Time to Write

I'm an info addict. Are you?

Science proved what we probably suspected all along: you can get addicted to information in the same way you can get addicted to junk food.

ScienceDaily reports: 

"A new study by researchers at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business has found that information acts on the brain's dopamine-producing reward system in the same way as money or food.

'To the brain, information is its own reward, above and beyond whether it's useful,' said Assoc. Prof. Ming Hsu, 'And just as our brains like empty calories from junk food, they can overvalue information that makes us feel good but may not be useful -- what some may call idle curiosity.'

''The way our brains respond to the anticipation of a pleasurable reward is an important reason why people are susceptible to clickbait,' he said. 'Just like junk food, this might be a situation where previously adaptive mechanisms get exploited now that we have unprecedented access to novel curiosities.'

I've read articles about people going on a digital diet and recently I was forced to go on a digital semi-diet for a couple of weeks. The place I was staying didn't have wi-fi, you had to go to a clubhouse to access the internet. It wasn't a far walk, but a lot more effort than picking up a close-at-hand iPhone or iPad. 

Now it made more sense to actually finish the task I was doing before going to the clubhouse to check email and headlines.

I didn't have withdrawal symptoms, but I did notice one big effect: I got more writing done.

Lots more. 

When I was able to get back on the internet there was a definite "Ahhh!" once I was able to snack on all the unimportant information featured on my favorite sites.

Yep, it's time for me to consider one of those apps that lets you shut down your access to the internet for a length of time you set. 

What about you?

 

 

 

The Writing Payoff You May Not Be Expecting

We tend to think the payoff for writing a book is getting it into the hands of readers, and the payoff for writing screenplays is seeing your work on a screen, small or large. That's not wrong, especially if you're hoping for a financial payoff. 

But novelist Anne Lamott has another angle to consider, one that I feel more connected to these days:

“I just try to warn people who hope to get published that publication is not all that it is cracked up to be. But writing is. Writing has so much to give, so much to teach, so many surprises. That thing you had to force yourself to do — the actual act of writing — turns out to be the best part.” 

I know exactly the reaction I would have had to this quote before I had anything published or produced: "Easy for you to say, Anne Lamott! You've had books published and you're famous(ish)! Don't worry, I'll deal with the disappointments if they happen, just let somebody produce one of my scripts--or at least buy one!"

I'm not suggesting that you should lose any of that drive or ambition--it's necessary for a writing career. I only want to say there's more than that, and the joy of writing can get lost if you're putting all of your focus on worrying about what happens to it afterward.

The reason I feel more connected to the rewards of writing for its own sake is that over the course of a difficult 18 months, health-wise (much better, now, thanks), I still had the drive to write, even if only short films and scenes that I wrote without thinking about whether they would ever be submitted anywhere, much less produced or published.

Now I'm getting back to writing scripts for which I have commercial ambitions, but with a greater appreciation of what a friendly, healing presence writing can be.

 

 

 

The scourge of dishonest writing

When I was a student of Danny Simon (Neil's brother and a very successful TV writer) one of his maxims was, "Don't go for the joke!" 

This may seem like strange advice from a comedy writer, but what he meant was that you should stay true to the situation and the characters. If you have them say or do something they wouldn't logically do, you're sacrificing them for the sake of a joke. If you do that a lot, you end up with characters nobody believes. A high price to pay for a cheap laugh.

I was reminded of this the other day when I watched a few minutes of a US TV series called 911. It's on the Fox network, which says, "The show draws from real-life, high-pressure experiences of first responders who regularly face heart-stopping situations that are often unpredictable, intense, and uplifting at the same time." 

One of the situations was an old guy who was working on an old car that somehow sucked his head, or maybe just his beard, into the innards of the engine. A woman who may have been his wife or daughter calls 911 and says the car is eating the man and starts to talk about his relationship to the vehicle, and when the responders show up she tells them the car is finally getting her revenge...this is while somebody she presumably loves has his head stuck and she doesn't know how seriously he could be hurt. 

Yes, it's comic relief, designed to give the audience a breather from the more tragic plots, which is fine, but it was so obviously written to be a zany moment that it cheapened the entire enterprise.

The writer might say, "Hey, there are all kinds of crazy people who say just about anything." That's true, and if you've established that the character is like that before the moment of maximum craziness, it works. But in this case, this was the first time we'd seen these people.

