MSC: Notes to the Austin Screenwriters Group

I really enjoyed reading and re-reading yesterday's commentary which, by
itself, provides a lesson. If i were to try to wrap the various comments
together in a neat summary i'd say the primary advice (both by admission of
the other posters, and by their descriptions of what works for them) is to
do whatever it is that works. And McKee certainly works for some. Only
experience at trying things will determine what's best for you.

In my humble opinion, the single biggest mistake beginning writers make, in
any genre, is to write before they have a story to tell. I tell my students
to never turn down the chance for an experience -- that's where original
stories come from. Some experiences go bad, but then that's life, isn't it.
Definition: a writer is someone who is rich with experience, not someone who
spells well (although that helps).

The bulk of "new" writers at my seminars are folks who've sat around their
living rooms eating potato chips and suddenly have a cholesterol vision that
they are pre-ordained to be a writer. Well, fine, but you won't write a
great script by watching Star Trek reruns. You A) need to have experienced
life; and B) you need to understand humanity (even if you're writing
dialogue for Ewoks, they have to emote humanly in order for humans to
identify with them).

From the realization that one "has" a story, one must choose how to go about
the process in the way that best gets the material from your heads/hearts
onto paper. And then to make it work within the genre you have chosen.

I too have studied "Story" and much is to be gained from it McKee's ideas
have certainly redirected my ability, post-writing, to analyze and tighten
my structure. HOWEVER, i almost always write first.

(I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but folks unsteady with the conflict
in styles being discussed should watch "Adaptation" for an instructive
lesson on McKee and the process of screenwriting -- it is a parallel theme
tied nicely into the "controlling idea." And even as the plot device is to
march out of spontaneity and into lockstep with the "method," the story
itself, and ultimately the screenplay, are a triumph of spontaneity,
undoubtedly followed by tight, formulaic editing. It is also the best
rendition of the "screenwriter writing the screenplay which is to become the
story you are already watching" genre. Note too that the "story" only comes
to fruition after the writer jumps into the story himself -- both
figuratively and literally in this case.)

To satisfy myself, i tried to use his method: i've had seeds of ideas, put
together outlines, and then written . . . and failed miserably. It's
happened twice. The first time, trying to see if it would inspire me, i
started with only a theme (a controlling idea as it were) and a character.
The finished project looked exactly like i had no story to begin with and
tried to force one into an outline. It was stilted.

The second time, i had the story dribbling out of my ears. I knew what was
going on and where it was headed. But i forced myself to structure it first.
By the time i was happy with the structural outline, the whole instaflow
process had left me, as did my enthusiasm. Sure i got it down, but it's
lacking. I could easily be wrong, but i think the process done at the wrong
time is what sapped me of the creative energy on that one.

So i abandoned McKee. In the strictest sense anyway. Went back to my own
self-evolved method. And wrote again.

I have certainly absorbed some of his lessons -- someone mentioned the
script analysis section already, i agree. But i can no longer distinguish
what i specifically got from "Story" and what comes from other places, other
analyses, other writers. I don't go to workshops. I taught workshops for a
while, until i figured out that my "method" wasn't right for very many
others, and i didn't want to do harm to, or discourage, budding writers.
Likewise, i see other workshops as 20 hours of haystack for one or two
needles.

I DO attend lectures, screenings, Q&As, etc., and i ask questions. That's
how i learn, and it's a much richer process. It's how i teach now as well. I
read something, or screen something, and then let folks ask me specifically
what they want to know, and then i say, "Well, here's how i do it . . ."
After that, you can't hardly shut me up.

What has emerged for me, finally, is that when i have an idea i just sit and
write until i can't write any more. Then i decide if it's a short story, a
poem, a song, OR a script. And i work from there. Occasionally i have to
decide whether something is going to be fiction or non-fiction! There are
some pieces i have done that have ended their lives as more than one thing.
In one case, as an example, i have a piece that became a poem, then it
evolved into a performance (slam) piece, graduated to a one-man one-act
stagescript and, i suspect, will someday be a short film.

Sometimes i only get halfway through a piece before i run out of juice. THEN
i "outline" and that usually gets me going again. If it doesn't, i set it
aside, and move on to something else that's itching to get out of me.

