# Are we the only good storytellers left?



## Jeko (Aug 29, 2012)

As far as stories are concerned, I feel that us writers and authors with our pens and our paper are the only people left who are making good stories for the modern world. Most hit films are based on books because there aren't enough people to write good stories for films. Original stories in films are very hard to come by, but almost every book you'll find in your bookstore was written from the author's creative mind - an original story.

I think we are the only good storytellers left. Anyone agree?


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

Wanna hear a good story? Sit with an old person and strike up a conversation. You can come up with oodles of book and movie ideas in one sitting!

Here's an example (told to me by my mom about a coworker): "Martha" had moved her mom in with her when she became elderly and frail. One night, Martha was awakened by her mother's screams. She rushed into the room and asked her mom what had happened. Her mom explained that she was thinking about _her_ mother, and to her horror she realized that she had forgotten her face. When she was young, her family was so poor that they didn't have a camera. The woman was despondent when she couldn't remember her mom's face no matter how hard she tried. Now _that's_ scary—scarier than any monster movie. This scene might not resonate with everyone, but it would with someone like myself. My sister and I just noted that our brother has been dead for 30 years and it takes a concerted effort to remember the sound of his voice and his mannerisms.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 29, 2012)

Which is why the brest writers are the older writers. Wisdom comes with age, words with years, stories with true tales to tell.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

WHOA!

That's indeed scary, Pat!!

Wow...thanks for sharing...amazing, actually...I'd never even considered the possibility!!

See, this is why I despise horror.  Things that go bump in the night is so second-grade!  True horror is the stuff that's unimaginable...like (ahem) the Holocaust or, even, little private horrors like what Pat detailed.  I find supernatural stuff silly and I seriously wonder about all the horror movies being pumped out all the time.  Is horror only a matter of something jumping out at the audience??

Or maybe I'm thinking more of "creepy" -- or better yet, the Freudian "uncanny."  Maybe that's what I'd really prefer.

Sorry for the personal digression there...anyway, to address the original topic myself: I'm not even sure it's a matter of us being the only good storytellers left, Cadence, so much as maybe there not being enough readers around.  It was shocking to me find out that most people actually don't like to read -- that there even exists a substantial minority who don't even read tabloid newspapers regularly -- so I'm more of the opinion these days that it's not us, it's them.  :biggrin:

Seriously, to have good storytellers there has to be good audiences.  Otherwise, the market -- the readership -- will determine what gets promoted, who gets rewarded for it.

On the other hand, I do believe that the worldwide web has made it easier for the few remaining discerning readers to connect with the few die-hard craftsmen and women of our trade, so on balance things are probably about as fine as they ever were.


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> … I'm not even sure it's a matter of us being the only good storytellers left, Cadence, so much as maybe there not being enough readers around. …



There are plenty of people out there who enjoy a good story. That's why I feel that it's not enough to simply write a book and then sit around waiting for people to buy it. I say go out and take the story to your audience. Set up talks at your local libraries and schools and engage the people in conversation. Encourage them to find the stories in their everyday lives. People have a built-in desire to be entertained by stories—so go out and develop your audience.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Pat,

Yes plenty of people enjoy a good story.  Everyone does, in fact.

But who's willing to pay for it?  And who wants to read a good story instead of simply hearing it or watching it??

And, more to the point of Cadence's original question, who wants to try something new instead of what they know they already like???

It's like with food.  Everyone eats.  But how many want to pay for good cookin' instead of McDonald's?  How many seek out authentic ethnic restaurants instead of settling for Applebee's/Friendly's/IHOP/HardRockCafe??

That kind of thing.


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

That's why I think that it's so important to get out and get the word out as opposed to sitting home wondering and worrying about sales. Word of mouth, marketing, and advertising really work. When I try a new restaurant or watch a new TV show it's often because a friend or relative recommends it. My friends and relatives see ads and hear commercials that I don't, and vice versa, so when we share information we all benefit. And my friends are _always_ talking about books they're reading.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Pat,

"Getting out and spreading the word" has been done to death.  Local libraries and bookstores are not interested in no-name authors.  Read Margaret Atwood's essay on this!  She knew it back in the, what, '50s, '70s?

