Writer's Block is Imaginary

Writer's Block...I refuse to admit I have it.

So what if keep staring at that large number of pages I'm behind in Script Frenzy and not doing anything about it. Or that I keep throwing pages in the air out of frustration with the script I've been writing at work. (Why won't it just come together in amazement yet??) Or that I've waited until after the last minute to write this blog post.

Writer's block - this magical excuse that a writer's muse has vanished for a short period of time, and a writer, no matter what, cannont write.

I am exhausted. I work 40 hours a week (where I've been spending all my time working on 2 script for Summer reading videos, plus planning and filming said vidoes), come home, write, sometimes cook dinner, try to clean house, take care of the animals, socialize with my husband, organzine filming projects, film....I do a lot. For this last week and a half, every time I open my Script Frenzy project, all I see are the pages that are fluttering away from me and hesitate to write the next scene.

I could be creatively drained.

But I won't call this writer's block.

I am afraid that my script won't have the juice to make it to the 100 page mark (though, should I really be worried about that? I do have 12 pages of summer reading and mop scripts to fill with...).  I'm afraid that my script is crap - that it won't live up to the needs I have set for it. So I keep looking at it and thinking "something is wrong." My editor wants to go back and fix it, but I don't even know what the problem is yet.

But I won't call this writer's block.

This is the dredges right before the end. The middle slump. The hardest part. Since I'm behind, I missed this in week 3, and am now hitting it with just over a week left of April. Crunch time is about to set in. This is the easiest place to give up, throw the towel in, and move on.

But I won't because I don't believe in writer's block. Right now it's my exhaustion and fear trying to convince me to take the easy way out and quit. So, I take a deep breath, a nap, and a bath and keep on trucking.

I will not give up.

So, what do you think? Writer's block, real or not?

Writing by the Seat of Your Pants with...Screenplays???

Screenplays can be more structured than novels, short stories, prose, etc... And all screenwriting advice talks about this epic mapping of plot and beats - that you need a wall of notecards ever putting pen to paper, or hands to keyboard. Lot's of novelists give this advice as well. But, lot's of other novelists encourage just writing and letting the novel unfurl with minimal pre-planning. As Chris Baty calls it: pantsing.

But I never see this advice offered to screenwriters. Why is that? Many writers are already scared off by the formatting of screenwriting, but then let's add that you need an entire month or more of pre-planning? Those looser, non-outliners run for the hills...

Well I'm here to dispel this. Yes, you can completely write a successful screenplay without all those index cards and planning.

I am a panster screenwriting.

My "baby" screenplay was born of a challenge. Write a screenplay about a homicidal scrapbooking club, oh and the main character has to be gay (because the commissioner had certain parts already). Oh, and it has to include a shoe made of body parts (why?). Oh! And there has to be room for a sequel. Now go!

....

Script Frenzy rolled around, and I just started typing. I had no idea how any of this was going to work or who the main character was. But as I pushed forward, I started thinking and started letting the characters develop, and suddenly, I really had something. Something good. Something born without an outline.

I couldn't stretch out the ending anymore, and ended up making up the last 10 pages of bonus features to meet Script Frenzy's 100 pages. After revisions (there are about 2), the final script is 90 pages. I don't plan on selling the script, because, well, my production team wants to make it. But I have shown it to people in the "biz." One said that it wasn't his cup of tea, but that it was really well written and solid. The producer said that it wasn't something he could produce at this time, but has since called me about a script doctoring job. I showed it to actors and a few other writers, all of whom loved it.

No one said anything about pacing, or poor plotting, or weak structure. No one could tell that I didn't outline to the smallest detail, or that I made the whole thing up on the spot. No one thought for the briefest of moments that I wrote the whole thing without planning.

Now I'm not saying that I don't need revisions, but even traditionally outline scripts need revisions.

I have not planned out a screenplay since Scrapbooking three years ago. Even my current work, which is an adaptation, has no pre-planning and has gone from a short to a feature because I just sat down and started writing. And I plan on keeping it this way as long as I write.

