Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    Yeah, that thought comes up often. It's usually when a successful writer breaks imaginary "rules." A lot of time, those "bad habits" are the very things that provide voice and help work stand out...

    Very true. Everyone needs to find their own voice, but in using that voice to speak to others, one must mind the language.
    "We're going to be rich!" - 1/2 hr COMEDY written/directed/edited by me, I also act in it.
    SUBTITLED
    Episode 1 (Beef pills)
    Episode 2 (African commercial)
    Episode 3 (Brenda's rescue)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

      All the talk of rules is so arbitrary and it always winds up going in circles.

      Aaron Sorkin's Masterclass was him teaching the "rules of screenwriting" -- that's how he pitched it, "these are the rules..."

      Beyond basic structure and formatting issues, I think "the rules" are simply what works for that particular screenwriter. Stuff they've learned that holds true for them over and over. Ideas that help them get words on the page.

      I didn't take the Sorkin class, but I found this on Reddit -- someone else's notes from it.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriti...res_my_cliffs/

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

        i think most of the structure stuff, etc, is instinctive in at least a basic way to those who grew up hearing stories told, told their own share of them (embellishing and flat out lying where the story demanded, etc), read them, etc.

        it's the magic that's the hard part. the word in the right place that hugs or grabs a reader by the throat, etc.

        we learn how to put on a pair of shoes, practice and learn to tie the laces, even learn how to shine your good pair of shoes, etc. it is the walking in those shoes that is the magic. and in good stuff it happens right before your eyes like it's no big deal but you feel it is a big deal. where is he walking to? what is that he has in his hand? etc.

        i grew up listening to stories told on front porches and around wood stoves. was helpful. i'm sure none of those fellers read any books about how to tell a good story while sitting on a porch or around a wood stove. their storytelling skills were passed down from earlier porches and firesides.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

          Originally posted by figment View Post
          I didn't take the Sorkin class, but I found this on Reddit -- someone else's notes from it.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriti...res_my_cliffs/

          this was a great thread if you have the time and energy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

            It was a great read. The person took great notes. And I love writers talking about writing. Out of all the educational materials available, I feel like writers talking about their thought process of how to tackle a script is by far the best resources out there.

            His whole talk about the need for intent/obstacles and how there is no drama without it was quite good.

            Intent is so important in ACT 1. Because at the start of ACT 2 some mission/plan of action starts for the hero, for that to be a reasonable decision for them to take, intent must already be sewn into it.

            See, this is why you can tell when a script is written by a writer, sold or not sold. Right away Sorkin is bringing the need to find the relationship between his main character's intent with other story elements like stakes, conflict, and the Villain. His set-up highlights the intent and the inciting incident provides real motivation. He's conscious of the balance between story elements and brings that into his outlining.

            There's people out there querying right now that never even uttered the word "intent' to themselves during the course of their entire script.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

              Originally posted by Centos View Post
              King clearly articulates what I've tried to say here several times about artificial, "bolted together" story writing that so many of the screenwriting "gurus" seem to favor. In my opinion, the mechanical process of plotting often gets in the way of the creative process of writing
              Centos, I see you're still on a quest to bash Gurus. This time you're using the credibility of Stephen King to support your argument. Do Gurus recommend to writers to outline? Yes, they do. Does this mean a writer must absolutely outline? No, it doesn't.

              Let's address what King says, "plotting (outlining) is like using a jackhammer to dig out a fossil from the hard ground.")

              Maybe King is using the wrong tool. King says, "plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible." This is what King believes so he doesn't outline. I believe in the benefits of outlining, so I outline.

              Now this is where someone says, "King sold hundreds of stories. How many have you sold," which this person is implying that because King has sold and I haven't, therefore this is proof that King's belief is right and mine is wrong.

              Centos, if you believe that the act of outlining will create artificial and mechanical writing, I wish to bring to your attention to the fact that the majority of pro and non-pro writers outline. King is in the minority.

              These writers using the technique/tool of outlining to develop their story did not harm them on their efforts to have a strong and compelling story by proof of their success of their film, or a non-pro's success in a contest.

              Just because someone does not outline doesn't mean they have an edge over those that do and vice versa.

              What it comes down to is what is best, outlining or not outlining, for each individual writer when they strive to develop a strong and compelling story, and whichever way they choose it is not wrong, though it is a known fact that it would be a lot more work for those who do not outline than those who do outline in writing and reaching that strong and compelling draft.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                At some point all writers 'prepare' to write. It can be an outline or an exploratory draft or a treatment or a free flowing narrative - which is how I usually start. Where do you do your thinking about needs, wants, obstacles, twists, character POVs, tone setting lines of dialogue....what have you.