Thanks to the worldwide web, however, like-minded authors and readers can finally connect about as readily as they ever will short of mind-reading metrics (which will probably come one day).  But this is because of the viral nature of the medium: word-of-mouth online is not the same as word-of-mouth offline.  Not really sure what's so controversial about that.  You recommending something to your small group of friends compares not at all to your recommending something online to millions of strangers who come across the advice.  Hint: people will pay you for the latter but not for the former!


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

I feature local artists and writers on my radio show and in my online community paper and love it when my rivals do so as well. Whatever marketing you do, whether online or in person, it's far better than sitting at home fretting and twiddling your thumbs, that's for sure.  :adoration:  In my town, not only do local writers regularly get interviewed in newspapers and on radio, they also hold book signings at local libraries and bookstores. I wouldn't dare trust people from who knows where from back in the day who tell me that I can't be successful doing x, y, or z. I've found that they're almost always wrong.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Pat,

I'm not sure what happened here, but I think you're stuck on the assumption that someone's sitting at home fretting about sales.

I opined that, more than just not enough good storytellers around (the original topic), I think there's a dearth of good readers as well.  Now it's very interesting to discuss whether we ourselves are doing enough effective self-promotion, and indeed I've been chatting with you on just that very point -- but it seems like you're mistaking my position to be one of sitting at home waiting for the world to beat a path to my door.

I assure you I'm no intention-manifest/law-of-attraction New Ager (an occupational hazard of the creative professions, it seems).  I fully hold with the joke about a man praying to God night after night, hoping to win the lotto, all to no avail...until finally God answers and says, do me a favor, will ya -- at least please go buy a ticket??


----------



## Trilby (Aug 29, 2012)

Could the answer be that people that like to tell a story, are drawn to writing.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2012)

I agree: writers are the creative engine of the world.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 29, 2012)

I guess I'm going to be the dissenter here :devilish: I think the folks who write scripts, for movies or for television (and yes, there are some excellent programs on the 'boob tube') are just as good as those who put their words in book form (note: screenplays are also "paper and pen"). _Maybe _there aren't that many movies using original stories, but that's Hollyweird, not the writers. And there are many other factors involved in movie-making and television shows that make it more expensive and more complex than publishing books - and more risky. So I wouldn't say novelists or short story writers are the only good story-tellers left. That's actually a bit insulting to those other folks. JMO


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

I think it's okay to be "insulting" if it's deserved.  How about that schlock _Captain America: The First Avenger_??  I was prepared for crap, given its intended audience, but my God, how could you screw up a story with Nazis in it???  I mean, that's normally a premise which writes itself!

Anyway, it's true, screenwriters have a lot of other pressures beyond writer's block; thanks for the reminder.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> I think it's okay to be "insulting" if it's deserved.  How about that schlock _Captain America: The First Avenger_??  I was prepared for crap, given its intended audience, but my God, how could you screw up a story with Nazis in it???  I mean, that's normally a premise which writes itself!



And there are no books which you consider "schlock"? That just boils down to the old "It's subjective", and doesn't address the idea that book writers are the only good story tellers, and that is what I was objecting to (and btw - I don't write screenplays :friendly_wink: )


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, if you're going to argue the literary equivalent of moral relativism, then of course there's nothing more to say.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 29, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I think the folks who write scripts, for movies or for television (and yes, there are some excellent programs on the 'boob tube') are just as good as those who put their words in book form (note: screenplays are also "paper and pen"). _Maybe _there aren't that many movies using original stories, but that's Hollyweird, not the writers.


Agree. I read an interview with Dan Harmon (creator of _Community_) after he was, I think, fired, and he said basically that to work in network television you're better off having as few ideas as possible. A book I read recently called _Permanent Midnight_ expressed the same sentiments -- essentially that Hollywood is a soul-sucking environment for writers because so much emphasis anymore is on milking what sells until it dries up.


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> Pat,
> 
> I'm not sure what happened here, but I think you're stuck on the assumption that someone's sitting at home fretting about sales.
> 
> I opined that, more than just not enough good storytellers around (the original topic), I think there's a dearth of good readers as well.  Now it's very interesting to discuss whether we ourselves are doing enough effective self-promotion, and indeed I've been chatting with you on just that very point -- but it seems like you're mistaking my position to be one of sitting at home waiting for the world to beat a path to my door. …



Good grief, relax. I was simply saying that doing something is better than doing nothing. Hence the smiley face.

