What to write?

Some writers focus on non-fiction, or fiction, or romance, or poetry.

I have no such clarity.

I like writing screenplays, but miss the ability to get inside the characters head. And I dislike the feeling I get that I'm cheating on REAL literature if I write smut like screenplays...even though I totally acknowledge that screenwriting is challenging, and worthwhile, and I love watching movies. I suppose it's just that screenwriting is guilty by association. It's guilty of all the vile things about Hollywood by association: glitz, glamour, a whole industry bent on not growing up. An industry which constantly seeks escape. I like writing screenplays but I don't want to write something which is really only appreciated if it's produced and shown to an audience.

Vs.

I love writing novels because--as my ever-so-wise friend Eric Thompson says--what you put on the page is the final product: what you put down on the page is what the reader sees. Period. End of story. No director, actors, producers, studios, and/or test audiences. Oh, sure, you'll have editors helping you form your work as you craft it, but it's largely a direct route from you to your audience. I love that. But, writing a book is easier and harder than writing a screenplay. Writing a screenplay is an exercise in economy. Writing a book, an exercise in detail.

Then there's the fact that I feel indefinitely torn and paralyzed just by having the option to write either one. I cannot choose. I don't want to choose. I don't think, ultimately, I will or that I must...but when I write one I feel like I'm being unfaithful to the other; or, perhaps, I feel like I'm spreading myself too thinly and won't complete either.

Long Time Gone

It has been a very long time since I posted here on this blog, and actually, awesomely, it was a fairly recent comment that reminded me of the fact.

This, then, is my commitment (hah, for what that's worth!) to blog here more consistently. I'd like to get in the habit of blogging here and over at my other really relevant blog (Abe's In School) at least once a week. Of course, this is on the shortlist of "things to do" along with:

1. reading all the books on my night stand
2. exercising five days a week
3. programming my own projects (rather than the stuff I'm doing for school)
4. writing every day

I'm certainly busy, but I intuitively suspect that there's room for all the above in my life, plus getting good grades and staying on top of the rest of stuff, as long as I apply myself and make a plan.

Making a plan, though, is tricky. It requires determining if I really have the necessary time, and the necessary commitment to actually do any/all of the above.

If, somehow, I managed to carry 12 credits last semester AND work full-time AND get straight-A's, then surely I have the ability to carry 16 credits AND work part-time AND get straight-A's and do all the above...and maybe join a martial arts class (I won't try to spell the martial art that has a reputation for staying out of harms way and primarily focusing on kicks and style. It starts with a T.).

I told a friend of mine how I was reading that one of Montana's most prolific western writers has become very prolific by following, rain or shine, a writing rule. Every day he writes 400 words and edits the previous days 400 words. That's it.

Everyone can write 400 words a day. Crazy thing is that, like interest, it grows exponentially. Okay, so it doesn't actually compound over time, but it does at least sum with itself daily. One day you've only got 400 words, the next 800, the next 1200, the next 1600, and pretty soon...120,000 (novel length). One-hundred-and-twenty-thousand is very doable four-hundred words a time. Okay, so it'd take 300 days to write a novel of that size at that pace, but what the hell, at least it gets done, right? If you wanna complete a novel in six months, 180 days, then you just need to increase that to 666 words a day. I'd probably round up to 670, but then, I'm superstitious (not actually).

Maybe this semester is sunk already, seeing as we're hell-bent on finals week and I AM still trying to wrap up 16 credits with > 3.50 GPA (so I can get another Dean's List letter). However, moving forward I am slowly starting to align my priorities. Every semester from here on out, I'm committed to only carrying 12-13 credits. Such a load will assist me in excelling in school and leave me the time to write, exercise, and pursue other hobbies (like music and programming).

Thanks too to those who've stopped by my blog and left comments even though there hasn't been any activity from me in quite some time. You helped remind me to come on back and restart this blog. Thank you!

Sophocles 2007 Beta vs. Final Draft 7 vs. Celtx vs. Movie Magic Screenwriter 6

As far as I can surmise, there are roughly four worthy screenwriting applications out there: Sophocles 2007 (which is currently in beta, but works quite well), Final Draft 7, Celtx, and Movie Magic Screenwriter 6 (as yet unreleased).

There are other alternatives whose niche is simply being less fully featured, harder to use, and cheaper. Hollywood Screenwriter comes to mind. Many of those OTHER programs are merely template programs--which means that they are addons to Microsoft Word, adding additional screenwriter-relevant functions. I've tried them, they blow.

If you're looking for the best cheap/free screenwriting application, you can do no better than Celtx. It's not perfect (by any means), but it looks good, and is mostly intuitive to use for writing. It formats things correctly and is a great buy at $0. It's just so hard these days to beat free.