Let's Talk About Adaptations

This Frenzy I'm writing an adaptation of a short story about zombies and the Great Chicago Fire. I'm keeping my lips a little tight about who's story it is because my film team is about to enter negotiations for rights.

This is not my first adaptation. My first attempt at screenwriting was an film noir adaptation of Grimm's "12 Dancing Princesses." My second attempt a screenwritng was an adaptaion of H.P. Lovecraft's "Pickman's Model." I've learned alot about adaptaions just from that, and with my experience level leagues higher then when I was attempting those, I'm now doing yet another adaptation.

And speaking of adaptations, let's talk about the Hunger Games, the adapation everyone's talking about, and because I read an article about concept art that wasn't used.

Before I even begin to start, let's set some basics down in writing.

Point 1: Film and prose, be that novels or short stories, are totally different mediums. They share many characteristics, but they are quite different. Things that work in words do not work on screen and vice versa.

Point 2: Readers are more forgiving than Viewers. Books can get away with slower pacing and even some plot holes without upsetting readers too much. Viewers are much harsher. Then, there's also the filmmakers in which economy of scenes, characters, and time are a necessity.

My opinion: The Hunger Games is one of the closest book to movie adaptations, and while an excellent adaptation, its goal to remain so close to the book actually detracts from its value as a movie. When I talk about the movie, I think of it as an excellent visual companion to the book, not as an excellent movie aside from the book. This is because the movie hits every major plot point of the book, and in doing so, causing the importance of certain events to be underplayed. (Such as Rue.)

There are going to be some people who think the movie is better than the book (especially those of us who found Katniss' narration F***ing annoying). There are going to be many that find the book better. I can't say if it ultimately is, but I do feel the movie means more if you read the book.

Let's get to the nitty gritty. There are changes made from the book to movie. Most of them are minor, some, major, but ALL understandable from a filmmaking prospective.

So let's talk about that article from earlier, and if you haven't seen/read Hunger Games - be warned - spoilers.

When I first heard they were making the Hunger Games into a film, my reactions were "Hell yes!" and "How are they going to keep this PG-13?" (I had very similar reactions when I heard Coraline was being made into a movie.)

Keeping Hunger Games PG-13 is an absolute must because this is a teen novel. The major demographic is teens between 13 and 17. By no means is this a children's movie, and it is certainly enjoyable to adults. But, leave the little ones at home.

Let's go back to that article I mentioned earlier. One of the biggest deviations from the book is the Muttations at the end of the movie. Before the movie ever came out, I remember laying in bed with my husband talking about how they're going to handle the dog-people at the end of the movie. It's pretty horrifying. Dead tributes turned into monsters sent after the remainging few. How were they going to keep that PG-13?

The answer: they couldn't. At least, I would bet large amounts of money that the dog creatures at the end of the movie were just dogs more for rating than anything else. (Though, it could also be because the character creation wasn't working, but the bad CG of the dogs in generally lead me to believe that it was more a rating issue.) The dogs are actually so bad, it almost takes the viewer out of the movie. Many who didn't read the book are left wondering, what the hell was that about? Those who read the book, are just plain mad.

I'm going to address this in two ways: 1.) Why keeping the movie PG-13 was so important, and 2.) why staying so close to the book actually hurt the adaption (aka, my opinion).

It's clear from the concept art that the filmmakers were intending on doing the Muttations right. Which is so cool. But, somehow, this concept didn't make it to the final cut. My best guess, ratings. It could have been poor character execution (like the reason Peeves was cut from Harry Potter), and it could have been budgetary (though, this was not a movie lacking in budget or profitability).

If the Muttations meant an R-rating, then they had to be changed, or the profitability of the movie would have changed. Most parents wouldn't have let their teens go to an R movie, and the few movie people who just love movies, wouldn't have been enough for the movie to make back it's budget. Because we have to remember that movies are just as much a business as an art. So, to keep the rating down and keep the movie available to the target audience, the Muttations had to go.

