I am trying to write a screenplay and I have read many books on the
subject.  The basics such as inciting incident and conflict etc. are
the same.  However, I do not know how to approach writing.  According
to a writing teacher, the protagonist and antagonist must have
something in common, also that the protagonist must do something
immoral and realize at the end the right and wrong of certain values
and themes. That the answers to the morality question must come at the
end and must be sudden. Otherwise the story will not be compelling.
Another approach is by Stephen  King who says just write and write and
don't think about anything else.
I am not certain on either side.  It seems to me that compelling
stories do require such elements as above, but at the same time how
can anything be original if there is a "standard way of writing".

What do you think?

Is there a specific writing structure that must always be used or can
good writing be done without alot of rules.

Hi, Maari !

I am answering this question from the position of a short-story writer
who also has had  a dozen or so comedy dinner theatre scripts produced
professionally, and who is currently working on a screenplay.

Pink Freud  is right - take advice from the writers when working on
your first draft of fiction, and sit down and just write.  But writers
who say this are often talking about getting into the discipline of
writing as much as anything else. Noel Coward, a very polished writer,
set himself a goal of 1000 words a day when he was writing.(He was
also a stage director and actor). Once he'd achieved 1000 words, his
working day was over. But it was done every day, first thing, without
fail, until the job was finished.

However, Stephen King's advice is as a writer of novels, not
screenplays, and as I will outline below, these are two very different
disciplines. First I'll talk about writing in general.

Look closely at what the writing teacher is advising:

...."the protagonist and antagonist must have something in common..."

Well, yes, it's useful if they live in the same country, or have
actually met, and it's stronger if they are both in love with the same
girl; but effective conflicts can be drawn just as well between your
hero and the society in which he/she lives. And your reader can share
the values of that society, rather than those of the protagonist..
(Graham Greene "Brighton Rock", Salinger "Catcher in the Rye".)

"...also that the protagonist must do something immoral and realize at
the end the right and wrong of certain values and themes..."

I think this is intended to mean that the protagonist should learn
something of value in the course of the story. OK, it's one approach,
but I can't see how this would apply to - say - "Romeo and Juliet" or
"Hamlet" or "Othello" where if any conclusions about right and wrong
are drawn it's by the surviving bystanders.

 "...That the answers to the morality question must come at the end
and must be sudden"...

This rules out, say, Jane Austen's "Persuasion" or even "Pride and
Prejudice" where the delight of the story is the gradual realisation
of affection between the characters.

So the teacher has certainly given you a structure to work with, and
as suggested below, it may not be the teacher's own concept, but
rather the required structure for a particular TV show or production
company. It is not the only possible structure.


Nevertheless, while writing to formula - "cookie cutter writing" as
Pink says, -is unlikely to result in anything very original, it can be
very supportive when starting out. It's a good way of learning the
craft. And "genre" writing, such as the Sword and Sorcery Quest
structure, can have an special interest all of its own.

For example, we know that when the young adventurer sets out with a
wizard, a barbarian fighter and a rogue to find the talisman that will
defeat whoever-it-is who wants to take over the world this time, that
they're going to win. Of course they are. The interest in how THIS
adventurer and THIS rogue succeed THIS time, and many different
writers have used this formula to create compelling characters in
compelling situations. (Tolkein, Feist, Katherine Kerr, Sherri S.
Tepper etc).

If the characterisation is good, the structure is secondary. If the
characterisation is wooden, it doesn't matter how original your
plotline is, it won't work well.


Remember, too,. that when Stephen King sits down to "just write" he
probably has at the back of his mind the general plotline, even if it
is only: "nice young family buy old house on the cheap, discover its
sinister secrets, escape from demons against all odds." That said,
most writers will tell you the moment they know they are on the right
track is when their characters "take over" and do something different
from what was planned for them.


Another very traditional piece of advice is: "Write about what you
know". This does not have to mean that you have to write everything
from the perspective of a hog farmer in Maine if you happen to be a
hog farmer in Maine, or from the perspective of a New Jersey housewife
if that is who you are. "What you know" includes what you have
observed, and what you have been told. You may know enough of your
grandmother's early life or your friend's struggle with addiction to
write interestingly about them.