However, Celtx is missing some of the features of pay programs. It doesn't have a page view; For those of you like me who like to see what you're writing as it would look in the context of a page, it's a feature you'd miss. It doesn't have any virtual index card functionality, and it doesn't include any sort of outliner. It's basically just a barebones screenwriting program that formats things correctly, prints, outputs in PDF, and offers an online backup feature. But, like I said, it's hard to beat free, especially when free works so well in this case.


Final Draft has, for many years, been the mack daddy of screenwriting applications. It is, without a doubt, the industry standard. However, its reign may be close to over. When a free application is available that works so well and looks so good (Celtx), and the competing pay applications are upping the ante by offering far better customer service and applications which offer more features in a better looking package, you know Final Draft is in trouble. For years it's proprietary format helped it keep its stranglehold on Hollywood production houses; but then along comes PDF. PDF was a feature that Final Draft couldn't afford to not include. Yet the inclusion of PDF export in Final Draft opened up the way for the industry to standardize on a different format other than FDR. PDF can be opened anywhere, whereas FDR requires Final Draft or, at bare minimum, the Final Draft Viewer application. True, PDF's aren't really editable. But the industry may be finding that it's cheaper and easier to just print out a PDF, make your notes in red on the margins of the script, and messenger it back to the writer (or whomever). Regardless, PDF has weakened the reign of Final Draft and their file format: FDR. Another key weakness of Final Draft is that their PDF file sizes are ridiculously huge. Could this have been an effort on their part to include a high-demand feature, while making it unattractive to use? Perhaps. Maybe I'm being paranoid.

More than anything, what will bring Final Draft down is its growing reputation for horrible customer service; horrible customer service that has the gall to charge for poor service--after users have already paid a hefty chunk of change or a glorified word processor. Final Draft no longer innovates. They're leaving the innovations to other applications like Celtx, Sophocles, and Movie Magic. They still haven't released a version of Final Draft which is fully compatible with Vista. Instead, their solution is to put up a lengthy intimidating page of solutions to common Vista problems. How professional. I hate it when developers are so far behind the times. A major windows release, and months later they still haven't done anything significant about making their application 100% compatible. Final Draft 7 was also notorious for its plethora of bugs and weird behaviors. Visually, it's unremarkable. Its look is simplistic, though that seems to be more than skin deep. The application just doesn't seem like it offers much beyond what Celtx offers--and Celtx is FREE. Yes, I'm not arguing that it doesn't have features beyond what Celtx offers, but I am arguing that the features it does have don't justify how unresponsive the company is to bugs and needed application improvements or the $200+ price difference. Most of the additional features of Final Draft aren't useful enough to be worth paying for. Final Draft's virtual index card feature is merely okay--but not nearly at the level I'd like to see. The closer an application gets to the functionality of a program called Mindola SuperNotecard, the better. In comparison to the SuperNotecard implementation though, Final Draft falls far short.

I keep trying Final Draft, thinking that maybe my memory of it doesn't do it justice, but moments later--after trying it again--I realize that my memory was accurate, and I just don't like the program. Final Draft 6 was good, but Final Draft 7 was too little too late. Final Draft 8 will have to walk on water to keep Final Draft in the game.

SOPHOCLES 2007 is a great complex program. I've been playing with the beta for a while and have been pretty impressed. Writing three shorts in it went well. There were no crashes or other unexpected behaviors. If Sophocles can be criticized for anything it is that it looks very complex. There's TONS of functionality, and it's hard to figure out how to use it all effectively. For instance, just the main screen displays the standard word processing menus (File, Edit, View, Insert...), the standard icon menus representing common commands (new document, open document, save, cut, paste...), and then the screen below that main menu is split. Both sides have tabs. The left side's tabs are scenes, characters, locations, threads, resources. On the right the tabs are: script, step, chrono, schedule, chart, relationships. There's oodles of outlining functionality, even if there isn't really a virtual index card functionality. Each side has another submenu below the tabs.

It can be a little overwhelming when you first look at it. The default view has the script on one side with the scenes/sequences/acts list on the other side. Both sides are resizeable.

Sophocles is obviously a program designed with modern computers in mind. It looks equally good on my laptop screen as well as my external monitor. The icons are well designed. They're a little on the small side, but that's appealing to me. I like it when my writing program stays out of the way as much as possible. Final Draft's icons are far to big. They take up space that could be better used to display more of the page I'm working on.

