classical education and apprenticeship.

I was trying to make the point, albeit crudely, that while the odds of someone obtaining some level of screenwriter "success" outside of their specific discipline may be low, it isn't unheard of, particlarly if "success" is scaled from getting a script "read" to acheiving "stardom" status. Certainly, the odds are not as astronomically low as a "billion to one" as one responder put it. Sometimes we lose perspective on the enormity of numbers. Remember, if you started counting to a billion right now, 24/7, one number per sec, you wouldn't be able to stop counting until over 30 years from now! Slightly longer than it took Crichton to create his "opus 1."

[maralyn]

haha, well, only time can tell whether he'll be remembered for his pinnacle or his opus.

[maralyn]

But people from other professions can be successful in screenwriting. Learning for screenwriting, like any other writing, basically involves, writing a lot.

The basic recipe for success in writing, is.... (drum roll).....

writing a lot.

Like, every day, or at least, most days.

Writing is about pages. As in, writing them.

(not just thinking about them)

(or talking about them)

[LMPurves]

The best chance for one to become successful at any profession is to obtain knowledge, skills and experience through classical education and apprenticeship.

I actually shuddered when I read this.

I completely disagree that the best way for one to learn is through classical education.

You are so incredibly lucky that I was never a student in one of your classes... :D

[Naudikom]

You're still an arrogant windbag.

[hscope]

I also noticed the classical education comment. I now feel inadequate, as I only had a popular education.

[LMPurves]

You're still an arrogant windbag.

Ooh, burn.

[Ralphy W]

lol!

Love ya, Naudi.

Now go home and get your f ckin' shinebox.

;)

[nuvuefilms]

lot of love in this thread - there's no i in team, subsequently, there's no u in tomorrow.

----------------
signatures are so yesterday :)

[ShaneBlackFan]

There are no geniuses, only hardworkers, the genius is in the hard work. Michael Crichton studied, read and worked HARD. He didn't pick up a pen and write a great novel without doing the prep work.

[wcmartell]

Chrichton put himself through college writing paperback action novels under a variety of names... and won the Edgar Award (Best Novel) for one of them (which would be filmed as Carrey Treatment). He was a popular writer under John Lange (paperback trash - many optioned for movies)... and Andromeda Strain (first book under his own name) was a *huge* best seller.

But the *average writer* doesn't respond to threads from 2001.

- Bill

[bioprofessor]

Whew! Getting a bit rancorous in here. Hey, there's land, the Isle of Common Ground. Can we agree that it takes formal (or classical, popular, or whatever you'd like to call it) training, experience, motivation, and a wee bit of luck to be successful in most (legal) professions? :)

[camshell]

No. But they had a lot better odds of succeeding than, say, a janitor or a heart surgeon.

I don't understand how odds are relevant at all. Either you know how to make a movie or you don't.

Besides, he didn't just "succeed". He made Citizen Kane. A first timer with no film experience made Citizen Kane. There is something else going on here besides experience, hard work, and years of study.

[camshell]

There are no geniuses, only hardworkers, the genius is in the hard work. Michael Crichton studied, read and worked HARD. He didn't pick up a pen and write a great novel without doing the prep work.

If that is the case then it wont be long before machines are writing all the films, since they can work harder and faster than any human.

[sc111]

This sort of brings us back to the idea of writer as artist.

IMO, the best writers are artists. Artists are born not educated. Education cannot infuse a person with the ability to write compellingly. It can only give you the tools -- grammar, vocabulary, etc. A good high school education in English and Literature can give you all the tools you need.

Some kids early on display an ability to to draw and paint without instruction or education. Other kids show a profound proficiency for music without much training.

Still others show an early proficiency for writing and especially writing fiction. I suspect Michael Crichton showed a talent for this early on. Like in grade school.

I once asked a college writing professor if he could teach someone to write great fiction. He said no. He said all a teacher can do is nurture the writer's innate talent.

It's entirely possible one born with a talent for writing could succeed primarily by being self taught.

