I've been surprised to see some amazing scripts receive poor reviews and some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

"I know--I know!"  My hands are shaking hard into the air, trying to get noticed.

One poster put it well: That we're all different.  "Different strokes for different folks" sort of thing.

And I thought I'd post this, because in another critique group I belong to, I've noticed a common error.  In fact, a physicist writer I know (who's quite the brain) had the same problem as the hoi polloi--"Writing in a Vacuum.  What does this mean?

It's a symptom of young writers where they constantly navel gaze and wind up writing mysterious literary works, but they don't have any real direction and they fall short with their marketing.

To put it one way: When you see a sign that you know signals the selling of a particular kind of burger, if you're in the mood for that burger, you'll follow the sign.

Likewise, if you're in the mood for Chinese, you'll follow that sign.

So what's this got to do with writing?

Well, when we write we should be thinking about the audience we're writing for.  We should be serving up our dinner with a regular consistency.

I'm talking about branding.

If we develop a particular style for ourselves under a particular name, we've developed a consistency.  People have expectations, and we meet them.

In the case of my physicist, well, he was writing all across the board until he found out that he should focus a little more and develop a name.  Like say "Steven King" for instance.  You hear his name and you think: Scary.

In short, what I'm saying here is that irregardless of your particular bent: market yourself accordingly and to the particular audience that you see buying what it is you're selling.

So find your niche and then go for it.  You're not going to please everyone, but your plan is to please your target audience.

So then: What gives?  You give.  You give into the market that you're applying yourself to.  You realize that yes, this is art, but also, this is business.

Some people say that if you give in (start pandering the public) that you're prostituting yourself.  Only YOU know if you're really crafting compared to throwing cheap thrills and shock.  Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference.  We shake our heads and wonder...

Irregardless, I don't think you can go wrong if you are at least questioning the way it is that you are working and trying to understand it.

Writing is such a solitary affair; the soul searching is bound to happen.  I'm constantly  weighing what I write with the motive behind it.   I'd like to think I get more out of it than a big fat paycheck and a by line.

Sandra

Stories just happen to me. Sometimes it's drama about senior citizens with Alzheimers, sometimes zombies that that eat teenagers on Halloween and sometimes raunchy comedy and so on.

I don't know what type of scripts others think of when they see my name. In fact I think I would hate to be labeled as this or that type of writer.

As far as the critiquing goes of the OWC scripts... well, there are LOTS of really young people here and most people here are also males. I think it's only natural if they view scripts differently than someone like me "older, female" for example.

As far as the writing itself goes, I can say that I really enjoy reading a well written script with awesome style and amazing use of the English language. However, that doesn't show on film though. As a film, it's the story that shows, not the writers us eof English.

Hope that made sense. I just woke up, I'm still in bed. In fact I might still be sleeping.

The thing is, Sandra, you're talking about two widely different things. You have critical acclaim on the one hand and then marketability or financial succes on the other. You're trying to make these two congruous by saying that there's something wrong with giving eclectic, obscure, artsy, or as you put it, navel-gazing scripts a thumbs up because they don't cave in to the market.

At least that's how I interpreted your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

One's review of something could take into consideration "feasibility" (many contests do) but on a site like this I don't recommend it. Because even if there wasn't a market, even if there wasn't a Hollywood, I would still write, and I'd like to think I would write about the same things. A script's inherent quality is neither improved nor hurt by how much money it will make, or how wide an audience it's gonna reach.

So what is an Amazing script? Well, that is an entirely subjective matter and cannot, nor should it be, measured by how much money a prodco hypothetically would pay for it. IMO.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I've been surprised…some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

There are those who give honest feedback, and those who simply dish out praise in hopes of earning a “return read” from the author.

The “read for a read” system works pretty well for the most part -- it helps keep the boards going -- but this is one flaw in the system that nobody has figured out how to cure yet.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I'm talking about branding.

I would contend that several authors here qualify as a "brand".  I would submit our mischievous friend Helio as exhibit A, but there are certainly many others.  Breanne springs to mind, as well.

I would suggest to you that branding is not so much a matter of genre, but of voice and style.  To cite your example, not everything that Stephen King writes is scary, but all of his works exhibit a voice that is uniquely his own.

That is why there is a "Guessing" thread for the one-week challenge.  Frequent readers on these boards can often identify an author from a work whether their name is on it or not.

Interesting post, though.  Some good points there.

I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second. Otherwise, you're likely to produce something utterly soulless. One of my professors was the production designer for some major Hollywood films (ranging from One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest to Conspiracy Theory). He said once that Hollywood producers make what they think people want to see and not what they think is good and that's the problem so it's not just us lowly writers who think that way. In any case, I don't see why anyone here would have to worry about their audiences anyway. Most of the scripts I've read are marketable to a wide audience but only a few of the people I've spoken to here have put the audience before themselves. In any case, people here are selling scripts they wrote for themselves, first and foremost, and I think that kinda says something.