All in all, I guess I don't have many complaints about Sophocles 2007. I might suggest paring down the default view--not losing any functionality, but moving it off the main screen so that it's not as intimidating and overwhelming and cluttery. Also, maybe include a tutorial showing how all the additional functionality can make my life as a writer easier. Show me how to effectively use Relations/Charts/Schedule/Threads/etc. Make sure that every feature you put into the program is thoroughly fleshed out and works flawlessly. I'd rather have less features which work perfectly (and are useful) than tons of features which only work okay (and aren't tremendously useful).

I guess Sophocles just takes some time to get use to. It takes a while to figure out what everything does and how to use it effectively. Don't get me wrong; you can simply start writing after you open the application. That part, at least, is very intuitive and obvious. It's just everything else that Sophocles offers that could take a while to learn how to add to your repertoire as a writer. I've enjoyed using Sophocles, and these days find myself debating buying it when it leaves Beta or simply making do with Celtx.

Another application which intrigues me, which I haven't had the opportunity to try is Movie Magic Screenwriter 6. I tried Screenwriter 2000 a long time ago and wasn't impressed, but recent screenshots of this newest version look far more promising. Also, the feature list versus Final Draft is impressive. I hope to try version 6 in the next month or two. If I like it I'll write up a little review of it.

For now, Sophocles 2007 and Celtx are my two favorite screenwriting applications.

Another application which has been useful to me in writing is SuperNotecard (by Mindola software). I'm not affiliated with any of these companies. These are just my insights as a writer. My approach to software as a writer is that it should be so easy to use, and so darn helpful that I don't even realize how powerful it is and how much I'm in love with it until I'm dreaming at night and my wet dreams aren't of women, they're of my software.

IN SHORT...

Final Draft 7: Expensive, simplistic, poor reputation, not innovative, mostly words, some troubling bugs in the past. C- (not a good grade for a program costing $200+)

Sophocles 2007: Expensive, tons of features, solid program, writing is intuitive, innovative, looks good. B- (because it's not completely refined for a $200+ program)

Celtx: Cheap/free, works great for writing (very intuitive)--but otherwise limited feature set, looks good, haven't encountered any problems. B+ (I'd like it to have a few more tools for writers: an outliner, virtual index cards, reports, etc.)

Movie Magic Screenwriter 6: great feature set, hopefully it looks a LOT better than Screenwriter 2000. I'll review it if/when I have the chance.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What're they up to this week?

I've decided to spec Two and a Half Men. Not because I think I'll do it justice, but simply because I want to. At least I'll have fun shoveling shit--assuming that's all that comes out of the exercise. Obviously I'm not setting out to create crap, but, at this point, I have no illusions about being any kind of adult prodigy (if there is such a thing).


As I'm thinking about what I want my spec to be about, it occurs to me that it's a lot harder to write in the framework of characters lives but still be fresh, funny, and interesting week to week. Most shows on TV, especially sitcoms, feature characters that never really do anything major, and whom always end up exactly the same at the end of each episode.

There are books which will tell you all about this. I'll boil it down for you: people like to see the same thing week to week because it's like comfort food. Most people like to eat one or two different kinds of ice cream or junk food whenever they're in the mood for it; it's the same way with anything/everything else--TV, movies, books, whatever. People like the same ole. Oh, we all play lip service to the pleasures of "variety" but ultimately it isn't variety (for the most part) that makes us happy.

There's an additional component that makes sitcom rely heavily on characters rarely, if at all, changing. In life we're all basically the same year to year, day by day. It's frustrating to always forget where the hell you put your keys, but no matter how hard you try, most of the ways you are become set in concrete after a certain time. If you ever do change it is very slowly, and only by working very hard at it. TV, more than most story mediums reflects this aspect of reality. Think about it: did Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Joey, or Pheobe really change that much over many years that Friends was on the air? Not really. Not at all. They were essentially the same people at the end as they were in the beginning. Yet we stayed with them for ten years, breathlessly anticipating each weeks adventures in the land of Friends.

Two and a Half Men is no exception--or at least it shouldn't be. Alan, Jake, and Charlie really haven't changed much if any. Jake is only growing up physically, not really internally.

Keeping all this in mind, it becomes apparent why so many of the Friends episodes were entitled simply "The One Where Ross Likes Bananas" (or whatever). Since your characters cannot change that much, or effectively at all, in the course of an episode, your story must really be about nothing major. Or, if it's a major subject, it must be handled in a minor way. If someone's died, you have to make it no more important than Alan taking up bowling to meet chicks. You can't have anyone (at least in the core cast) coming to any really big life realizations. The fact that Two and a Half Men is already starting to head this direction (in the finale of the 4th season) gives me the impression that the show may be near the end of it's lifespan. Perhaps the showrunners are tired of the show, running out of steam, or some such.