This leads right into my argument that the movie is too faithful to the book. Ok, I understand that the Muttations had to go. They were only impactful in the book because they looked like dead tributes. Now that they're just dog beasts, well, it's kind of lame. So why keep it? Because they were being "faithful." This became an aspect of the book that needed to be changed, but wasn't, and lessened it's overall impact. Why couldn't they have set the arena on fire again? Or flooded it? That would have gotten them to the top of the cornucopia and achieved the same ending. And it would have felt more natural than the weird dog things that were left.

But noooo, they had to be faithful. And the movie suffers for it.

So, let's look at the lesson here. When adapting a work of fiction to a movie, there has to be a balance. Keep the story as close as possible without letting the movie suffer. Acknowledge that some things just don't work in movies, and some things just don't work in print. Once you recognize that, watching a movie adaptation becomes more enjoyable. A movie can still be a good movie even if it's not 100% faithful to a book, or even 90% faithful.

I am keeping the Hunger Games close at mind while adapting my work. And if you've always had a problem with books turn to movies, I think you should try to write a script based on that book (What a Great Script Frenzy Project!). You'll have a whole new outlook on theprocess.

Let the Frenzy Begin!

So besides all the numerous things that consume all my time, I've also participate in Script Frenzy - Nanowrimo's sister script writing challenge. Because of this, I've put my revision WIP on hold. At least for a month. So for all of April, I'm going to post topics that come up during the Frenzy.

Today's topic: Don't be Afraid of the Script

A lot of people I talk to don't want to write a script because they're afraid of formatting. And I'll admit, compared to any other form of writing save some unusal forms of poetry, scriptwriting looks like Greek.

Personally, I think this is done half to scare away people from writing scripts.

In a way, it's a test for industry gatekeepers. They know how serious you are because you followed the ridiculous gatekeeping format.

But mostly, when actually filming the script, the format works really damn well.

But, thanks to modern technology, you don't have to really worry about formatting anymore! There's top of the line programs like Final Draft. Then many other writing programs like Scrivner offer Scriptwriting mode. Hell, even Mac's default Pages offers a scriptwriting form. And if you can't "afford" any of these programs, Celtx is free and available for download.

So there is no excuse for not formatting. Now we can rely on technology to transcribe our writing into Script Greek for us, and we only need to know 3 basics.

1. Scene headings - the INT./EXT. DAY/NIGHT

In prose, we spend paragraphs carefully crafting setting. In scripts, we spend one line.

INT. stands for interior and EXT. stands for exterior. Basically, are we indoors or out? (Tip: use INT if you're inside a car.) If you're moving indoors to outdoors, or not quite sure if it counts as either, just write it best you can. This is a 1st draft, you can look up the specific ruling on that after you've written it, if there there is a ruling.

Next, comes the where. HOUSE, CAR, CHRYSTLER BUILDING 27TH FLOOR. The actual where of the scene. It can be as brief as house, or as detailed as you want, like the 27th floor of a major building.

Finally, if it's important, time of day. Day, night, afternoon, morning, dawn, dusk, 3pm, etc. Time of day is really only used when it's important, otherwise, you don't really need it.

There you have it! All of those paragraphs and paragraphs of beautiful prose condensed down to one line. Now to move on.

2. Dialogue

A lot of any script is dialogue. It's short and squished together and doesn't use quotes.

Don't be afraid of it. Don't be afraid if it doesn't sound quite right yet. Just get it down, and be happy you don't have to worry about that "should I use said" conundrum.

Hey, look, we're 2/3rds of the way through all the basics!

Lastly, 3. Action, aka, everything else.

Now that we've eliminated dialogue and scene headings, everything else falls into an Action block. This is where any description goes. (Yes, there is still description, just not paragraph and paragraphs of it.) Any silent visuals. Any props. Any movement. It's a catchall for everything that's not a scene heading or dialogue. So when in doubt, just use an action block.

