In the script pages forum, Gucci posted some pages to a potential TV series. The majority of Gucci’s style of writing for character introductions is TELLING, not SHOWING. He SHOWS on screen what he TELLS after the character introductions.
When it comes to character introductions, I believe a discussion on SHOWING and TELLING should be done publicly, so this is why I’m posting here and not in Gucci’s private thread.
Please, don’t reveal any details about Gucci’s pages without permission from Gucci.
There are some writers pro and non-pro who don’t like the style of TELLING. They believe it’s stronger to reveal character through action, which I agree with, but if TELLING and/or the use of unfilmables is the writer’s taste and style, I don’t have a problem with it -- if it’s done well.
There are some writers who are dogmatic about TELLING, but when it comes to creativity, I believe a writer should be allowed leeway.
When I pointed out to Gucci that this style would bring the wrath of Craig Mazin down upon him, Gucci replied:
“I guess my overall is: I don’t like character intros that feel pat and stale. So, maybe he (Mazin) and I are saying the same thing differently.”
No, you and Mazin are not saying the same thing in a different way. Far from it.
Mazin has made it clear, when it comes to character introductions, he believes your style is “not good craft.”
From Mazin on character introductions:
“I’m saying yes... leave out things I can’t see. What this forces you to do, of course, is SHOW ME, in the introduction, what it is you want me (and the audience) to know. It forces you to think about how you want to parcel out information about your character to the audience. It forces you to visualize the traits that you want us to know RIGHT NOW, and it forces you to plan on how to reveal the traits you want us to know LATER.”
More from Mazin:
“I’m not saying people don’t do it, or that people who sell scripts don’t do it. I’m saying... don’t do it, because it’s not good craft and it will hurt the read. Will it hurt a great script? No. Nothing does. Will it hurt a good script? Yes, I think so.”
Gucci, a writer gave Mazin an example of a character introduction that had your type of style and Mazin’s opinion was the following:
“All of that was fine except ‘a pleasure to be with’ and ‘her usually lively attitude’. Let me decide that as I read.”
A writer gave Mazin an example with the type of attitude that your protagonist has in the pages that you posted.
From writer:
“Craig -- How do you feel about something like this?
Tess makes a beeline for the only EMPTY STOOL, but --
REX VARNER (40s, as*hole to the core) plops his ass down on it before she can get there... and then SMIRKS as he raises his Budweiser in a fake toast to her.
REX: Next time, sweetheart.”
From the writer: “To me, his actions make the parenthetical a bit superfluous.”
From Mazin: “’as*hole to the core’ does seem superfluous. Actually, worse than that. It’s annoying, because you’re not letting me draw a conclusion from the action you’ve written, so you’re hurting the stuff next to it.”
Mazin’s reply when it was pointed out that Quentin Tarantino used a summing up intro for one of his characters in PULP FICTION:
“Also note that you’re not Quentin Tarantino. If you are, you can cheat more than the rest of us.”
To which a writer responded:
“I must have made this point a dozen times here, and all I ever get in return are sneering remarks about how if Tarantino can do something in his scripts, anyone can. Maybe now that a pro has said it people will stop recoiling in horror at the idea we’re not all Quentin Tarantino.”
This comment from the writer forced Jeff Lowell to get involved in the thread:
From Jeff Lowell:
“The point a lot of people (including, apparently, you) make is that there are different rules for pros and amateurs. The point that I and others (apparently sneeringly) made was that Quentin Tarantino got to be Quentin Tarantino because of his style - a style that flies in the face of what a lot of gurus say. ... Maybe Mazin will disagree with me, but I think that if you’ve got the talent to pull it off, there’s nothing wrong with an unfilmable stage direction, if it helps the reader enjoy the story.”
Mazin’s reply: “I agree. However, none of the folks in here have yet to demonstrate a level of talent commensurate with Quentin Tarantino.”
Gucci, I believe your protagonist’s character introduction in the pages that you posted “demonstrates a level of talent commensurate with Quentin Tarantino,” so it would be interesting if Mazin read this, would he change his opinion about “summing up” characters.
Personally, I don’t think he would. He seemed to have a non-wavering opinion on the matter, considering how he pointed out how pros sold scripts with summation of characters and he still says, in his opinion, it’s not good craft.
But you never know. We all, pro and non-pro, grow as writers. Maybe Craig Mazin has changed his opinion about “summing up” characters and allow a writer some creative leeway with his character introductions.