Update: I just returned from recording this week's show. Wow. One of our local writers, Margaret Maron, was a guest along with the head of adult programming at the Durham County Library. Ms Maron's books are going to be featured in something called "Durham Reads Together"—her books are going to be read by "everyone" (well, everyone participating) and nearly a dozen special events are going to be centered around them at all the local branches. Even Durham's Sister Cities around the world are participating. Now _that's_ what I call getting your books out there. Yes!

My outlook might be considered a bit 'different' because on one hand I'm a writer, and on the other, I'm a media person who helps writers promote themselves and their works. That's probably why I'm more upbeat than some writers.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Agree. I read an interview with Dan Harmon (creator of _Community_) after he was, I think, fired, and he said basically that to work in network television you're better off having as few ideas as possible. A book I read recently called _Permanent Midnight_ expressed the same sentiments -- essentially that Hollywood is a soul-sucking environment for writers because so much emphasis anymore is on milking what sells until it dries up.



I have this book, "Writing the Television Drama." In it the author talks about her experiences working on different television shows as a writer.

On some of the formulaic shows (Think: CSI, for example) they hand you a beat sheet with the show's methodology. (Opening hook - vignette story with brief characters, body discovered / Crew Investigates, exposition to the viewer / et cetera).

Then you go to your own little cubicle and you work on the section you were given.

She said that in most of the cases, the writers spend most of their time working on their own WIPs, hoping to break out of the television writer gig with their best-selling novel aspirations.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Then you go to your own little cubicle and you work on the section you were given.


Wow, where do I sign up for _that_? uker:


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2012)

Lol. Exactly.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Pat,

You relax.  I'm just informing you that you're going on and on about the lack of self-promotion and I haven't any idea how that even became an issue.  Of course authors have to promote their stuff.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> She said that in most of the cases, the writers spend most of their time working on their own WIPs, hoping to break out of the television writer gig with their best-selling novel aspirations.




How does one get such a job in the first place??  I've never seen an ad for these kinds of positions...and yet they're always spoken of so dismissively, as if someone was enslaved after a cattle raid!


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> Pat,
> 
> You relax.  I'm just informing you that you're going on and on about the lack of self-promotion and I haven't any idea how that even became an issue.  Of course authors have to promote their stuff.



There's no reason to be so darned hateful. I thought we were only trying to help each other here. I'm done—gotta work on my next show!  :welcome:


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Pat,

No one's being hateful.  Sorry you need smileys to help you read.

:ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:
			
		

> How does one get such a job in the first place?? I've never seen an ad for these kinds of positions...and yet they're always spoken of so dismissively, as if someone was enslaved after a cattle raid!



From that book:

---

You need an agent because that’s who gets you read, knows where the jobs are, and puts you in the room. Without, it’s difficult to know which show is looking for new writers (or at least, willing to consider one). The agency also negotiates your deal, generates your contract, and collects your pay, deducting their 10%. 

While feature film companies may buy an original screenplay, television runs on assignments. The agent may know of an opportunity on a staff, or that an open episode is looking for a writer with a particular background, viewpoint or style. The agent sends over samples from several clients who meet the criteria. After reading the samples, the producer may invite you in for a meeting. Or, if you have an idea for an episode, the agent messengers over your writing samples, and if the producer likes your work enough, he might invite you in to pitch. But a lot of good those systems do you if you don’t have an agent anyway. . .


A long list of agents is available from the Hollywood Directory (see resources) and the Writers Guild. The guild asterisks the ones willing to consider new writers but don’t take those asterisks too seriously. Some “open” agencies turn out to be filled; others who didn’t offer may nevertheless be interested in a client with something they want. 

How do you make your way through all those names? Try to identify those who represent the kind of writing you do. Some agencies aim mainly at Hollywood features or sitcoms, so check if their client list includes writers with credits in television drama. You’ll also have to choose between the “packaging” and “boutique” agencies. Big packaging agencies supply all the talent — actors, directors, producers, as well as writers. That can be a powerful asset if you’re included in a package led by experienced show-runners. On the other hand a boutique will give you the personal attention a new writer needs. 

Begin on the phone. If you don’t have personal referrals, cold call each likely agency. Don’t ask for an agent, but focus on whoever answers or one of the assistants and say you’re looking for representation for writing dramatic TV series. You may extract the names of agents who specialize in this or the new guy in the agency who’s building his list. Get the names spelled. Out of a hundred calls, ten may be interested. Okay, you only need one. 