I'm using a comedic example but you'll find plenty of examples in drama as well, with people saying or doing things solely because that's what's needed in order to advance the plot. It's not only dishonest, it's also lazy. 

If in doubt, it's useful to ask, "Would a human being really say this in this situation?" If the answer is, 99% of the time, no, then it's worth rewriting. 

 

You DO have time to write!

There’s no question about it, even though technology was supposed to make life easier and give us more time, the demands on us are escalating.

Making the time to do something that is important to you, like writing the screenplay or novel you’ve been thinking about for ages, is a bigger challenge than ever…but it IS possible.

Here are three ways to help you get started:

Consciously decide what you are NOT going to do anymore.

You’re already doing something every hour of the day. There’s no way to turn a day into 25 hours just because you want to now spend an hour a day writing.

That means you have to decide what it is you do now for an hour a day that you will stop doing.

Some likely candidates are watching TV, surfing the web, housework, errands, laundry, and hanging out with people out of habit rather than because you enjoy it. You may be thinking, “Wait--the laundry has to be done, so do errands! That brings us to strategy number two:

Find ways to delegate some of the things you are doing now.

• Can your spouse or kids take over some of the chores you are doing now?
  
  
• Can you hire a high school or college student to run errands for a you a few hours on the weekend?
  
  
• Can you hire somebody online? (There’s a great site at www.Fiverr.com that lists what people will do for $5 (or more). There’s a UK version, Fivesquid.com, and you can use either one. There is an amazing variety of services on offer. For instance, I’ve used it recently to get somebody to transcribe 10 minutes of an audio interview recording and to create original music for the introduction to a podcast I’m planning.

Barter or exchange services

For example, if you and your neighbor both have kids, you might swap babysitting services to give each of you a free afternoon. 

The bottom line

At the end of your life, do you want to think back and say, “Well, I never got around to writing the stories I was passionate about, but my kitchen sure was spotless!”? Or, “I could have written a script that would have had an impact on the world, but then again going bowling with the gang from work every Friday night was fun even though George from HR got on my nerves and my feet always hurt from wearing those stupid bowling shoes”?

The time to start doing something about your dream is now, and you CAN make the time to make it come true.

Writers (and others): Watch your language!

On your road to success as a screenwriter, you’re going to have to convince a lot of people that what you’re doing is worthwhile. The same is true for almost any other profession.

If you're a screenwriter, how you speak to agents, financiers, actors, studio or network people and even how you speak to yourself can make a big difference to the results you get.

Nick Kemp is a Neuro Linguistic Programming trainer who has worked in schools to help students and teachers be more effective.  In an article published in the magazine ReSource he reveals a simple change in language that creates positive effects.

He noticed that in interviews with staff, many of them used phrases like "I’ll try to..."  or "We'll aim to..." or "Hopefully..." or "All being well..." 

All of these imply that failure is possible (perhaps even that it's likely). When he had them switch to definite statements like "I will..."  it changed their thinking and their whole state in the classroom. 

Listen to how you speak about things you are about to undertake, especially when dealing with agents, producers, actors, directors—anybody who may hire you to write a script or with whom you might collaborate. Do you use qualifiers that suggest you may not/will not succeed?

If you find it difficult to be aware of this as it goes on, try tape recording yourself for a few hours. 

You might want to extend this to how you respond to questions like, "How are you?" or "How's it going?" Do you say (as I'm guilty of doing), "Not too bad"?

It would be better to reply, "Going well," or "Fine, thanks" --at least to those people who aren't actually interested in a factual account of our challenges (which is most people).  

Switch to definite statements that presuppose success, and notice the difference in how you feel, how you carry out your work, and the level of interest you get from others.

 

Sneaky hybrid movie: Rolling Thunder's little white lies

Martin Scorses's film of a Bob Dylan concert, "Rolling Thunder Revue," looks like a typical music documentary, but as Indiewire points out, it's not.

Fictional characters are mixed in with real people in order to provide context...and also just for fun.