Regardless, for the purposes of my spec, I have to come up with something minor which I can make a big deal about but which won't change any character's life, or something major which I can make light up and avoid changing a character's life.

I have to put myself in my characters POV, drop into their lives, and voyeuristically get a peak at what they're up to this week; something trite, meaningless, irrelevant overall...like a new pet or a hygiene problem.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Me

Me.

I, too, don't want to write today

For the inspiration behind my post, look over here.



I, too, often don't feel like writing; it's not--as the author of that other blog post mentions--something that I can't live without. I'm another person who wants to write, who adores having written, who thinks about writing and ideas and character more than I think of anything else, and I've even written some significant things (five feature screenplays, three shorts, 10k words of a novel...); but I am still not a person who can't imagine a day without writing. Like the guy at Indecorous, I struggle, daily, with writing. For me it's hard. I believe I'm talented, and I believe I can write some pretty entertaining stuff, but that doesn't make it any easier for me.



Writing is what I want to do though. For no apparent reason it's the only thing that really appeals to me. Is this because I'm masochistic--maybe just a little bit? Is this because it is my "calling" which I'm expected to excavate and develop one tedious step at a time? I don't know. All I know is that of all my talents and skills (I programmed for a while and was considered "brilliant" at it, I can sing, I can play the violin and guitar, and so on) writing is the one that has never gone away. I'm 29 now, so it's had more than enough opportunities.



I'm also at the point in life where I feel like I should be doing something "real." I feel like I should be buckling down and maybe getting a college degree. It's a thought. But then I remember that I've tried college once...no, twice. Or was it three times? Yeaaaah, I think it was. Scratch that idea. Whenever I try to bring myself to do anything else, I feel a sense of nausea. In addition to the overwhelming urge to hurl, I also procrastinate the other things I try to bring myself to do. Procrastination by itself isn't a sign I shouldn't be doing X, I suppose, since I also procrastinate writing, but with everything else when I honestly think about how I feel about it, I feel bored. Lifeless. Dead. The prospective of doing anything else bores me to tears and makes me feel sick.



Life, for me, most involve writing in some capacity. That much is obvious. Am I abnormal in that writing is hard for me, but it's what I want to do? Or is that far more normal than those who claim to enjoy every moment writing?



I've decided that my "problem" is one of lack of focus. While it runs counter to my nature to focus on one thing entirely, I think it just might be what I need to begin realizing my potential. Oh, there are books which suggest that YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING (!) you want to do (e.g., Refuse to Choose). I think such books are bullshit. Why? Because one looks at what we know about those who achieve, one finds that they did it by focusing almost exclusively on ONE area of interest.



More relevantly, I've tried balancing all my plethora of interests. I've tried cultivating my drawing skills, tried studying Spanish, tried practicing music every day, tried learning to program in other languages, tried learning to be a medical transcriptionist; none of my trying did me an ounce of good.



Next I'm going to try focusing. I'm going to be hardcore about it, too. I'm going to restrict 95% of my online blog reading to those blogs which focus on writing--and, more particularly, TV writing since that's what I want to do. I'm going to forgive myself for not tapping my potential in other areas. This will be harder than it sounds. My parents have always given me a very hard time (withholding financial assistance in times of need) for not "finishing anything." This approach will give them more ammunition for the next time I need their help. Hopefully I'll never need their help again. When I was down and out after my divorce, broke, and in shock after being "diagnosed" with Bipolar II (even though that diagnosis later proved to be completely bogus), they took me in and paid for me to take an online course in medical transcription. Medical transcription pays decent, and it was a nice thing of them to do, but I hated the course. It was 100% memorization. Then, once you finish the memorization part, you get into the transcription part which suddenly expects you to have a working knowledge of terms and be able to distinguish one from another in a string of gobbledygook spoken by a doctor with an impenetrable Indian accent.



They probably won't see it this way, but paying for that course was worthwhile. Yes, it didn't give me the "skill" they were hoping it would, but it helped me to regain my footing. It's nice knowing others believe in you, support you, and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.



I'm gonna forgive myself for wasting their gift; and I'm gonna forgive myself for not learning and doing everything else I wanted to. I'm going to wrap up the few projects I agreed to do which are in other categories of interest (like the one for my sister programming a website for her). Once those projects are wrapped up, I'm simply not going to accept any more projects like them. It's not fair to myself to burden myself with all kinds of other crap which I don't, really, ultimately, want to do. If it doesn't fit with my core driving motativation (writing) then I won't do it.



Becoming a professional writer is difficult enough without diluting my time, energy, and focus on other things which are demanding all by themselves.