Next step is a one-page letter (or email) to a specific agent emphasizing your strengths — screenwriting awards, a film school degree, well-reviewed plays, published fiction or journalism. If you don’t have those, hook the reader with some specialty like having crime stories to tell from your years as a cop. Move on quickly to what’s in your portfolio, for example spec scripts for House and Breaking Bad, and two features, a romantic comedy and a suspenseful drama. Your aim is to be invited to send one *(of your original)* script*(s)*.

_Douglas, Pamela (2011-11-01). Writing the TV Drama Series 3rd Edition: How to Succeed as a Professional Writer in TV (p. 222). Michael Wiese Productions. Kindle Edition. 

_(Bold addition by me)


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 29, 2012)

Thanks, Kyle,

Never imagined those dreadful-seeming jobs required agents as well!  Makes sense in retrospect, though.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 29, 2012)

I think they do sound a bit dreadful, but they also seem to have helped some people. Suzanne Collins, for instance, the author of the very successful _Hunger Games_ series, worked as a television writer before her own career took off.

You can see her television influences in her writing, too. At the end of each chapter she has a cliffhanger that is very similar to how a television writer ends on a dramatic note just before the commercial break, to keep the viewer tuned in.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 29, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> Well, if you're going to argue the literary equivalent of moral relativism, then of course there's nothing more to say.



I think you're talking apples and oranges. You point out a movie you dislike, give reasons, and seem to believe that proves the point that script writers are somehow inferior writers to "book writers". What it only points out is that there are movies that are badly made and/or movies that some people dislike. Which is equally true of books - but you surely aren't going to then say that book writers are terrible story tellers.


----------



## GWJ Baird (Aug 30, 2012)

I think when you begin writing for money as opposed to for the love of it, you're quality and work is going to suffer,

Of course companies will milk what sells until it dies, that is how they make money, seems very Mickey Mouse but when you become a 'success' you have to appeal to what sells or you'll fall miserably


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 30, 2012)

GWJ Baird said:


> I think when you begin writing for money as opposed to for the love of it, you're quality and work is going to suffer,



Politely - poppycock. Doing anything for money has nothing to do with how well you do it. Tell that to Michelangelo.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 30, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I think you're talking apples and oranges. You point out a movie you dislike, give reasons, and seem to believe that proves the point that script writers are somehow inferior writers to "book writers". What it only points out is that there are movies that are badly made and/or movies that some people dislike. Which is equally true of books - but you surely aren't going to then say that book writers are terrible story tellers.




If their product is inferior, then they are inferior (professionally speaking, not personally of course -- hope I don't have to add a smiley too).  To be sure, your reminder that they work under many other pressures than that of their own muses is true.  However, you're paid for your results, and the typical result of something from Hollywood is demonstrably inferior when compared to books.

Apples and oranges indeed: oranges are just juicier.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 30, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Politely - poppycock. Doing anything for money has nothing to do with how well you do it. Tell that to Michelangelo.




Yes, Michelangelo -- who was patronized by a market of one, the pope.

You think he would have preferred painting Biblical scenes over and over again...over something more personal?


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 30, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> If their product is inferior, then they are inferior (professionally speaking, not personally of course



Missed the point. Because you point out one movie you didn't like does not make all scriptwriters inferior storytellers.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 30, 2012)

AspiringAuthor said:


> Yes, Michelangelo -- who was patronized by a market of one, the pope.



Might want to check out his biography...


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 30, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Missed the point. Because you point out one movie you didn't like does not make all scriptwriters inferior storytellers.




I'm going past your point, to be sure, but that hardly qualifies as missing it.

Your point is basically the old one about "you got any stats to back that up?" and I'm simply ignoring it because 1) numbers mean nothing without interpretation -- in which case we could be disagreeing all over again; 2) some things are so self-evident it's plain pedantic to cite studies and research, if they even exist (since the subject is so obvious); 3) ultimately, you think "it's all subjective" anyway so, like I'd said, there's no point in any further discussion: aesthetic relativism means anything goes.


----------



## AspiringAuthor (Aug 30, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Might want to check out his biography...




What do you know that I don't?


----------



## Jeko (Aug 30, 2012)

> Your point is basically the old one about "you got any stats to back  that up?"