A very useful trick when writing is to read aloud what you have
written. This is particularly important when writing dialogue (or
poetry) but will also help you to hear whether your prose flows
naturally or needs to be broken into shorter sentences.


Next, the "just write" advice applies to the first draft. The long
slow process of polishing, cutting, and refining comes next and is
where many beginning writers often falter. If you find you can't see
where to cut and polish because you're too close to the story, try the
time-honoured trick of putting the work away for a month or two,
working on something new, and coming back to it later. It's surprising
what stands out at you.

Personally I enjoy the revision stage, but not everybody does. I
suppose for me it's like roughing out a sculpture, and then gradually
chipping and polishing until the piece is as perfect as I can make it.

If you are lucky enough to acquire a professional editor at an early
stage, take their advice on board. Otherwise use your writing group,
teacher and friends, and really listen to what they say. You don't
have to agree with them, but do listen. They represent your
readership. If two or more of them criticise the same thing, have a
good hard think about changing it.

Don't wipe your early drafts off the computer. Save them somewhere and
back them up. then try out the new ideas in a new draft. That way you
have not lost your original work, or do not need to type it in again
from a battered print-out.


All that is general advice.


Screenplays, now, are a whole different discipline (and different
again from play writing). I'm assuming here you want to write a
saleable screenplay. If it's just for fun, then just go ahead.  But if
you want to write a screenplay that someone might actually produce,
that's another matter.

First of all, screenplays are laid out in very industry specific ways
and it is very important that this is done correctly or production
companies will simply not look at your script. For example, a standard
font - often Courier -is usually required. This is because, with the
standard layout and standard font the company can tell immediately
just how many minutes your script will run, very important for
commercial operations.

That said, some production companies have specific layout requirements
of their own. Ask them for their guidelines before submitting your
script.

You may care to invest in professional software such as Final Draft
which will allow you to set up the correct indents for dialogue,
directions and scene headings automatically. It also has inbuilt
templates for the standard layouts required for submission to many
popular US and British TV shows. Find the website at:

http://www.finaldraft.com

The site has links to writer's resources and screen writing courses,
as well as a screen writing competition. I believe there is a special
price for genuine students in the US.


A good article on the importance of formatting is on the Breaking In
site at:

http://breakingin.net/script_market_news2.htm

Lenore Wright says:

"Why are movie scripts formatted? 

In order for your screenplay to be transformed into a motion picture,
hundreds of film professionals (often thousands) will read your script
so they can do their part to make it a motion picture. ... The script
must be accessible to all these people so they can do their jobs.

So if you believe you will revolutionize film making by starting with
film formatting - guess again. You will NEVER revolutionize film
making that way. How do I know this? Because I know you will not even
get your scripts READ unless they are properly formatted! So when
you're tempted to enhance your title page with artwork or draw
attention to the star's character description by using that color
laser printer you bought off a dying dot-com, control yourself. "

She goes on to discuss the reasons for formatting, such as scheduling,
rhythm and marketing, among others.

The Breaking In site is full of useful articles like that one.


Next, screenplays follow some very specific rules as to timings,
number of plotlines, etc. and have to keep an eye on the commercial
realties of film making. Small independent film-makers may be less
strict, but are likely to have tiny budgets. So no matter how well
written, if your script requires a battle involving twelve vintage
planes and six hundred extras,  it is unlikely to be considered.

Episodic TV programmes have timings that must be followed precisely to
allow for the sponsor's messages, and well defined structures that
must be adhered to so that the viewer is retained for the entire
programme. A stand-alone TV drama or mini-series follows other
guidelines, and a feature film has more flexibility but is much more
expensive to make.

Expect a feature, even for TV. to take anything from three to ten
years from concept to finish, and do not expect to be the only writer
involved in the process. Especially as a first-time screenplay writer,
you can expect to take the project only to the second or third draft
stage, before an experienced script editor or another more experienced
writer is assigned to the project (this is assuming you've got a
production company interested). You may end up on the credits as "from
a concept by..."  Don't resent it, make sure you're paid, and learn
from it. Your own precious contribution as you wrote it should still
be safely tucked away.

Don't ever submit anything without running a spell checker and
preferably also getting someone else to proof-read it. Readers may
forgive one or two typos, but not lots of them, and never, never on
the title page. (It happens. I've seen it. Once I did it. Only once.)
 