The little white lies include:

• Sharon Stone claiming an affair with Dylan;
• The reminiscences of retired politician Jack Tanner (actually actor Michael Murphy who played that role in HBO series "Tanner 88)";
• The testimony of filmmaker Stephan van Drop (actually actor Martin von Haselberg);
• The memories of concert promoter Jim Gianopulos (who is actually the CEO of Paramount Pictures but was never involved with promoting music events).

While I do like Dylan's music, what interests me from the perspective of screenwriting is the film's blend of factual material with fiction--maybe that's why the film's full title is, "Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese."

Still from "Rolling Thunder Revue." (Not really, just an image I like)

Can you tell your screenplay story in six words?

Screenwriter Scott Meyers suggests boiling the story of your screenplay down into six words. If you can't do that, he says, you don't have a story.

Sometimes I really resist the idea that everything should be simple, but he has a point. Obviously, six words will not encapsulate the totality of your script but especially if you tend to get lost in your story sometimes, this can be a good tool.

Let's try some examples. See if you can tell right away which films I'm describing:

Son takes over family business: the mafia

Racist driver. Black passenger. Southern roadtrip. (I may be cheating, road trip probably should be two words.)

He's down, she's up: love possible?

Or, for a classic play: Father murdered. Son's revenge consumes all.

I imagine you got those: The Godfather trilogy, Green Book, A Star is Born, Hamlet.

Admittedly, these descriptions don't reveal that Michael doesn't want to be the new godfather, or that a friendship develops between the driver and the passenger, or that the 'down' and 'up' refer to fame and musical careers. And six words can't do justice to Hamlet. However, these do all identify the core elements of each plot.

IT'S ABOUT THE PLOT

Someone said that plot is what the story is about, and theme is what the story is REALLY about.

For instance, Macbeth's plot is the series of murders the Macbeths commit to try to make him king; the theme is the price of ruthless ambition.

Usually, your six words will be about the plot. In the example above, only the six words about Hamlet hint at the theme: that revenge can destroy the person exacting it as well as that person's target.

Don't try to make the six words reflect the theme unless that comes naturally. Of course, it's your execution of the plot that largely determines the quality of the script, but you have to have a solid plot before you can execute it.

HOW TO USE THE SIX-WORD STRATEGY

I'd never use the six-word format in a pitch, but it can be useful to work it out to make sure you know the core of the story.

Write the six words on an index card and put it where you can see it as you work on the script.

When you're unsure about a scene, ask yourself whether it is in alignment with that core idea. Even if it's a scene in a subplot, probably it will reflect the main idea in some way. I haven't done an analysis, but I'm pretty sure almost every scene in A Star is Born is about either him going downhill, her rising to fame, and/or their love.

Think about the films you've seen most recently. How would you sum up their plots in six words? Practicing with other people's stories will make it easier to do it with your own.

 

Screenwriters (and others): Reject Rejection!

Getting rejected is a normal part of every screenwriter's life but it can make it difficult to stay motivated. 

Fortunately, cognitive therapy offers a lot of useful tools for making sure we don't let rejection affect us negatively.

Here are three distortions that are very common among writers when their work is rejected or they have other setbacks. As you read them, ask yourself whether any of these reflect your thinking.

Overgeneralization: the tendency to think that one event represents a pattern.

Example: Your screenplay is rejected, and you think, “This script is never going to sell!” Or you read an article about how a producer ripped off a writer, and you assume, “All these producers are out to cheat writers.”

Disqualifying the positive: the tendency to ignore or discount positive developments.

Example: You get a rejection but it includes an encouraging comment on it, and you think, “Who cares about positive comments, it still didn't sell.”

Or someone wants to produce a script for a short film you’ve written, and you think, “Yeah, but it isn’t for a feature script, so it doesn’t really count.”

Mind reading: the tendency to assume you know what someone else is thinking or their motivation.

Example: A producer says your script isn’t right for them, and you conclude, “They obviously think my writing isn’t good enough.”

The reality may be that it’s well-written but too close to something else they have in the works, or not in a genre they’re interested in at the moment.

Or you submit a query letter and don’t get an answer, and assume, “They must have hated that idea, probably it’s no good."

Unfortunately, not answering is the new “no” but that doesn’t mean they hated it, just that it wasn’t right for them at this point.

The solutions

By the way, you may have noticed that these are mistakes we make about rejection of all kinds, so knowing how to deal with it can come in handy in many contexts. Here's how to do it:

Notice it's happening.