Maybe if I am successful in focusing my life--in making my life all about writing--then maybe I'll discover one morning that I actually can't wait to write, and can't imagine a day without writing.



Or I won't; either way I'll still end up one hell of a writer.

Perhaps the best fit is TV

I can write "long form"--though putting fiction or non-fiction in such a context bores me to death--I just don't like to.



I don't enjoy just how steeped in all the details a writer has to be when crafting novels or anything over 60 pages single spaced. When I realized that, and added into the equation my love of movies, it was obvious that screenwriting was a far better fit for me.



However, as I've written screenplays, I've found myself unhappy with some of the specifics of feature screenwriting. While it demands a much greater brevity--which I like--and is far more visual--yet another good thing--it tends to be a lot of work for a two hour shot of characters I love, in a world I've worked hard to create.



Enter screen left: TV writing. Writing for TV requires the brevity of feature screenwriting, but it allows a writer to spend a LOT more time with the characters he loves, in the world he's worked so hard to create.



The odds of success are no better than they are for any other kind of writing, but odds rarely expose why they are what they are. Like the saying goes, "in Hollywood no one ever fails, they just give up." To me I read that as meaning that if you refuse to accept defeat, you'll eventually succeed. Granted, while I think that you need unrelenting determination to succeed, I also think you need at least one of the following: passion, talent, or skill. Skill is not to be confused with talent. Skill is the ability that some have to create by the book. Those who have skill but no talent lack the nuance and finesse that those with talent supply, but they can get the job done.



So the question now is, what do I have? Do I have passion, unrelenting determination, skill, and/or talent? I don't know right now. I guess we'll discover what I have as the future unfolds.



I remember reading, somewhere, that the whole "life must be balanced" idea is a myth; that everyone who ever accomplished much of anything only did so by NOT being balanced at all. In every case of accomplishment and success, those who have achieved have done so by focusing almost to a fanatical level on their area of interest or expertise. Einstein didn't become Einstein by trying to be a balanced person: learning equal amounts of various subjects and trying to juggle multiple passions and interests. As far as I know, Einstein became Einstein by focusing on his area of interest in science 100%. His focus was all-consuming.



What I've read about those who are successful artistically suggests the same thing. Those who are successful in TV or film don't spend much time playing XBox, or traveling (strictly for fun), or watching tons of TV (unless it's essentially for "work"), or playing sports, or being very well-rounded. Sure, they might play lip-service to the concept, but most of them have become so successful because they fought for their dream with such passion that it excluded the possibility of having the normal American lifestyle (watch TV 8 hours a day, work 8 hours a day, sleep 8 hours a day). They might struggle to have a relatively healthy family life in addition to their work in TV or film. But, somehow, most of them are satisfied. Most seem to feel that what they do is meaningful; that deep down part of themselves that yearns to live a purposeful life is at peace doing what they do.



What that in mind I've tried to become more focused. I've started caring less about being a "balanced" person, and started caring more about being a person completely focused on writing--and, more specifically, TV writing. I'm trying to get to the point where 95% of everything I do online is directly related to writing. Allowable activities are reading other writers on-topic blogs, research, and the like. I'm rereading those screenwriting books I've already read, and reading new ones. I've bought books on the art and craft of TV writing, and am studying them intently. I'm watching TV shows that I really enjoy--because those are the shows that I'll be specing.



I'm trying to cut the fat out of my life and get toned in my approach to doing this: to making a career as a TV writer a reality.



Yesterday I watched and broke down the pilot for Two and a Half Men.



Today I watched the second episode, and then the last episode of the most recent season (the 3rd, which just wrapped up). Today I was looking to see how the tone, characters, and scope of the show had evolved.



Tomorrow I'll look for more clues as to where the show is now, and where it might be heading.



Perhaps the next day I'll have a great idea for a spec and start breaking it down.



If I truly care about doing this, and give it everything I've got then even long odds won't ultimately stop me.



And that is why I've named this blog The Relentless Writer; because I think that being relentless is perhaps the most essential ingredient of success: mine, yours, anyone's.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A different kind of pirate

Disney's out there giving pirates a good name, making 'em appear all lovable and funny.

Well, I'm here crafting an entirely different tale of pirates, maidens, and really really bad villians. I consider my tale to be a story of loss, love, and redemption.

I've been batting it around for, oh, something like ten years now. At first it was a story about fate pulling together two diametric opposites into a conflict of good versus evil. I didn't want to tell a story about Bruce Willis being awesome and spanking evil yet again. Instead I pitted a vulnerable, naive, pure woman against a monster of a pirate lord. How's that for an apparently losing battle? See, I wanted to tell a tale of how emotional strength, purity, goodness, and fortitude can conquer any kind of physical strength or external show of violence.

