Time to Write

Whatever your writing is, let it be that (a lesson I learned the hard way)

I created a surreal sitcom for which I wrote a spec script not so long ago. A friend got it to a writer/producer who said he thought it was very funny, but he couldn't identify enough with the characters and I should change it to make it more like a current comedy series about the challenges of a working class single parent.

There was a time when I probably would have scrambled to try to do that, but I won't, and here's why:

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

What I mean is that while it's always possible to improve a piece of writing, it's a waste of time to change it to try to make it something that it isn't. Usually, the result is a compromise that won't please anybody. And I have the stories to prove it...

AN EXPERIENCE I CAN (ALMOST) LAUGH ABOUT NOW

Once upon a time I wrote a romantic comedy TV movie that the wonderful producer Stan Margulies wanted to make (he produced the original "Roots' mini-series).

We took it to one network and they said they wanted to do it with a particular actress. The next week, it came out that this actress had a drug problem, and the network backed out.

Stan and I took it to another network. They said they loved it, they wanted only one change: "Someone should be trying to kill the young woman."

What?! 

We pointed out that it's a romantic comedy. "Oh yeah, don't lose that," the network exec said. "Just add the thriller element."

Stan and I had a lunch of pasta and lots of wine. LOTS of wine. We talked ourselves into trying it. I hated every minute of writing that version.

I hated every minute of writing that version.

We took it back to the network exec. He loved it. However, his boss, who made the final decision, didn't, and the network didn't make it.

We'll never know whether the top guy would have gone ahead with the original if we'd been able to get it to him directly, but I learned a lesson. 

IF IT FAILS, LET IT FAIL FOR THE RIGHT REASON

In the sitcom, naturally I want my characters to be plausible within the world I've created, but the series is about the strangeness of everyday life, as reflected in fantasies and events that, while grounded in the greater reality, are not commonplace everyday events.

Giving the characters the kind of emotional reality that might attach to a single parent struggling to make ends meet would be incompatible with the basic idea of the series.

The series may or may not be any good, but if it fails I want it to fail on its own terms. 

It calls to mind a quote that has been attributed to various people, including Luther Price:

"Be what you is, not what you ain't; 'cause if you ain't what you is, you is what you ain't."

I share this in case it's helpful when you get advice about your writing. 

Ask yourself whether the change would make it a better version of what it is, or would it force it to try to be something it ain't.

If it's the latter, forget it, no matter how much wine you've had.

(Come to think of it, this might be a good practice regardless of what the advice is about.)

 

Art is theft...in a good way

Here's a brief and delightful animation from Daniel Cordero that might just refresh your view of creativity:

Art is Theft from daniel cordero on Vimeo.

The Real Reason ebooks aren't selling as well as they used to

You may have heard that print books are doing better than they were, compared to printed books. 

Hooray, maybe people really do prefer the feel of a book in their hand, and being able to turn pages physically.

That may be true, but there's another reason, probably the primary one.

Publishers' greed.

Here's an example: today I was looking for a book by Bertrand Russell. On Amazon.co.uk the paperback edition of his "History of Western Philosophy" costs £17.99. This book is 792 pages long, so the cost of printing and shipping it is considerable.

The ebook version would be considerably cheaper, right? Half that price, maybe?

Nope. It's £17.03. 

Consider that for a moment: it suggests that creating a digital product costs only 96 pence less than printing, storing, and shipping (from the printing works to the distribution points) a 792-page book. 

There are even times that an ebook costs MORE than a printed book. For instance today on Amazon Ruby Wax's "A Mindfulness Guide for the Frazzled" costs £3.99 for the printed book, but £4.99 for the ebook. OK, this is due to a promotion for the paperback on Amazon; at other sites, the prices of the paperback is £7.31 and £6.99, and the official price is £8.99. Even so, they lowered the price on the printed book but not on the ebook.

One more example, a current best-seller, "Tom Kerridge's Dopamine Diet." The ebook is £11.69 on Amazon; the hardcover version is £13.00.  If you know how much it costs to produce hardcover books, especially those with color pages, will know that the difference between that and a digital version is much greater.

In the self-publishing world, the difference between the digital and the print version (if the author bothers with a print version) more accurately reflects the difference in costs.

I think publishers are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, if you want a book on the best-seller lists that is published by a traditional publisher, you have no choice; but especially for non-fiction books, people will turn more and more to self-published ebooks. (Many self-published authors are underpricing their books, but that's a topic for another article.) And that means traditional publishers' short-term gains are going to turn into long-term losses.

 

If you want your 2017 to be different...