As for the reviews of scripts on the site, I think Pia made a good point. In any case, I'm disinclined to agree with you. Most of the good scripts I've read on this site have received good reviews and the bad scripts... not so much. I think most of the people here are pretty honest and will tell the writer what they really thought about their script. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I've been surprised to see some amazing scripts receive poor reviews and some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

This has been discussed before. Not only is it a problem, it's a shame.

After a member was banned for stealing a script, he went about talking poorly about a members script who when he was here praised it.

If you want honest reviews you have to stop being everyones friend. When everyone loves you, you get a lot of sugar and a lot of the reviews start reading condescending and fake. I feel sorry for one member in particular who gets the condescending and fake reviews that I just cannot read anymore.

Just my opinion so take from it what you will.

[quote=James]I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second.

There's a delicate balance that needs to take place.  If we are just writing for ourselves, we can do whatever we want.  In that case we wouldn't need to worry about the tools of the trade.  We wouldn't need to worry about submission guidelines and where (if it's a book) it's going to be shelved.  Certainly we need to recognize our audience though, if we're writing for eight year olds, we need to consider their intellectual level, vocabulary, what's trendy in the eight year old universe.

Don't be mistaken to think I'm saying one shouldn't write for themselves.  Most certainly you'd have a soulless work if you didn't, but I feel that it's a writers job to either teach, inspire, simply entertain or produce emotional sensations of some sort--maybe all at once in some glorious cases... and "Tuesdays with Morrie" comes to mind.  (The book rather, I haven't seen the movie yet.)

What I've learned, is that if I as a writer fail with clarity in that the reader doesn't "get" it, or if I engage myself but fail to engage the reader, whether it's a script, a novel, a short story or an article, then I'm missing out on what I feel is the goal.  It's my fault if I don't fulfill my obligations to my audience.

I'm being philosophical here.  One way I think is this:  Pretend I'm a chef and I cook meals--all day, all kinds.  Am I expected to eat lots of everything I prepare?  Of course not, but I do sample it so that I know it tastes good.  Even though I'm not eating it, my concern is for the customer.  I'm not cooking to eat, I'm cooking for someone else to eat.  Does that make sense?  

Anyways, this analogy came to mind due to the fact that I knew a chef when I lived in Regina and he said that when he came home, he was so happy when his wife made Kraft Dinner.  And I really thought, "It's so true."  Whenever I cook something, I want the other people to enjoy it.  I'm not so much cooking for myself as to be able to watch their faces light up... What digression eh?

In short, whatever is built, be it houses, cars or scripts, they're being structured according to various tastes, needs, and particular markets.  Not considering the market is like producing old fashioned lap-warmers when we drive in heated vehicles.

On the other hand, not considering our own needs is like going on a trip to Vegas if you hate Vegas and want to go on some soul retreat.

Again, balance is what I like to keep in mind.

Sandra

Quoted from Old Time Wesley If you want honest reviews you have to stop being everyones friend. When everyone loves you, you get a lot of sugar and a lot of the reviews start reading condescending and fake. I feel sorry for one member in particular who gets the condescending and fake reviews that I just cannot read anymore.

That's the beauty of the OWC, Wes. With the names not being attached people are more likely to judge the work on its merits, instead basing their comments on who wrote it and how much weight they carry on this site. Perhaps every script that gets submitted should be posted without the author's name for the first week or so.

As for the target audience stuff; if I catch myself trying to make one of my characters socially acceptable to some imaginary audience, I usually say to myself, "F uck that. What would this character truly say or do in this situation?"

At MoviePoet you get a lot of honest feedback, because no names are revealed until a month later. They have a voting system to that goes from "Poor" "Fair" "Good" "Very Good" to "Excellent".

Chris, that runs the place goes over the scores before they go public. He deletes any poor and fair scores that only has praise in the review. That way you can't vote low for something without explaining to the author why you didn't like their script. In other words, shower the writer with praise while voting low.

I like the OWC here and have always appreciated all feedback. This time I was "outed" early though, but I don't think anyone would be afraid to tell me they didn't like it.

I don't think one needs to put their characters into boxes and make them "socially acceptable."  That's not what good writing is about.  It's about insight and forethought.  It's about the application of situation to the human condition.

No one says you should try and "change" your characters to fit some kind of imaginary audience.  But if your audience is "imaginary," then you might ask why you think that it's that way.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. No one says you should try and "change" your characters to fit some kind of imaginary audience.

But by actually having a target audience that's exactly what you'll end up doing. I don't think you need to target an audience. If you write as honestly as you can and the work is good it'll find its own audience.