A screenplay is a medium within the realm of all fiction. Fiction takes a level of imagination that, IMO, cannot be taught (nor provided by a computer).

Everything else one needs to learn can be accomplished by reading the work of those who went before.

[jonpiper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton


Early life and education
John Michael Crichton was born in Chicago,[6] (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/#cite_note-5) Illinois (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/Illinois), to John Henderson Crichton, a journalist and Zula Miller Crichton on October 23 1942.

...from a young age and at the age of just 14 had a column related to travel published in the New York Times (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/New_York_Times). [4] (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/#cite_note-Telegraph-3)Crichton had always planned on becoming a writer and commenced his studies at Harvard College (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/Harvard_College) in 1960.[4] (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/#cite_note-Telegraph-3) During his undergraduate study in literature, Crichton conducted an experiment to catch off guard a professor who he believed was giving him abnormally low marks and criticising his own literary style. Informing another professor of his suspicions, Crichton plagiarized (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/Plagiarism) a work by George Orwell (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/George_Orwell) and submitted it as his own. Unaware, the paper was received by his professor with a mark of "B−". [7] (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/#cite_note-6) His issues with the English Department led Crichton to switch his course to biological anthropology (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/Biological_anthropology) as an undergraduate (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/wiki/Undergraduate_education), obtaining his bachelor's degree summa cum laude (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/summa_cum_laude) in 1964.[8] (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/#cite_note-7) ....

[jonpiper]

http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/biography.html

The dominant influences on F. Scott Fitzgerald were aspiration, literature, Princeton, Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald, and alcohol.


Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 24, 1896,

Fitzgerald attended the St. Paul Academy; his first writing to appear in print was a detective story in the school newspaper when he was thirteen.

... the Princeton Class of 1917, Fitzgerald neglected his studies for his literary apprenticeship. He wrote the scripts and lyrics [But later in life he flopped as a Hollywood Screenwriter:confused: ] for the Princeton Triangle Club musicals and was a contributor to the Princeton Tiger humor magazine and the Nassau Literary Magazine.

...On academic probation and unlikely to graduate, Fitzgerald joined the army in 1917 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry...

Convinced that he would die in the war, he rapidly wrote a novel, “The Romantic Egotist”; the letter of rejection from Charles Scribner’s Sons praised the novel’s originality and asked that it be resubmitted when revised...

[grant]

Welles made at least two films before Citizen Kane.

[maralyn]

Whew! Getting a bit rancorous in here. Hey, there's land, the Isle of Common Ground. Can we agree that it takes formal (or classical, popular, or whatever you'd like to call it) training, experience, motivation, and a wee bit of luck to be successful in most (legal) professions? :)


Of course. I certainly wouldn't see a doctor who had no formal training. I think the reaction comes from the fact that writing doesn't really have a formal training. Writing is its own training.

[bioprofessor]

Of course. I certainly wouldn't see a doctor who had no formal training. I think the reaction comes from the fact that writing doesn't really have a formal training. Writing is its own training.

Well...

I have a 9-yr old daughter, who's bright and takes to writing - she likes to write these little books using post it notes which she then binds with staples. Great stuff in so many ways. However, despite her placement in the advanced reading/writing group in her class, her "work" still contains a fair amount of grammar and composition errors common to her level. Without guidance and insight from an authoritative source, i.e. teacher, mentor, tutor, etc, she'd be doomed to repeat her mistakes, no matter how often she wrote.

[maralyn]

But they're not really teachhing her how to write. They're teaching her basic English, so she can go on to read and obey No Right Turn signs.

[zenplato]

Without guidance and insight from an authoritative source, i.e. teacher, mentor, tutor, etc, she'd be doomed to repeat her mistakes, no matter how often she wrote.


This is great news and exciting!!!

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of this pure form of writing knowledge that can be taught and understood.

Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to move forward without it.

Looking forward to reading all about it.