                You can tell right away how much the writer has prepared before writing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                  Originally posted by Mpimentel View Post
                  1,000 pages to play with frees you up from a lot of things. You would not approach a haiku with the same "let's see what happens" ideal as Stephen would a novel, they are different things.
                  Well, they are .. and they aren't. A good story is a good story, no matter if it's a short story, a novel or a screenplay. And while Stephen King is not known as a screenplay writer, several of his stories have been turned into successful movies.
                  STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                    Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                    He's talking about novels rather than screenplays.

                    When King was in charge of the screenplay we got MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE.

                    I stopped reading him when it became clear that he was making crap up as he went along and ended some book by just having it rain refrigerators and small appliances... which had nothing to do with the story.
                    He's talking about stories. A good story is required in both screenplays and novels.
                    STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                      Originally posted by Joaneasley View Post
                      Some writers have some stories come to them fully formed. Great when that happens, but most of us, most of the time, figure out as much of the skeleton as we can before we start writing, and then, hopefully, find the magic during the writing.
                      I'm not so much worried about how the story is formed -- it's whether or it's too "formulated" that worries me. I think sitting down and writing a story snippet when you get a good idea (a scene) is the easiest, quickest way to see if there is any potential. And a few words don't cost anything.
                      STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                        Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                        Screenwriting 101 is the basic 3 act structure.
                        Yeah, but what Stephen King is saying is not about where you end up, it's how you get there. Do you get there by superimposing plot onto characters, or by allowing the plot to develop with the story and the characters? To me, the first choice is mechanical and artificial, the second is flowing and natural. Obviously you have to end up with a story in screenplay format if you're writing a screenplay. (I also know that not everyone has the same creative process.)
                        STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Centos, I see you're still on a quest to bash Gurus.
                          Yep. I think "gurus" mess up a lot of new writers who have potential and make their writing stilted and artificial.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          This time you're using the credibility of Stephen King to support your argument. Do Gurus recommend to writers to outline? Yes, they do. Does this mean a writer must absolutely outline? No, it doesn't.
                          It goes a lot further than outlining with a lot of them. Some break it down to what page number the "inciting incident" is supposed to be on, etc. Everyone does some kind of outlining -- if only in their head -- so that's not really the point. It's how the story is created and unfolds and how the characters can come alive "take over" and control the outcome that -- in my estimation -- makes a good story.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Let's address what King says, "plotting (outlining) is like using a jackhammer to dig out a fossil from the hard ground.")

                          Maybe King is using the wrong tool. King says, "plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible." This is what King believes so he doesn't outline. I believe in the benefits of outlining, so I outline.
                          That's fine. Like I said above, outlining is not the main issue. I don't know why your getting so hung up on outlining here.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Now this is where someone says, "King sold hundreds of stories. How many have you sold," which this person is implying that because King has sold and I haven't, therefore this is proof that King's belief is right and mine is wrong.
                          No, that wasn't my reason for quoting Stephen King. It was to show how I (personally) like a story to develop and that I'm that not the only one. I'm not even a huge fan of Stephen King. But, in MY OPINION, a story with a mechanical plot superimposed on it runs the risk of being a stilted story. And, as you mentioned in the first paragraph -- it is another attempt to warn about screenwriting "gurus" and their strict artificial formulas. Outlining (in whatever form) is not the issue.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Centos, if you believe that the act of outlining will create artificial and mechanical writing, I wish to bring to your attention to the fact that the majority of pro and non-pro writers outline. King is in the minority.
                          Again, outlining is not the main issue here. EVERYONE outlines in some way, whether in their head or on paper.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          These writers using the technique/tool of outlining to develop their story did not harm them on their efforts to have a strong and compelling story by proof of their success of their film, or a non-pro's success in a contest.
                          Outlining ... good. Artificial formulas ... bad.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Just because someone does not outline doesn't mean they have an edge over those that do and vice versa.

                          What it comes down to is what is best, outlining or not outlining, for each individual writer when they strive to develop a strong and compelling story, and whichever way they choose it is not wrong, though it is a known fact that it would be a lot more work for those who do not outline than those who do outline in writing and reaching that strong and compelling draft.
                          Okay. People work differently. No argument here. So new writers should take screenplay "gurus'" formulas with a huge dose of salt and write in a way that best suits their creativity -- without artificial schemes and forumlas superimposed on their stories. Stephen King's way is one of those options.
                          STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                            Originally posted by Centos View Post
                            Yep. I think "gurus" mess up a lot of new writers who have potential and make their writing stilted and artificial. ... So new writers should take screenplay "gurus'" formulas with a huge dose of salt and write in a way that best suits their creativity -- without artificial schemes and forumlas superimposed on their stories.
                            -- Okay, now I get what your beef is.

                            It's not the plotting of the story. Developing the main/important events that make up the story. It's the structuring (organization/order) of these events that are taking place in the story.

                            Specifically, with the way Gurus pontificate on using the traditional three act structural beat outline, or a paradigm.