We all have our theories on writing and some can articulate them better than others, but at the end of the day it all comes down to the quality of your script, not the quality of your theories. This is one of the reasons why critics and intellectual snobs don't like comedy, because no amount of intellectual brow-beating can convince an audience to laugh at something they don't find funny.  

Writing without an audience in mind is equivalent to masturbation.

Quoted from Chris: "...but at the end of the day it all comes down to the quality of your script, not the quality of your theories."

I agree.

Just don't sell peanut goodies to those who are allergic to nuts.  That's not theory, there's a bad reaction in that.

I know how much people hate to hear that their precious "art" is under attack and they must somehow kowtow to the industry, but I'm just trying to be realistic here.  There are plenty of brilliant starving artists who never sell a thing, and there are plenty of rich hacks.  But how many brilliant hacks are there?  Ok, they're not hacks: they're "prolific."

Right now the publishing industry is under tremendous pressure.  Books get sent back from books stores so fast it isn't even funny.  Anyone who's serious about getting published, needs to educate themselves (at least a little) regarding the industry.  You don't need to sacrifice your own beliefs or style, but be aware of the greater world because that's always where the next story comes from anyways--the greater world.

Sci-fi is really a tricky one to work with because everything is moving so fast and I know myself I had based one story on research I had done and then: Pow! I learned that the foundation of the story, which was based on the cause of a particular anomalous crater, had just been proved otherwise than earlier theories.  So the premise of that story exploded into smithereens as fast as you can say. "smither."

It's a fast world we live in.

Sandra

Sandra

Quoted from Mcornetto Writing without an audience in mind is equivalent to masturbation.

I love to masturbate. It's completely normal and relieves stress.

But seriously, my general philosophy is that I write what I feel like and assume that there are other like minded individuals out there that like what I like and they would constitute my audience. Thats not to say that trying to target an audience is bad, in fact it probably takes more skill to do that, I'm just not there yet.

sheepwalker

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. [quote=James]I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second. There's a delicate balance that needs to take place.  If we are just writing for ourselves, we can do whatever we want.  In that case we wouldn't need to worry about the tools of the trade.  We wouldn't need to worry about submission guidelines and where (if it's a book) it's going to be shelved.  Certainly we need to recognize our audience though, if we're writing for eight year olds, we need to consider their intellectual level, vocabulary, what's trendy in the eight year old universe. Don't be mistaken to think I'm saying one shouldn't write for themselves.  Most certainly you'd have a soulless work if you didn't, but I feel that it's a writers job to either teach, inspire, simply entertain or produce emotional sensations of some sort--maybe all at once in some glorious cases... and "Tuesdays with Morrie" comes to mind.  (The book rather, I haven't seen the movie yet.) What I've learned, is that if I as a writer fail with clarity in that the reader doesn't "get" it, or if I engage myself but fail to engage the reader, whether it's a script, a novel, a short story or an article, then I'm missing out on what I feel is the goal.  It's my fault if I don't fulfill my obligations to my audience. I'm being philosophical here.  One way I think is this:  Pretend I'm a chef and I cook meals--all day, all kinds.  Am I expected to eat lots of everything I prepare?  Of course not, but I do sample it so that I know it tastes good.  Even though I'm not eating it, my concern is for the customer.  I'm not cooking to eat, I'm cooking for someone else to eat.  Does that make sense?   Anyways, this analogy came to mind due to the fact that I knew a chef when I lived in Regina and he said that when he came home, he was so happy when his wife made Kraft Dinner.  And I really thought, "It's so true."  Whenever I cook something, I want the other people to enjoy it.  I'm not so much cooking for myself as to be able to watch their faces light up... What digression eh? In short, whatever is built, be it houses, cars or scripts, they're being structured according to various tastes, needs, and particular markets.  Not considering the market is like producing old fashioned lap-warmers when we drive in heated vehicles. On the other hand, not considering our own needs is like going on a trip to Vegas if you hate Vegas and want to go on some soul retreat. Again, balance is what I like to keep in mind. Sandra

I think Ricky Gervais said it best:

"There's nothing wrong with getting 20 million viewers, but I think there's something wrong with aiming at getting 20 million viewers, because then you have to take away all the things that will offend, and you'll end up with something so anodyne that it just washes over you for half an hour. I imagine The Office was also one of the most hated shows on television, that some people passionately hated it. But that's better, for me.

Bear in mind literature predates the printing press and the wide audience by thousands of years. People have always written, or told stories, because it's a natural impulse in (some) human beings. Of course, on a general level, you must be aware of the fact that there is an audience, and be able to facilitate thoughts and ideas to people aren't you. But hopefully the audience listens because they like the stories YOU have, not because you tell them the stories you think they want to hear.

The reason why there are so many crappy movies these days (that are failing at the box office as well) is because the mantra of studios is "the customer is always right". But you know what? A movie is not a ho-ho. You can't create a recipe and then mass produce it and always get a great result.