Study film and/or TV closely (whichever you're planning to write for)
and time the length of the shots used. Most shots are less than 10
seconds long. Make notes as to the plot structure. Your writing
teacher may have been giving you the exact format for a particular TV
show.

Make sure you know the difference between a shot and a scene.
Generally speaking the director will decide what shots are to be
filmed and how; it is not your job to specify "Close-up" etc.

Make sure you know the basic jargon, such as POV ("point of view",
where the camera sees something as if through the eyes of one of the
characters) and VO ("voice over" - we hear the character, but don't
see them, so the actor may be recorded sound only separately from the
filming).

Many production companies will not want you to submit a finished
script up front; they will instead ask you for a one sentence and a
one paragraph summary before inviting you to "pitch" your concept in a
face to face meeting. To practise this, it can be fun to try and
summarize well-known books or films in this way. Try summarizing the
same story from different perspectives to see how that changes the
thrust of what you are saying. eg:

- "Lord of the Rings" -

"In a fantasy world elves, dwarves and others combine forces to battle
the ultimate evil"

has a very different feel and focus to:

"When Frodo becomes the Ringbearer he must face evil within himself as
well as the threat from without."


Remember, learning the craft does not necessarily mean "cookie cutter
writing". It does mean serving an apprenticeship, if you like, while
you take on board what other people have to offer. I also think it is
a pity that the term "craftsman" has somehow been lost, or downgraded.
There are many craftsmanly writers who give a lot of pleasure to a lot
of people, and striving to be a good craftsman (-person?) is nothing
to be ashamed of. And it is the first step to becoming that rare
thing, a really good original writer. The craftsmanship is the
foundation.   That is probably what your teacher is trying to suggest.


You might consider try cutting your teeth by combining forces with a
student film maker and working on a short movie aimed at the
competition market.


The best of luck and keep in mind that it is the characters - the
people - and what happens to them that will make your writing live.





Search strategy:
screenplay writing advice
Book - "A Talent to Amuse" - Noel Coward
personal industry knowledge

---

Request for Answer Clarification by maari-ga on 21 Jun 2003 09:21 PDT

Angy-ga
Thank you for a thorough answer to my questions.  You pretty much
answered the question.  I am going to post that you answered the
question correctly.  However, I just have a few questions to ask you
that I did not address in my question.
1.  Can the desire of the protagonist change during the story.  I was
told it cannot.
2.Actions express ideas more profoundly than statements (which I
agree).  Is it possible for a protagonist to make a "moral statement
or moral viewpoint" from the beginning and later show through actions
of herself and others that the viewpoint of the protagonist in the end
was the right one (hypocrisy)
3.  I was told there must be a battle at the end and actions between
protagonist and antagonist values are the ones being asked.  Is it
possible for the protagonist and antagonist change as the protagonist
journeys and learns and slowly changes and realizes her flaws (she
begins bitter and slowly by the drive of the antagonist to ruin her
puts her in positions that make her take a closer look at herself.  In
the end she loses her bitterness and finds self-acceptance.  On the
other hand, the protagonist starts off confident and becomes more
bitter as everything backfires on her.  Ironically, the protagonist
conquers her bitterness and the antagonist becomes bitter in the end.
4.  Does the inciting incident have to be in the present or can it be
explained in the present.  Does the inciting incident have to be known
to both the protagonist and the antagonist or can the inciting
incident be one where the protagonist does not realize, maybe through
a secret.

To be honest, my story is something I have been working on for 2
months.  My main theme is to live your life not thinking about what
society deems "successful" but to find self-acceptance in even the
most menial life.
It doesn't matter what others think, but what you think of yourself
through self-awareness.

I do not expect a detailed answer to my questions.  I would like just
a short opinion for each one or/and whether you think that the
structure tactics I have explained are weak or wrong or it depends on
the flesh of the story.

Thank you I appreciate your input

---

Clarification of Answer by angy-ga on 21 Jun 2003 23:08 PDT

OK, here goes.

"1. Can the desire of the protagonist change during the story. I was
told it cannot. "

Technically, whether changing the aim of the protagonist during the
story is a good idea is likely to depend on how many minutes your
screenplay is to run. For a half-hour or one hour timeslot (which of
course is shorter since ad breaks have to be factored in) changing the
hero's main objective in mid-stream is likely to be confusing.