And your response seems to be the old one about 'I'm going to put words in your mouth and argue with that too' and 'I don't want to get anywhere'.



> 1) numbers mean nothing  without interpretation -- in which case we could be disagreeing all over  again;



_Could_. And it would be better if you disagreed with shadowwalker on-topic rather than off-topic...



> 2) some things are so self-evident it's plain pedantic to cite studies  and research, if they even exist (since the subject is so obvious);



I'm fine with pedantic. Pedantic is great. Pedantic stops this from becoming like all those debate threads you'll find on this forum.

A wise man has many advisors. An aspiring author should have many studies to cite.



> ) ultimately, you think "it's all subjective" anyway so, like I'd said,  there's no point in any further discussion: aesthetic relativism means  anything goes.



Are you trying to get anywhere? You're going nowhere very slowly.

I think shadowwalker's argument is very good. However, I see less effective storytelling from film writers and similar professions in the modern day. Meanwhile, contemporary novelists are on the rise, telling brilliantly original stories and brilliant unoriginal stories.

This does extend further than films and plays, also, if anyone wants to go further out.


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 30, 2012)

Hoo boy. :05.18-flustered: Agreeing with what Cadence wrote above. And loving how a kid—who only yesterday asked how to take a skeletal plot and flesh it out into a complete story—can then turn around and ask a middle-aged writer, "What do you know that I don't?" LOL! 
 :rofl:


----------



## Sam (Aug 30, 2012)

Admin Note: Consider this a last warning. The next personal comment from ANYONE will be treated as ignoring staff and dealt with as such.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 31, 2012)

I should have put this in the debate section...

The weight of this arguemnt may be affected by how one sees films and TV in general. I think that you can get more into and more out of a book, if you get what I mean. Most books leave longer lasting impressions, so many will favour the written word to on-screen media because the former sticks better and is easier to remember and refer to.

At least, even badly written books get a lot of good press, *cough* Twilight *cough* Fifty Shades of Grey *cough*, while badly made films get hammered, or at the very most, tolerated


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 31, 2012)

Cadence said:


> I think that you can get more into and more out of a book, if you get what I mean. Most books leave longer lasting impressions, so many will favour the written word to on-screen media because the former sticks better and is easier to remember and refer to.



I think the problem is that you seem to be looking at the medium, not the writing. As far as that goes, I've seen movies that have stuck with me for years; I've read books where I can't even remember the MC after a couple weeks. I just don't think it's right to say book writers are de facto better story tellers/writers than those who write screenplays.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Aug 31, 2012)

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned yet in this thread is the difference of the processes involved in producing a film or TV show as opposed to a novel. With a novel or short story, most of the time there is one writer. There will be input from other people, editors' demands, etc. but I think most people would agree that the end result is the work of one person. With film and TV, though, there are so many people making the story that it's hard to really pick out a single "storyteller" a lot of the time. There's the person who comes up with the story, the person who writes the script, the person who decides how the scene will look, the people who execute that vision (locations crew, set and costume designers, casting directors), the person who actually holds the camera, the actors, the producers and editors who cut the whole thing up again... plus tons of stages I probably don't even know about. 

In any case, this is not to say that film is better or worse at telling stories than text - that's a different question. But I'd say film directors are not "storytellers" in the way novelists are, because it's rare that a film is the product of a singular vision*.

*of course, we did not define terms or set up criteria for what a "storyteller" is, did we? Is a singular vision a defining property? Can that really exist when every voice is influenced by so many other voices? And does it really matter who produces a text or how, more than how it's received? Is the author dead or is he a subject position? Interrobang, argh.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 31, 2012)

> I think the problem is that you seem to be looking at the medium, not the writing.



I would agree. With books, it's silly if you keep looking at the medium only - words on a page. You read those words for the writing and stories to come forth. While with films, it is harder to see the writing and the storytelling because the medium comes first.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 31, 2012)

Cadence said:


> I would agree. With books, it's silly if you keep looking at the medium only - words on a page. You read those words for the writing and stories to come forth. While with films, it is harder to see the writing and the storytelling because the medium comes first.