It's also a really great way to add on to your page count for Frenzy.

Does this cover every little detail of scriptwriting? No. Sometimes, you'll have odd little format questions. And in the real world, if it's odd, and you don't get it quite right, no one's going to notice because, chances are, they don't know how to write it either.

So if you've ever wanted to write a screenplay, play, radio drama, video game, comic, anything involving scripts, get off your butt, stop using excuses, join the Frenzy, and write.

I have become a terrible blogger

I have been a terrible blogger lately, and I promise, I'll write something real soon. But I've put everything else on hold right now to work on revising my novel.

Seems like revision just boils down to getting your hands dirty and doing.

(Oh, and I've revised half my book at this point. That's really exciting.)

Current Projects?

So, I wasn't sure what to write about this week. Plus, this post is already late.

As I mentioned, I've been really sick. So between work and sleeping, I haven't had time for anythign else. Being sick has not been productive for me. So I have nothing new to add to my revision talks. But I will say I'm about a month behind where I want to be with my novel. (Huh, look, that corresponds exactly with how long I've been sick.)

Of course, I've had new projects piled on to my already busy schedule. I've got my "Secret" Script Frenzy project - been keeping up with the research for that. I've got an idea buzzing around for two scripts (my ideal goal is to have three), and one of them I think I can add some personal "Katrina" symbolism too. I'm excited.

Then I've been gearing up for Script Frenzy. I'll be acting as Muncipal Leiason again this year. I love being the ML, and I love the SF community, so, again, much excitement. I'm working on coming up with exciting plans, but I haven't quite done that yet.

Since my last post, I did get to see Hugo. I really enjoyed the movie, but found it an odd interpertation of the book. Hugo is more about film history (and if you are a film buff, you'll absolutely love Hugo), than about the story. It's also really interesting Scorsese didn't utilize the images from the book, instead using his own vision.

Being sick has given me much time to catch up on lots of TV shows I've been missing, including all the of the series Face-Off. This also means that I've started a new hobby with special effects make-up. Totally unrelated to writing, but hey, so far it's been fun. I'm working toward getting back on track with my writing goals, so hopefully next week I'l have something relavant to post about!

Head Casting of our On Call Zombie

Showing and Tell - The Invention of Hugo Cabert

I'm going to start this off with an apology. This post is two weeks late, and I'm sorry. I've been really sick and am just starting to get on the mend. Please forgive my inconsistancies.

Working at a library gives me interesting insight into book popularity. I always know when a movie is based on a book, even when it doesn't seem as obvious. The movie Hugo is based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabert by Brian Selznick (something I didn't realize at first). I did not make it to the movie, but the popularity of Selznick's book meant you couldn't get a copy for three months. Well, the book finally came back without a reservation so I picked it up.

I read the book over the course of a day, and what I took from it (besides being a rather lovely story of a boy, some clocks, a famous filmmaker, and a mystery) was it was an ideal example of when to show and when to tell.

The adage "Show, don't tell" is know through out the writer world, and it's good advice. But sometimes, it can lead to pages of boring conversations about breakfast eating. It's better right?

Cause I'm showing, not telling? Well, sometimes telling is better.

Finding a balance between when to show and when to tell is difficult, but if you look at The Invention of Hugo Cabert, it can help figure out when the time is right.

How does Selznick's story do this? Well, over half the book is literally showing the story with illustrations. Between the illustrations bits of text are peppered, filling in the gaps between the story and the pictures, or just the dialogue the pictures can't communicate. The story doesn't reiterate the pictures with text, but rather uses the pictures to explain what the text cannot. It shows us the most important parts, and tells us the rest in a way that weaves a beautiful story.

Basically, the best parts of the book are very visual, while the less important, but still important, bits are explained. The scenes that Selznick chose to illustrate, the illustrated for a very particular reason. By looking at his choices, we can see why having those scenes visualized made the story more impactful. Then we can look at our stories, and see where we can show more and tell less, or where we can tell more and show less.