It's hard to think clearly when you're upset, so start by sitting down, taking a deep breath and noticing what you're saying to yourself in response to the rejection.

Write down those thoughts. Then use the following methods to challenge the statements you've written down.

Overcoming overgeneralizations

If you’re thinking something “always” happens—does it, really?

Can you think of times when it didn't happen?

If you can't (because your thinking is clouded) ask someone close to you whether they can think of counter-examples.

It's unlikely, but what if it DOES always happen--every time? Then think about what you could do differently in order to get a different outcome.

If you tend to be so excited about what you've written that you send it out immediately to agents or producers and they consistently reject it, try holding back. Put it aside for a while. Get outside feedback. Rewrite as necessary. Repeat. Only when you're sure it's as good as you can make it, send it out.

Another example: If people never respond well to your spoken pitches, get some feedback on whether you're doing your ideas justice with how you present them. If necessary, get some coaching in public speaking or storytelling.

How to avoid disqualifying the positive

If you’re discounting something, ask what is genuinely positive about it.

Again, you may need to get someone who is more objective to help you with this.

An encouraging comment is a good sign that you're on the right track, even if it came jotted on a rejection slip.

Getting a short film made is great--many short films have attracted attention for their writers or even have become the basis of feature films.

If you absolutely can't think of anything positive, commit to withholding judgment. The positive element may become clear in time.

I'll give you a personal example: when my house burned to the ground years ago, I had a hard time finding the silver lining. Especially because not long afterward I found myself hospitalized with a blood clot. But those two events led me to re-evaluate what I wanted from life. I decided to move from Los Angeles to London, and I'm happier here than I was there.

Without a major wake-up call and not having to worry about all my possessions (since they all burned up), I don't know whether I would have made that move.

How to stop mind-misreading

If you’re mind-reading, come up with at least three other things the other person might be thinking. That's still mind-reading, but it opens you up to the fact that we can't know what's on another person's mind.

NLP guru Richard Bandler once said he likes to practice pronoia: the idea that the universe is conspiring to make him happy. Even if you don't go that far, I'm sure you can think of times when you assumed someone was thinking something and it turned out that wasn't it at all.

But even if someone did think, for example, that your script stinks, so what? That's one person's opinion. Almost every script or book that was accepted first had a bunch of rejections.

The bottom line

If you remind yourself that rejection is part of the process and not a catastrophe you'll find it much easier to move on.

 

Does truth matter in inspirational stories?

I received an email today that featured an inspiration story:

A marine biologist puts a shark in a big tank with smaller fish. The shark eats the fish. Then the marine biologist puts a plexiglass barrier between the shark and the little fish. Eventually, the shark learns that it can't get at the fish on the other side of the tank and gives up. The marine biologist removes the barrier and, lo and behold, the shark doesn't even try to get to the little fish. It has been conditioned to behave in ways that no longer reflect reality.

The obvious moral is that we should all check whether we're behaving in ways that no longer serve us. I'm totally in agreement with that. But...

IS THIS A FISHY STORY?

All I know about sharks comes from watching a couple of days of "Shark Week," so I could be wrong, but it just doesn't sound like shark behavior to restrict itself to half the tank once the barrier is down. For one thing, wouldn't it pick up on the difference in the movement in the water when the barrier isn't there? I know it's a tank but even so, I think the movement of the smaller fish would have some effect. 

If you're a marine biologist, let me know whether the experiment sounds fishy to you.

THE FICTIONAL 3%

A story that has had even greater circulation but for which nobody has ever found a factual basis is the one claiming that years ago, only 3% of students at (Harvard/Yale/Stanford, depending on who's telling it) kept a written record of their goals...and 30 or 40 years later THEY were the leaders, the ones who had become wealthy, etc.

 

DOES IT MATTER?

 

Does it matter whether or not these types of anecdotes are true? Yes, they may inspire someone to examine their limitations and decide on their goals, and so on. But I do think we have to be careful about what we say 'science proves'-- it's important to separate fairy tales from fact. The internet is awash with the former masquerading as the latter, and it's another brick in the wall of "alternative facts." 

 

ASK!

 

If you agree with me on this, the next time you see a story about something that "science proves" without any link to or information about the source, why not ask the person posting it?