But, of course, like Mazin said, you must have the talent to pull it off. Summing up characters could certainly be done badly.
When it comes to character introductions, I believe a discussion on SHOWING and TELLING should be done publicly, so this is why I’m posting here and not in Gucci’s private thread.
Please, don’t reveal any details about Gucci’s pages without permission from Gucci.
There are some writers pro and non-pro who don’t like the style of TELLING. They believe it’s stronger to reveal character through action, which I agree with, but if TELLING and/or the use of unfilmables is the writer’s taste and style, I don’t have a problem with it -- if it’s done well.
There are some writers who are dogmatic about TELLING, but when it comes to creativity, I believe a writer should be allowed leeway.
When I pointed out to Gucci that this style would bring the wrath of Craig Mazin down upon him, Gucci replied:
“I guess my overall is: I don’t like character intros that feel pat and stale. So, maybe he (Mazin) and I are saying the same thing differently.”
No, you and Mazin are not saying the same thing in a different way. Far from it.
Mazin has made it clear, when it comes to character introductions, he believes your style is “not good craft.”
From Mazin on character introductions:
“I’m saying yes... leave out things I can’t see. What this forces you to do, of course, is SHOW ME, in the introduction, what it is you want me (and the audience) to know. It forces you to think about how you want to parcel out information about your character to the audience. It forces you to visualize the traits that you want us to know RIGHT NOW, and it forces you to plan on how to reveal the traits you want us to know LATER.”
More from Mazin:
“I’m not saying people don’t do it, or that people who sell scripts don’t do it. I’m saying... don’t do it, because it’s not good craft and it will hurt the read. Will it hurt a great script? No. Nothing does. Will it hurt a good script? Yes, I think so.”
Gucci, a writer gave Mazin an example of a character introduction that had your type of style and Mazin’s opinion was the following:
“All of that was fine except ‘a pleasure to be with’ and ‘her usually lively attitude’. Let me decide that as I read.”
A writer gave Mazin an example with the type of attitude that your protagonist has in the pages that you posted.
From writer:
“Craig -- How do you feel about something like this?
Tess makes a beeline for the only EMPTY STOOL, but --
REX VARNER (40s, as*hole to the core) plops his ass down on it before she can get there... and then SMIRKS as he raises his Budweiser in a fake toast to her.
REX: Next time, sweetheart.”
From the writer: “To me, his actions make the parenthetical a bit superfluous.”
From Mazin: “’as*hole to the core’ does seem superfluous. Actually, worse than that. It’s annoying, because you’re not letting me draw a conclusion from the action you’ve written, so you’re hurting the stuff next to it.”
Mazin’s reply when it was pointed out that Quentin Tarantino used a summing up intro for one of his characters in PULP FICTION:
“Also note that you’re not Quentin Tarantino. If you are, you can cheat more than the rest of us.”
To which a writer responded:
“I must have made this point a dozen times here, and all I ever get in return are sneering remarks about how if Tarantino can do something in his scripts, anyone can. Maybe now that a pro has said it people will stop recoiling in horror at the idea we’re not all Quentin Tarantino.”
This comment from the writer forced Jeff Lowell to get involved in the thread:
From Jeff Lowell:
“The point a lot of people (including, apparently, you) make is that there are different rules for pros and amateurs. The point that I and others (apparently sneeringly) made was that Quentin Tarantino got to be Quentin Tarantino because of his style - a style that flies in the face of what a lot of gurus say. ... Maybe Mazin will disagree with me, but I think that if you’ve got the talent to pull it off, there’s nothing wrong with an unfilmable stage direction, if it helps the reader enjoy the story.”
Mazin’s reply: “I agree. However, none of the folks in here have yet to demonstrate a level of talent commensurate with Quentin Tarantino.”
Gucci, I believe your protagonist’s character introduction in the pages that you posted “demonstrates a level of talent commensurate with Quentin Tarantino,” so it would be interesting if Mazin read this, would he change his opinion about “summing up” characters.
Personally, I don’t think he would. He seemed to have a non-wavering opinion on the matter, considering how he pointed out how pros sold scripts with summation of characters and he still says, in his opinion, it’s not good craft.
But you never know. We all, pro and non-pro, grow as writers. Maybe Craig Mazin has changed his opinion about “summing up” characters and allow a writer some creative leeway with his character introductions.
But, of course, like Mazin said, you must have the talent to pull it off. Summing up characters could certainly be done badly.
Comment