Change and growth are factors that make characters interesting, and in
contrast characters who refuse to respond to changing circumstances
with change in themselves make for both tragedy (eg "King Lear") and
comedy (eg "The Odd Couple").

But I think your teacher is probably referring to what an actor would
call the character's "Super-objective".

For example, a character's super-objective is "to be happy". His
current desire (objective) is to get that bar of chocolate, because he
believes it will make him happy.. When that fails he changes his
desire to getting that car (girl, house, etc), still on the search for
happiness. So his desire has changed at one level, but not overall.


"2.Actions express ideas more profoundly than statements ..."

 - especially on film. You must think visually for a screenplay.


"... Is it possible for a protagonist to make a "moral statement or
moral viewpoint" from the beginning and later show through actions of
herself and others that the viewpoint of the protagonist in the end
was the right one ?"

Of course. Two angles :

A) .Stories dealing with - in particular - corruption within the
church tackle the idea that if someone pays lip service to a right
action, and then does something different, the original right action
is still valid. (eg "The Power and the Glory" - Graham Greene.)

B). A person can express a concept that is unpopular in the context of
the society in which they live, and then proceed through their actions
to prove themselves right. Stories dealing with whistle-blowers, or
detectives determinedly following leads that unmask the local
notablers, use this concept. (eg "In the Heat of the Night") Very
basic summary:

http://www.imdb.com/Plot?0061811


"3. I was told there must be a battle at the end and actions between
protagonist and antagonist values are the ones being asked... "

Well, if you're writing "Lord of the Rings" or "Excalibur" there's
probably going to be a battle. And a direct confrontations between
protagonist and antagonist placed just before the resolution of
conflicts is generally very effective and very much what an audience
expects.

Otherwise you run the risk of sppearing to tell two stories in
parallel.

"Is it possible for the protagonist and antagonist change as the
protagonist journeys and learns and slowly changes and realizes her
flaws (she begins bitter and slowly by the drive of the antagonist to
ruin her puts her in positions that make her take a closer look at
herself. In the end she loses her bitterness and finds
self-acceptance. On the other hand, the protagonist starts off
confident and becomes more bitter as everything backfires on her.
Ironically, the protagonist conquers her bitterness and the antagonist
becomes bitter in the end. "

Nothing wrong with that concept. As you say yourself, it depends a lot
on the "flesh of the story". For a look at one way to approach the
idea, there's a very short play by Strindberg which is translated as
"The Stronger".


"4. Does the inciting incident have to be in the present or can it be
explained in the present. Does the inciting incident have to be known
to both the protagonist and the antagonist or can the inciting
incident be one where the protagonist does not realize, maybe through
a secret. "

No, the incident does not have to be in the present. (eg Ibsen,
"Pillars of Society" - summary:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Drama/pillars.html  )

It can be explained in the present, but be careful that your
characters do not make long theatrical speeches about it - this is a
screenplay. Most movie makers opt to explain the past through the use
of flashbacks.

All the best with your interesting project.

I am very grateful to you for answering such a lengthy clarification
question.  You expressed in great detail the issues of writing
techniques which I consider very valuable coming from you, because
based on your answers I find your opinions to be very important to me.
 Thank you for such objective advice.

A writing teacher says that there are formulaic rules for writing;
Stephen King says not.

Hmmm.

Who has sold more books, I wonder: Stephen King or the writing
teacher?

In my view, cookie-cutter fiction that is written "according to the
book" tends to be hack work. If you want to write, I suggest that you
make your own rules, and adjust them as you go.

True, pink, but look at the VC Andrews franchise built upon a formula.
Every book is esstentially the same and contains mostly the same types
of events. Now the first few actually written by her are interesting
but once they got Andrew Neiderman to write them it went down the
tubes after the first couple of books.

Some publishers think using a formula is just dandy. I'm in a couple
of national writing groups and one of them really does push craft a
lot -- there are rules (especially if you're a first time author --
suddenly these disappear as soon as the publisher sees you're
bankable; is that good writing or just being into money? We all know
what that is about) but I do agree you've got to bend the rules. Learn
them, then break and bend like any good artist does.

For aspiring screenwriters, www.wordplayer.com is a great resource.