Precisely. And as lasm points out, with movies/TV, there is so much that happens between the writing and the final form, it's hard to determine if the "story telling" is the product of the writer or the collaboration/dictatorship of other parties. Thus, I find it hard to say that screenwriters are in any way 'lesser' story tellers than book writers. How their original work ends up is out of their hands, unless they have unusually iron-clad contracts.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 31, 2012)

So, books are usually better for storytelling, but films, TV and books can all have good storytellers.

Therefore, wouldn't most screenwriters be better off turning to writing books? I know, we need our films, but not _all _of them. I'm sure some of those shoddy movies had good writers that could make a killing doing some random YA about vampires or something. Anything.


----------



## patskywriter (Aug 31, 2012)

Cadence said:


> … The weight of this arguemnt may be affected by how one sees films and TV in general. I think that you can get more into and more out of a book, if you get what I mean. Most books leave longer lasting impressions, so many will favour the written word to on-screen media because the former sticks better and is easier to remember and refer to. …



I definitely agree with your first sentence and would like to add to what shadowwalker said. I feel that we all remember and learn differently. Visual images stay with me for a long time, so the ending of, say, the movie "Wuthering Heights" will haunt me forever. And there are some movies that I haven't seen since childhood that I still remember vividly and would love to see again, like "JT," which probably hasn't aired since 1969 or '70.

I might be able to recall certain unforgettable lines of a few poems, but for the most part, I can't remember books I've read as easily as movies I've seen. I can remember having to rest my forehead on the table when I was assigned to read "Moby Dick," due to Melville's highly descriptive writing, but I can't tell you any details from the book. I can see the "JT" movie more clearly in my mind than the last of the Harry Potter books—even though I thoroughly enjoyed reading it only a couple of years ago.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 31, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Therefore, wouldn't most screenwriters be better off turning to writing books? I know, we need our films, but not _all _of them. I'm sure some of those shoddy movies had good writers that could make a killing doing some random YA about vampires or something. Anything.



Some, possibly. But again, screenwriting is different from novel writing, which is different from short story writing, which is different from poetry, etc etc. And again, though I'm not sure it's intended, this implies that books are somehow inherently "better", which I don't think should be a universal truth. I've seen films which, IMO, were much better than the books they were taken from.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm wondering who "we" is.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 1, 2012)

^Best question so far.



> But again, screenwriting is different from novel writing, which is  different from short story writing, which is different from poetry, etc  etc. And again, though I'm not sure it's intended, this implies that  books are somehow inherently "better", which I don't think should be a  universal truth. I've seen films which, IMO, were much better than the  books they were taken from.



I would never say inherently. But I find it easier to be told a story, and a better story, through the written word than through any film or TV-based media.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 1, 2012)

Maybe you aren’t watching the right movies. There are good, original movies being made, and not just from novels. You just have to be a little more discerning, that’s all -- probably to the extent that most people here are when it comes to choosing novels -- unless you only read bestsellers. They’re made in Hollywood and by independent filmmakers and believe it or not, people make really good movies all around the world. 

And it’s never been easier to see a wider variety of movies, either. Although there are always exceptions, if you only look to the blockbusters or what’s at the Cineplex, you’re going to have the impression that movies are mostly mediocre, schlock and formulaic -- but that’s always been true of things created for mass consumption. The same holds true for novels -- and movies are no different.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 1, 2012)

Cadence said:


> So, books are usually better for storytelling, but films, TV and books can all have good storytellers.
> 
> Therefore, wouldn't most screenwriters be better off turning to writing books? I know, we need our films, but not _all _of them. I'm sure some of those shoddy movies had good writers that could make a killing doing some random YA about vampires or something. Anything.


 There is such a thing as 'food on the table.' Not all of us can live the life of an 'aeset'.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 1, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Therefore, wouldn't most screenwriters be better  off turning to writing books? I know, we need our films, but not _all _of  them. I'm sure some of those shoddy movies had good writers that could  make a killing doing some random YA about vampires or something.  Anything.



No one seems to like mimes – so practically speaking, a mime might be “better off” as a circus clown (not much better off) or a puppeteer or an actor or an insurance salesman. "Anything." And you could probably argue that we don’t “need” any mimes. But a mime is probably a mime because he wants to be a mime and he thinks he's good at it and that’s where his heart is. So it would never occur to me to suggest he or she go do something else (unless it’s one my kids, of course ) or say his form of creative expression is a less effective way to reach people -- or just because it’s not something I appreciate. How is that my judgment to make?