What's more, I wanted to make my tale epic through making the conflict bigger than two characters. I wanted them to be mortal, fallible beings sitting in for Gods that couldn't put on mortal form, yet still needed to resolve their differences--in a sense anyway.

However, there's a really fine line between unbelievable coincidence (that my audience won't buy into) and a tale of mythical proportions and execution (which they will). I discovered that the more I thought about it, I was afraid that merely pitting good versus evil seemed shallow. Sure, it's a decent enough idea. But it really lacked a really deep emotional response. I couldn't imagine watching it and really being torn up about what might (or would) happen. I'd give the idea as it stood an 8/10.

Then I considered another possibility, one which I'm afraid has its own flaw. What if my good character and my evil character were friends from childhood who, as they grew, changed into these characters who have a shared past and friendship...but inherent conflict in the present. In some ways it's more poetic, and in others, less. On the one hand, anything nasty that one does to the other will squeeze our hearts all that much more; on the other, the premise may seem all that much more far-fetched. I get the sense that people (myself included) are tired of the "oh, you'll never guess...Bob and Sally, who're so perfect/imperfect for each other, actually know each other from a long time ago. Imagine that!" It gets old. LOST is rapidly reducing the public's tolerance for this type of thing.

But I do love the idea of telling a tale of how two people who apparently loved each other as kids grow into diametric opposites. One bad/emotionally screwed up, and the other good/pure. It's the ultimate character arc--180 degrees.

If I tell that tale, though, then I have a much more emotional movie, at the expense of the epic quality. Hmmm....

It's all I want to do...

All I really want to do is write! I don't want to program solutions to problems which I see the writing world having--or problems of any other sort either. I work at an FBO (a private air terminal) and see numerous ways that software and technology could be useful in increasing efficiency, and avoiding mistakes. While thinking about those solutions is entertaining, I don't actually want to invest years of my life into creating those solutions...even if saying so is equivalent to tearing up a winning lottery ticket.

What I want to do is write. I don't want to spend the time I could've spent writing on dreaming up solutions to what's blocking me. Yet, I also feel blocked--like I haven't found the right tools which I need to keep me from being overwhelmed by details; tools which, I hope, would conform to my thought process.

I suppose I feel like I do best when I focus. I'm not sure I'm that great at straddling widely divergent subjects, investing in both, and reaping appropriate rewards. What ends up happening is that I feel torn, dissatisfied, and paralyzed.

Is one of these a distraction from the other one? Is my "dream" of writing a mere excuse not to face the hardship of doing what I really love (i.e., potentially programming?), or is programming and thinking up solutions to problems an excuse not to write?

To some extent I think I'd have an easier time writing back when there were very limited tools available to the writer--at much greater cost, and inconvenience. Think about the days when the tools of writing had to be virtually handcrafted. Think about the days when you were lucky to have a pen, ink, a paper to write on. The ideas, then, were cheap. It was the tools which were rare. Today, ideas continue to be cheap, but the tools are plentiful. Because of this, writers can spend all their writing time evaluating possible solutions to areas in which their writing is hamstrung.

I've tried whiteboards, my Treo, index cards, virtual index cards (i.e., Mindola SuperNotecard), mindmapping, OneNote, Word, Storyview, Final Draft, and so on. I've even tried beating the story out of my skull with rocks. Nothing works. If anyone who reads this knows of something truly revolutionary I haven't tried yet, let me know.

I don't need a scriptwriting or word processing program, I need a tool which helps me outline, organize thoughts, and especially structure the whole mess. I love timeline/card functionality, but it has to be really intuitive, flexible, and useful.

As an idea of what I'm looking for, I'm pretty impressed by Scrivener (for Mac, unfortunately, I have a PC) and I've been impressed by Liquid Story Binder (though some of its functionality is rough).

The system of "magic"

So, I've been thinking about two things regarding The Magician Upstairs: The system of magic, and the nature of the story.

See, the story I want to tell--as I've discussed in earlier posts--is that of how magic comes into the world for the first time, but more importantly, how magic comes into the life of one, not so special, guy. The more I think about it the more I want to tell a story about the magic IN life, the magic that has ALWAYS existed. I think that the best way to tell such a story is by telling a story about "magic." But, I'm afraid that People in the Know would say that such a story isn't commercial enough; it's almost a drama (as I imagine it). But, then I think of how Charlie Kaufman has managed to create such entertaining scripts/films/stories out of, seemingly, uncommercial material. I mean, take Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind--I loved the film. It was sweet, melancholy, thoughtful stuff, which held me riveted for the duration. But, on paper, as a logline, it would've seemed...uncommercial to say the least. After all, it's the story of a guy who can't stand to remember the love he's lost, so he has his memory erased...but while undergoing the procedure, realizes how much even the memory of the love and the associated pain means to him. He fights back--struggling to retain his memory, to retain the pain of lost love.