(I find that i often like my original idea, but by the time i've been
through extensive editing i have come to be not so fond of it. I put it down
for a while. Often, after a year or two (sometimes longer) on the shelf, a
re-read looks pretty darn swell, and gets me the battery power i need to
polish it.)

Next i begin the long arduous editing process. While i feel this is the most
important part of all writing (the perfecting if you will), it is also the
least creative in an immediately gratifying sense. Everyone should see
though that it IS creative in bringing the final project to fruition, yet it
is often tedious, and sometimes disheartening (having to discard that
incredible turn of phrase because it simply doesn't fit, dropping a
character because they add nothing but momentary quirkiness, etc.).

So, back to process. A) I write 'til i can't write any more; B) then i parse
what i've written to find that conflict, the values of each character and
how they play against each other and fit in the storyline; and C) i decide
what the denouement, the resolution of the conflict, is going to be, or
perhaps what the choices are, and then pick one, or a combination that can
be fulfilled simulatneously. ( M. Night Shyamalan's signature, i believe, is
that he can't do this particular step, and just throws everything in -- it
sorta worked in "Sixth Sense" but hasn't worked since, with "The Village"
his nadir thus far).

Then comes the structure part for me. I do what i call mapping. It's more
visual to me than notecards or a linear outline (though what i strive for is
the same). I map what i have written like a flow chart -- who does what,
what they do, how far it strays from the storyline, and in what direction.

As i edit (including adding/subtracting people, action, lines) i map as i
go. I know several things must happen -- everything must tie into that
denouement before climax; i can leave no one and no specific action just
hanging out there alone on the map (it must either be cut completely, or
brought back into the main highway for resolution). I can get quite creative
with this, but ultimately i have to judge whether i'm fooling myself into
thinking something cute i wrote really propels the story.

In the end, what i have may not much resemble what i spat out in that
initial wave of writing, but i believe what i end with could never have
happened without letting that first burst of writing energy loose.

To add evidence to the idea that everyone is different and must deal with
their own specificity, i have to relate that, of the 27 scripts i've written
(mostly stage plays), the four best ones were all written in single
sittings; then mapped with very little subsequent editing. They feel like
they just "happened". The same with my best work in other genres. The really
good stuff sorta writes itself.

(I feel like my best are so by a fur piece; some of my other scripts will
never see the light of day [the two strictly McKee process pieces for
example], some just need more work, and some others are okay but not
earth-shattering.)

I think it's the theme for the best advice i can give (if anyone wants it):
when the story hits, write it down immediately. If it doesn't hit like that
for you, then do an outline. Again, if you had the story to begin with,
it'll happen for you. If you don't . . . well what can i say?

I write down everything i see that strikes some chord in me. There's a
journal with me 24/7. I write down everything -- if i don't i lose them. I
record scenes i see played out, lists of items i might not otherwise know,
lines of real dialogue and lines that just occur to me, highway signs, odd
houses (sketched), full descriptions of importat things, the dreams that
wake me. I'm writing at the theatre when i see something on the screen that
strikes me as a neat angle, etc.; i make notes on lighting, and make lists
of bird sounds that are incorrect for the presumed film location. I have
dozens of these journals on my shelf.

Dare i say i think writer's block is a myth? That IS exactly what i think. I
can't stop writing (witness this post!). And if i have finished something,
or need to start a new project, and nothing's on the edge of my brain, i
just thumb through an old journal. I rarely get a few pages in before i'm
off and writing again. If you ask me, and i realize this may ignite a
firestorm, but someone with "writer's block," either A) doesn't have a story
to begin with and needs an excuse; or B) are just burned out (which means
that you're subconsciously just tired of the game) and need to do something
else for a while. You can't write all the time anyway, somewhere there has
to be room for human interaction, which keeps you grounded, and for
experiencing those things that ultimately are part of your arsenal. As a
writer you should get very used to doing other things for a while anyway
(for paying-the-bills reasons).

I attended a lecture at UT a few years back by Edward Albee (playwright;
Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf; Pulitzer; etc.). Someone asked about his
writing process and how many drafts he goes through. "One," he said. "I hate
to write. The story is complete in my head before I put it down on paper,
which I write longhand on a tablet. I might check it once for punctuation."
That's in my journal.

I could go on and on, but . . .

tony g

"Give a man a play and he will read for a day.
Teach a man to act and he will never eat again."
-- Sarah Tacey, actor/director