» Saying No to the Big O

McKee, Cliché, and a Successful Big O

ShonBacon — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:58:12 +0000

Cliché is at the root of audience dissatisfaction, and like a plague spread through ignorance, it now infects all story media. Too often we close novels or exit theaters bored by an ending that was obvious from the beginning, disgruntled because we’ve seen these clichéd scenes and characters too many times before. The cause of this worldwide epidemic is simple and clear; the source of all clichés can be traced to one thing and one thing alone: The writer does not know the world of his story – Robert McKee, STORY

There is something to be said for doing some research and planning of a story, whether it’s as a plotter at the onset of the story or as a pantser who jumps right into a story and then has to backtrack to do some developing of characters, situations, events, etc.

This quote from McKee is an excellent one because in today’s media world of gimme, gimme, gimme–gimme more, gimme now, we find a lot of the same ole, same ole: the same stories just different character names and locales. We can nearly predict when an event is going to occur, and we can tell exactly what that event is. Why is that?

Well, for one, we are a part of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” world – if a particular story is hot, then everyone will scramble to write the next best one just like it. I’m already waiting for the 50-11 Slumdog Millionaires to clog my theatre screen. In this “if it ain’t broke” world, some writers don’t try to be different; to be different might keep you from riding a trend wave, something I wrote about recently.

Another reason we find ourselves in Clichéville is some new writers (and some not-so-new) don’t take the time to study the craft of writing. They get an idea for a story and think it’s easy to do and commence to writing; when the writing slows, they find themselves reaching into their mind for any snippet to toss into the story; those snippets often come from other stories.

We all need to realize that every story that can be written has been written. We need to realize and accept this. THEN, we need to realize that what makes our story different is our personal spin (due to personality, morals, convictions, likes, dislikes, beliefs, etc.) on that story and how close the story is to us. We are the creator of the universe we place upon the page. If we are not intrinsically connected to the world we write about, how do we expect a reader to want to visit the world?

]]]]][[[[[

]]][[[

][

I finished ScriptFrenzy tonight! Saying No to the Big O was completed at 101 pages. I’m geeked. Feel like I’ve accomplished something – now comes revision!

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Digg This Post Stumble This Post

McKee, Belief, and the Big O

ShonBacon — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:27:57 +0000

Stanislavski asked his actors: Are you in love with the art in yourself or yourself in the art? You too must examine your motives for wanting to write the way you write. What is your vision? Each tale you create says to the audience: “I believe life is like this.” Every moment must be filled with your passionate conviction or we smell a phony – Robert McKee, STORY

In my time around, within the industry, I have seen so many writers opting to “write what sells.” They have stories they are passionate about to write, but they see everybody selling in a particular genre and aim themselves to write that book and sell it. Some sell it…some don’t.

Thing is trends, fads come and go. A book that’s part of a trend now, in 2009, was probably bought a year, maybe two years ago. It was hot in 2007, and the trend could be cooling down two years later… Once everybody and his/her mama starts writing that same type of book, the industry becomes flooded with that genre and may start to back off from buying more… If a writer is lucky enough (because sometimes publishing isn’t about talent but luck) to get published, his/her work might be likened to SO AND SO (add the top author of a genre) and the many other writers who have not created a unique voice but have simply added yet another book that reads like all the other books in that genre… Most readers are quite intelligent; they can sense the passion it takes to write a good book, and if your book is just another like others, they will sense it, and it might hinder you from gaining a solid readership for future works.

Being true to your “true” writer self is important. Yes, for many of us, publication is the platinum ring (I want better than the brass ring.) However, we should not sell ourselves for it. When we are true to developing our craft, to researching the industry (not mimicking it but being well-informed), to writing what is truly in our writer spirit to write; the right people will take notice, and literary dreams will come true.

]]]]][[[[[

]]][[[

][

Update on Saying No to the Big O — I wrote 12 pages today, so I’m up to 87 pages! 4 days – 13 pages to go to make my 100 pages for Script Frenzy. It’s all gravy now, LOL

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Digg This Post Stumble This Post

McKee, Mastering Classical Form, and the Big O

ShonBacon — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:26:42 +0000

I sympathize with the youthful desire to make a first screenplay read like PERSONA. But the dream of joining the avant-garde must wait while, like the artists before you, you too gain mastery of Classical form. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that you understand Archplot because you’ve seen the movies. You’ll know you understand it when you can do it. The writer works at his skills until knowledge shifts from the left side of the brain to the right, until intellectual awareness becomes living craft – Robert McKee, STORY

If you want to know all about classical form and Archplot and the other terminology McKee uses, then you need to buy STORY today.

Essentially, McKee brings up an important point; writers who are serious about their craft need to study it and not take the act of writing nilly willy.

Many people say writing is subjective; for the most part, this is true. People can love or hate a piece of art based on their personal preferences. However, I’m one that also believes writing is objective. There are rules, structure – from the grammar to the mechanics to the style to the…on and on – that instruct writers on the WHAT and the HOW of writing.

There are many writers out there, by the droves, who want to break the mold, to be different than everyone else.

My question is how can you do that if you don’t fully understand what’s out there and how it’s done.

You can watch a million movies, but that doesn’t mean you can write a great screenplay.

You can read a million books, but that doesn’t mean you can write a great book.

Yes, we can debate the successful ones who have gone on and have never had training or never studied the craft or never took writing too seriously, but they are the exception…not the rule.

If you want to be different, then you need to know what the “same” is and understand it so that you can develop your “different” way.

If you want to, for example, write a stream-of-consciousness novel, then you should know how a traditional novel works, understand the nuances of a stream-of-consciousness work, and figure out how you can fit in to that mold.

In the end, serious writers take writing seriously, and if that’s you, it’s time to get to studying so that each work you write is better than the last.

]]]]][[[[[

]]][[[

][

OH, and my update on Saying No to the Big O: From last night to today, I’ve written 15 pages; I’m not up to 75 pages. For ScriptFrenzy, have to write 100 pages by the end of April 30th. Twenty-five pages in five days. Can I do it?

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Digg This Post Stumble This Post