The danger I'm sure that story faced, in its inception, was of others telling him that maybe he'd started the story too early. That he should cut out all the drama of the main characters human condition and get right to the fight to retain his memory. However, it's the human condition of the story that makes it so poignant. It's the fact that we love the characters, and feel like our happiness is inseparably connected to theirs that makes us care when Carrey fights to retain the pain in the face of impending oblivion.

Such is the tone I desire for my Magician Upstairs story. I want to establish, poignantly, the human condition of my character; a character who doesn't see himself as worth much to society, a character who feels lost in the face of our high-speed world, a character who doesn't see the magic of life around him, a character who has no place...and yet, a character who wants to have meaning and purpose, a character who wants to fit in--to have the house, white picket fence, wife, 2.5 kids, a dog, a character at the end of his rope--as so many of us feel on a day to day basis.

I want to honor our lives in my story; I want to somehow present the nature of our mundane human existence in a bewitching, interesting, entertaining way--like Kaufman does; I want to reveal the magic of life, through a story of how a character gaining "magic" discovers, to his (and our--as the audience) great joy and satisfaction.

I don't ever want to settle for writing stories which are trite. I guess that's a needless worry, given my passion for stories that matter. I guess my fear is of expressing the power of my ideas in a less than relevant, poignant manner. I fear not doing them justice.

My second concern is how to represent the system of magic, and how to reveal the magic in life. My current idea is relatively good, I think. Basically it boils down to this: all of life: every creature, object, person, and action is tied connected. This connection looks kind of like a silver filament between everything; a web, if you will. These filaments are constantly being created, disrupted, and manipulated on a daily basis. A hunter ends a life by severing the filament bonding the creature's life to the whole of nature. A person falls in love with another person through the creation, and artful strumming of the newly created filament.

Our main characters power is essentially the manipulation of these filaments. And here's the kicker, his "power" requires everything else. Without others (plants, animals, people, objects, nature, life, the whole of our existence) his power is useless.

I'm thinking, as I've already mentioned, that these filaments are like strings. "Magic" is worked by plucking them--singly or in chords, at various places along the filament. You can disrupt by severing or creating discord, create by harmonizing.

I love this idea because it lends a musical and strongly auditory element to the story. In such a film, the music would be essential, rather than merely used for atmospheric effect. Which begs the question: how would a score fit into the film? Would it have to do without a score, period? Or, could a score be crafted to accentuate, and strengthen the underlying themes of magic through the playing of the filaments?

What's the problem?

Well, in some regards, an idea like mine treads on territory already trod by The Matrix films--at least in the sense that there's something underlying reality. But, I guess that territory was trod even before The Matrix. Science has long known that everything in life is more arrangement of atoms. I guess the Matrix represented the concept as code, and I represent it as musical filaments which are connected.

Would my visual representation of the filaments feel like too much of a knock-off to an audience, though? I worry about that.

Work begins on The Magician Upstairs

Tonight I wrote the first pages I've written on a script in almost two
years! I guess you could say that I've found a "muse." :) Or, at least
the muse free'd whatever in me was incapable of figuring out the
beginning of my idea The Magician Upstairs.

I wrote four pages:
four relatively decent pages--especially considering how long it's been
since I put fingers to keyboard and wrote ANYTHING.

It's a dark,
challenging, magical script: being, as it is, about the rising of magic
into our modern day world. I'll consider posting portions of it for my
friends to read; or, you can ask me about reading it and I'll give you
a copy as it progresses.

My new script: The Magician Upstairs

It's still in the fermenting phase but it's essentially about a young
man in our modern world who doesn't seem to have much of anything
tangible going for him, but who finds himself one day possessing magic--and all it's incumbent complications (the government wants him--for
various reasons, his friends/family are afraid of him, and employers
aren't too thrilled either). Not only that, but he has to somehow
figure out how to use it. He struggles against using it but finds that
if he doesn't use it then it overwhelms him, causing
chaos/destruction/embarrassment in his life. He has no idea why he has
this power, nor does he want it. At some point it becomes obvious why
he, in particular, received magic, and for what purpose. I just haven't
decided what that purpose will be...does he know someone who will need
saving, who's continued existence is important to the future of the
planet? or, does is he to play a pivotal role in a coming war against
an alien race? I don't know.