[bioprofessor]

But they're not really teachhing her how to write. They're teaching her basic English, so she can go on to read and obey No Right Turn signs.

Yes, I think we're in agreement. Creativity, artistry...that can't be taught, but certainly can be nourished (or quashed!).

[zenplato]

Bio???

What happened? Not going to answer the question?

I didn't think there was such a thing and found your comment to be rather naive.

:rolleyes:

[grant]

Bio???

What happened? Not going to answer the question?

I didn't think there was such a thing and found your comment to be rather naive.

:rolleyes:

So you haven't read a single book on screenwriting format? And just magically figured it all out?

[zenplato]

So you haven't read a single book on screenwriting format? And just magically figured it all out?


Pretty much, BUT if I may:

Let's look at this recursively and you'll get to the same place, hopefully. This is using reason and logic and I'm sure Grant you're fully versed in both.

Where does the teacher or author of these books get their knowledge from? If you go back far enough, you should have a single source for this knowledge, aka a form.

Where and what is this form? How does one obtain knowledge from this form? Inference? Experience? Both?

If there isn't such a thing, then you might want to rethink your last comment, :).

It's the old which came first, the chicken or the egg my friend.

peace

EDIT: The original post that I quoted was not necessarily talking about scripts, but writing in general. Regardless, the same logic applies.

[maralyn]

Oh well, he's a new writer, so lets not bash him up too much.

But I had a lot of formal training. Not just film school, but I also studied languages, French, Dutch and German. But I didn't see any of it as formal training for writing, I studied film, because I thought I wanted to direct, but discovered at film school that I didn't really like directing, and I did languages, because it involved reading a lot of books.

But despite knowing what I know, I mean, learning what I learned, the pathways to writing are carved, by writing.

As in, I only learned writing, from writing.

But there are certain learning curves.

Seeing something you've written on the screen is a major one. I believe that teaches you the most. Which is why I'm always harping on the notion of writing a short and giving it to someone to produce.

Seeing, what you've written.

[maralyn]

And co-writing. That also brings with it a huge learning curve.

[maralyn]

oo oo oo

And I can't see any harm in writing courses.

They force you to hand in work, which is good, but also, it's beneficial to have an exchange with other writers, in a group setting. Challenging, and fun. People are more real face to face.

[camshell]

Welles made at least two films before Citizen Kane.

I didn't know that. IMDB confirms that this is technically true.

But one was an eight minute short he made when he was 19. The other apparently isn't really a film, its more a short collection of footage that was to be inserted into a play he was directing.

[grant]

Pretty much, BUT if I may:

Let's look at this recursively and you'll get to the same place, hopefully. This is using reason and logic and I'm sure Grant you're fully versed in both.

Where does the teacher or author of these books get their knowledge from? If you go back far enough, you should have a single source for this knowledge, aka a form.

Where and what is this form? How does one obtain knowledge from this form? Inference? Experience? Both?

If there isn't such a thing, then you might want to rethink your last comment, :).

It's the old which came first, the chicken or the egg my friend.

peace

EDIT: The original post that I quoted was not necessarily talking about scripts, but writing in general. Regardless, the same logic applies.

I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. I never claimed that a person couldn't exceed the knowledge of their teacher. Couldn't come up with an original breakthrough. Like Newton said: If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.

But nobody just magically figures out the fundamentals. I don't get the selective amnesia that people get when they claim that they weren't taught writing. A exceedingly vast majority of people in this day and age did not...

Independently learn to sing the alphabet.

Independently learn do draw the letters of the alphabet.

Independently learn how to combine the letters into words.

Independently learn how to combine the words into sentences.

Independently learn how to use punctuation.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

If you did, you're a friggin' genius. But without learning these fundamentals, in a formal environment, in all likelihood you'd be illiterate. Illiterate people by definition cannot be writers.

So I don't see how anyone with a high-school diploma can claim they weren't taught how to write.

Good/great writing, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether.