                            Centos, there was a huge thread on this subject years ago where I thought I articulated very well why your concern had no merit.

                            Obviously, from your above posts, I failed in convincing you that new writers using these three act structural beat outlines to get an understanding on the foundation on how to move a story forward will not harm them.

                            I don't want to get into a huge argument on Gurus again, but for the new Done Deal members who weren't here at the time I will post the link.

                            The thread is called "Are the Screenwriting Gurus Muddying the Waters?" It's a long thread with 62 pages and over 600 posts, so I'm gonna post the link to the pages (54 and 55) that I addressed Centos' concerns, though when you have time, I suggest that you go over the whole thread, because it does have its moments where it's not only entertaining with drama, it's also educational:

                            https://www.messageboard.donedealpro...ing+the+waters

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                              Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                              -- Okay, now I get what your beef is.

                              It's not the plotting of the story. Developing the main/important events that make up the story. It's the structuring (organization/order) of these events that are taking place in the story.

                              Specifically, with the way Gurus pontificate on using the traditional three act structural beat outline, or a paradigm.

                              Centos, there was a huge thread on this subject years ago where I thought I articulated very well why your concern had no merit.

                              Obviously, from your above posts, I failed in convincing you that new writers using these three act structural beat outlines to get an understanding on the foundation on how to move a story forward will not harm them.

                              I don't want to get into a huge argument on Gurus again, but for the new Done Deal members who weren't here at the time I will post the link.

                              The thread is called "Are the Screenwriting Gurus Muddying the Waters?" It's a long thread with 62 pages and over 600 posts, so I'm gonna post the link to the pages (54 and 55) that I addressed Centos' concerns, though when you have time, I suggest that you go over the whole thread, because it does have its moments where it's not only entertaining with drama, it's also educational:

                              https://www.messageboard.donedealpro...uddying+waters

                              I remember reading that thread, and I'm more confused about why either of you thinks the other is wrong. It's just different approaches to the same thing.

                              I see everything pretty much as language... You have a teacher that shows you how to conjugate, what verbs and adjectives are, how to structure a sentence and so on and so on... The basics so you can communicate with someone else... There needs to be a baseline or we can't communicate. I need to be able to type these words in sequence to where it makes sense to whoever is reading them. What you do after that, is up to you.

                              On the other hand, you can just learn the language by being around it. No teachers, no gurus, just by surrounding yourself with it and internally solving what it is. But again, once you solve it yourself, it's up to you what you do with it, or how you choose to speak.

                              I think anyone that tells you that ANYTHING is definitive should be doubted. But that is in either case... Everything can be right AND wrong at the same time... Quantum physics, the only thing that makes it right or wrong is the observer.

                              Do what feels right to YOU. If you haven't a clue, get a guru. Go get a chef to teach you his/her techniques and then go from there... If you want to start from scratch, go try out some sh*t in the kitchen and see what happens... Is the food good at the end? Yes? Then, that's all we care about.

                              I don't know what I've posted in the past, but the more in tune with myself I get the more I realize, the only one that has the answers is you. Everything else, and i mean EVERYTHING... is just an opinion. Even statistics change.

                              Believe in you, and do what feels right to you. Don't short change yourself. You are the person best suited to know what's going to help you.

                              Fair enough?
                              "We're going to be rich!" - 1/2 hr COMEDY written/directed/edited by me, I also act in it.
                              SUBTITLED
                              Episode 1 (Beef pills)
                              Episode 2 (African commercial)
                              Episode 3 (Brenda's rescue)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                                Sometimes things are mechanical and artificial. I mean, first generation ideas are usually very superficial. It won't be so mechanical and artificial if you work on it.

                                The problem isn't the habits or behaviors for creativity. The problem for amateurs is that they are afraid to get away from where they started. If a scene pops in their head and they write it, any screenwriting scholar around wouldn't be able to see how the scene either achieves no story objectives or simply doesn't work.

                                Someone posted notes from an Arron Sorkin master class in screenwriting. Read it and see the questions if brings with him to the start of any story. Most writers don't realize how difficult it is to follow a throughline to a story. Readers get lost instantly and bored even faster. You bring the reader down the page with drama or comedy. For those you need motivation and obstacles. That's in every scene, every line of dialogue.

                                No writer, with any kind of talent and knowledge, would ever settle for artificial or mechanical. They would dig deeper, get to the next layer.

                                You ever see Inception? It's about influencing people's dreams. In it they have levels of dreams. There's a dream, then there's the dream within a dream, then there's the dream within the dream within the dream.

                                At each level, the rules change. Things become different, more intricate. Screenwriting is like that. The deeper you go the more things change and become more intricate. Don't blame bad writing on story construction tools or pacing paradigms like the 3 Act structure. Bad writing has to do with not have a good eye/ear/nose for storytelling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X