Obviously the idea is young yet; but it's getting there.

Review: My Super Ex-Girlfriend

Like Failure to Launch, My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a movie that takes a cool concept, plays with it, and ultimately lets it die a horrible death. Also like Failure to Launch, My Super Ex-Girlfriend is essentially a collection of loosely related skits with no cohesive soul. Some people think that high concepts like those are doomed to failure, to abuse, to be mere footnotes in film history (and probably not even that: mere statistics in some past box office report is more likely); I disagree. I think that films like Batman Begins and Spiderman 2 show that high concept premise, great cast, high profile director, and millions of dollars in the budget doesn't have to produce steaming turds. More often than not steaming turds are what we get--even with all those components--but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Failure to Launch could've been a classic rom com, but it wasn't; same with My Super Ex-Girlfriend. My Super Ex-Girlfriend had multiple failures to it: structure of the story, failure to develop it's super-hero mythology (essentially giving the G-Girl--Uma Thurman's character--whatever powers are convenient to the scene and an arch-nemesis who has no powers at all, and is apparently not really all that villainous), and in the end it abandons even the remaining tatters of its soul. Just another movie I'd like to remake someday, and do it right. It felt like it wanted to be about how every guy might think they'd want a super-hero girlfriend, but how in reality they're still just people too...but with much more capacity to do damage when they get jealous, possessive, etc. And how, ultimately, we all just want that special someone who brings sunshine into our day, even if they're just a normal, average human being like us. It failed, among many other reasons, because it focused far too much on all the supposedly funny (but really more sad and pathetic) things that G-Girl does to her ex-boyfriend after he breaks up with her. After a while I started getting tired of all the random evilness this supposedly good character was doing to get even with her ex-boyfriend. I guess there's so much inherently wrong with the film that I can't even pin down where to start. Maybe if I get my hands on the script it'll be more apparent. *sigh* Another one bites the dust.

The Forest For The Trees

I've begun reading a book entitled The Forest for the Trees. It's written by a big-time editor turned agent, and directed at writers. But this blog as about SCREENwriting, you say? That's true, but the book applies to all manner of writing. One portion of the book early on discusses the importance of form. The author is convinced from her extensive experience that all writers have a particular form--or, at most, two--which they are skilled at, which they can truly excel with. She also believes that writers only have talent in one or two genres. She does acknowledge that there are the occasional writers who seem to be able to do everything well, but suggests that they are exceedingly rare. Both of those ideas caught my attention because I've been struggling with related questions for a while. Is it possible that screenplays aren't my format? Anything is possible. She suggests that the way to determine what your forms and genres are is to consider what you've ever written, what you love to read, what you write about in your journal/blogs/emails, etc. Be brutally, and utterly, honest with yourself. If you realize that you love reading and writing about nature then perhaps your form and genre are nature essays. DO NOT concern yourself with what is currently selling and "hot." That's her advice, not mine, though it makes loads of sense to me. The reality is that if you're meant to write nature essays then you'll write them far better than you'd be able to do a novel. The author points out relevant examples of books recently released who would've never seen the light of day if their authors hadn't ignored current trends. Books like How the Irish Saved Civilization, and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, don't seem like obvious best-seller material. Anyway, it's a helpful book and entertaining read.

Or, I'll write something else...

One responder to my most recent post suggested that I just let loose with my Stealing Eve idea. They suggested that my own pure approach would make rough similarities moot. I've decided that I agree. The truth is probably that there are thousands upon thousands--probably millions--of scripts in Hollywood, which, if we as screenwriters were aware, we might find that many of our "original" ideas are not as original as they seem at first blush. The truth is that many ideas have already been done--produced--in one form or another, and still many others have been written. Let us not worry about treading on familiar ground, such worry would only paralyze our capacity to write. Instead, let us craft the best version of our every tale, unleash it into the wilds, and hope for the best. If nothing else they'll make excellent writing samples. I hear that rewrite work pays uber-bucks (moolah, greenbacks, etc.).

More relevent to this posts title, I had breakfast with a good (and brilliant) friend of mine the day before. We hashed over ideas--his own and mine--and came up with some stuff I'm anxious to begin on. I'd forgotten about my idea for a delicious romantic comedy: one which focuses upon the challenge of finding happiness, true love, and the perfect anti-depressant. I call it Knowing Abby. Charming and intriguing. There were a couple other ideas discussed, but I don't recall the specifics without my notes. The only problem with my Knowing Abby idea is that I have a strong emotional theme--which, I guess, is good...especially for a romance--but no structure yet. The emotional core/meaning of things is what I'm really good at, or at least it's what comes easiest.