[zenplato]

I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. I never claimed that a person couldn't exceed the knowledge of their teacher. Couldn't come up with an original breakthrough. Like Newton said: If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.

...


Good/great writing, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether.

Whose shoulders are the giants standing on?

Essentially you're creating the droste effect with your argument, imo.

Surely there must be a single source for this knowledge you speak of...right?

Otherwise, how could someone learn anything if there was nothing to learn from?

e.g. Did the alphabet exist before man, or did man exist before the alphabet. Somewhere along the way it got created...you do agree with that statement, correct? The alphabet hasn't always been, has it? Not to mention, which alphabet would be the correct one?

If I understand you correctly, I believe you're saying the essence of writing and its pure form existed before man and thus by learning this "thing" or form, one can understand what it is, or in a more formal manner: gain knowledge.

[grant]

Whose shoulders are the giants standing on?

Essentially you're creating the droste effect with your argument, imo.

Surely there must be a single source for this knowledge you speak of...right?

Otherwise, how could someone learn anything if there was nothing to learn from?

e.g. Did the alphabet exist before man, or did man exist before the alphabet. Somewhere along the way it got created...you do agree with that statement, correct? The alphabet hasn't always been, has it? Not to mention, which alphabet would be the correct one?

If I understand you correctly, I believe you're saying the essence of writing and its pure form existed before man and thus by learning this "thing" or form, one can understand what it is, or in a more formal manner: gain knowledge.

So you quote me saying that I never said a person was incapable of making an original breakthrough, meaning that I don't dispute that a person can make an original breakthrough, and use that quote to imply that I clearly must believe that writing was not invented by a series of individual breakthroughs?

[bioprofessor]

Oh well, he's a new writer, so lets not bash him up too much.

But I had a lot of formal training. Not just film school, but I also studied languages, French, Dutch and German. But I didn't see any of it as formal training for writing, I studied film, because I thought I wanted to direct, but discovered at film school that I didn't really like directing, and I did languages, because it involved reading a lot of books.

But despite knowing what I know, I mean, learning what I learned, the pathways to writing are carved, by writing.

As in, I only learned writing, from writing.

But there are certain learning curves.

Seeing something you've written on the screen is a major one. I believe that teaches you the most. Which is why I'm always harping on the notion of writing a short and giving it to someone to produce.

Seeing, what you've written.

I appreciate your concern for my well being. For the record, by your definition of a writer, I am not new at all. I have authored/coauthored and have had published four peer-reviewed journal articles, the most recent being in the American Journal of Botany. I am currently the PI for a project investigating the genetic structure of an endangered fish in SE Michigan - from which will spring at least two publications. My student research assistants are learning the "trade" and will be assisting in writing the reports, which I presume will build on their skills, or is that old-fashioned thinking?

Lastly, I am coauthor of a college textbook and lab manual, for which I receive a nice royalty each year, one which is expected to increase with the syndication of some of the lab procedures to a nationwide market.

[wcmartell]

Illiterate people by definition cannot be writers.

My parents were too married when I was born!

- Bill

[ComicBent]

Why do you guys have to adopt such absolutist positions on everything, when in fact you probably agree in most particulars?

You know that the spark of creativity is something within the artist that he or she can help to develop (and others can help, too), but no amount of study will put it there if it was never present.

On the other hand, you know that some things, like grammar and style, can be taught and learned. You can learn to write very well, even if you will never write anything that is at all interesting or creative or commercial. At least you will learn to express yourself accurately and elegantly. I cannot tell you how tired I am of looking at scripts that are written at the level of a kid in about the seventh grade.

So if you think you have the spark of creativity and have something to say, then try to develop those things in yourself, but do not forget that skill in writing can help you accomplish your goal.

[Rathmon]

Holy crap!?!? Charli's been around DD since 2001?!?!

You may now return to your regularly scheduled post.

[zarker99]

Holy crap!?!? Charli's been around DD since 2001?!?!

You may now return to your regularly scheduled post.

Can I score some of that?