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 1, 2012)

Plus, writing a screenplay is an entirely different beast than writing a narrative prose. To suggest a screenwriter can just make the leap to novel writing on a whim (or vice versa) is very optimistic.

I'm a short story writer and I find the gap of required skillsets between short stories and novels already pretty daunting. I consider the craft of screenwriting even further removed from the novel. They're all similar in that they are each a form of story-telling, but the technical aspects of the craft, and the creative processes themselves, are notably different with each form.

Kind of like comparing flash fiction to poetry. Similar, but different.


----------



## Macto Deum (Sep 1, 2012)

I think there is an important aspect to film and screenwriting that everyone has thus far overlooked-- it is a three-sensory medium.

The visual and audio aspects of a film are extremely important to me, both as a viewer and writer. And while I claim no significant expertise as either, I am making as much of an effort I can muster to learn with practice. Being an art that was literally birthed with the description "motion picture," the original storytelling in film was based more on _showing_ people what they previously could only imagine.

I love visual art-- be it camerawork, painting, drawing, collage, animation...whatever, so long as it's done well. I say the same for literature, and music. Videogames are no exception to me.
Movies are compositions. Music, art, writing are sublimely blended for a moving experience...when done properly.

There's no denying that the mass-marketing of Hollywood has helped this amazing medium of storytelling descend to the sordid, but if I may quote Jesus, "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." If you're expecting good product from a creatively oppressive force like the Hollywood film-making-film-selling system, then your expectations are unrealistic.

Everyone has this notion that it's not a real "movie" unless it's advertised, shown in theaters, and earns a significant box-office profit. The same is true for tv shows.

No-one expects that of novels.

I partly believe that this is because the creative minds can't "do it all." Back in the early days when film was still a developing art, the Orson Welleses had much more creative influence than the studio system is willing to entrust to anyone anymore. Now, I think developing technology with the lower price is putting the power back into the creators' hands. I think the future of film-making is in independent movies.

Story wise, they can be everything you'd want in a novel. Visually, they can be utterly stunning. Musically--oh, music... A soundtrack can move you like nothing else.

If we're the only good storytellers left, be it in literature or film, I see only one hindrance to us. I would rather hope for resurgence of the artistic polymath. Maybe a new Renaissance...

That one hindrance, by the way, is making money. That's where it always gets me...


----------



## JosephB (Sep 1, 2012)

Macto Deum said:


> I partly believe that this is because the creative minds can't "do it all." Back in the early days when film was still a developing art, the Orson Welleses had much more creative influence than the studio system is willing to entrust to anyone anymore.



I’m not sure there was ever such a time. Orson Welles was more of an exception -- partly because RKO was one of the weaker, smaller studios and they were willing to give him more leeway. Even so, they had their limits. Otherwise, the studios where very heavy-handed back then, no one had much creative control -- and the roles in filmmaking were pretty clearly defined.

Also, the studios churned out a ton of product back in those days and a whole lot of bad movies. We’re still watching and talking about only a tiny percentage of them that hold up or were influential in some way -- not too much different than it is today.


----------



## Macto Deum (Sep 2, 2012)

Thanks for clearing that up. Didn't mean to post false info, though I did know this... I don't know why I didn't recall.

I guess I just had the greats in mind. And absolutely - plenty of trash was being produced at the time, which is overshadowed by the gems in our memory.

I do however hold to my points. That film is no less an art than written literature, and that creativity ought to gain more freedom in film-making, even if it means rejecting the Hollywood system.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 2, 2012)

Macto Deum said:


> I do however hold to my points. That film is no less an art than written literature, and that creativity ought to gain more freedom in film-making, even if it means rejecting the Hollywood system.



I don't know that there really is a "Hollywood system" any more. Aren't a great many films now made by companies (and individuals) outside the larger production companies? But I hasten to add, I agree that film is another art form, and its writers just as good as any other writers (as I've stated earlier here).


----------



## Macto Deum (Sep 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't know that there really is a "Hollywood system" any more. Aren't a great many films now made by companies (and individuals) outside the larger production companies?



Indeed, that is one of the upsides to modern film-making. The fact that the films are being produced more independently coincides with the growth of creative independence. I wouldn't say that the Hollywood system doesn't exist anymore. Transformers movies keep getting made somehow...


----------

