Quoted from DustinBowcot You know this for a fact? Sounds like one of those fallacies people make up to bolster an argument to me.

Fact as in true across the board? No. But I frequent /r/screenwriting and see WGA screenwriters talking about spec scripts not getting past the production company's reader for reasons outside of story/plot issues.

It DOES happen, not sure of how much.

Quoted from Steven Fact as in true across the board? No. But I frequent /r/screenwriting and see WGA screenwriters talking about spec scripts not getting past the production company's reader for reasons outside of story/plot issues. It DOES happen, not sure of how much.

I'm pretty sure that screenwriters are not told this and that this is down to their own assumptions. The most common reason a producer doesn't want a script is that they prefer another one. Writers will make up all sorts of excuses for why their script wasn't chosen just so their little ego isn't bruised.

I still cannot see how you can guarantee this DOES happen. btw, putting DOES in uppercase doesn't make your argument stronger either.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I'm pretty sure that screenwriters are not told this and that this is down to their own assumptions. The most common reason a producer doesn't want a script is that they prefer another one. Writers will make up all sorts of excuses for why their script wasn't chosen just so their little ego isn't bruised. I still cannot see how you can guarantee this DOES happen. btw, putting DOES in uppercase doesn't make your argument stronger either.

I'm not quite sure why you're always combative with me, but whatever, I won't take it personal.

ALL I'm saying is that WGA writers, producers, and script readers for production companies have stated that sometimes these things happen. Yes, I'm adding that more than just writers have stated this, but I didn't think there'd be any follow-up questioning on the statement I made.

You've already taken it personally just by mentioning thast I'm always combative with you. This is not true at all. I'd just like to get to the truth of your statement. People say all sorts of things that have no basis in fact just to maintain a veneer of bullshit that suits their reality.

It makes things very confusing for people when suggestions like 'readers don't like flowery writing' are thrown into the mix. Especially when this 'flowery writing' has not been properly defined.

If it is flowery then it is bad... full stop. If it is descriptive and suits the narrative then it's not flowery, ergo fine.

Maybe we should just define it like that and move on. As it stands, everything is so vague people can be arguing about three different things without realising it.

Quoted from DustinBowcot You've already taken it personally just by mentioning thast I'm always combative with you. This is not true at all. I'd just like to get to the truth of your statement. People say all sorts of things that have no basis in fact just to maintain a veneer of bullshit that suits their reality. It makes things very confusing for people when suggestions like 'readers don't like flowery writing' are thrown into the mix. Especially when this 'flowery writing' has not been properly defined. If it is flowery then it is bad... full stop. If it is descriptive and suits the narrative then it's not flowery, ergo fine. Maybe we should just define it like that and move on. As it stands, everything is so vague people can be arguing about three different things without realising it.

Just repeating the things that I've heard from people "in the industry," both those breaking in and the gatekeepers.

Quoted from DustinBowcot You've already taken it personally just by mentioning thast I'm always combative with you. This is not true at all. I'd just like to get to the truth of your statement. People say all sorts of things that have no basis in fact just to maintain a veneer of bullshit that suits their reality. It makes things very confusing for people when suggestions like 'readers don't like flowery writing' are thrown into the mix. Especially when this 'flowery writing' has not been properly defined. If it is flowery then it is bad... full stop. If it is descriptive and suits the narrative then it's not flowery, ergo fine. Maybe we should just define it like that and move on. As it stands, everything is so vague people can be arguing about three different things without realising it.

Damn. I was just about to post a comment on flowery orphans

Quoted from Steven Just repeating the things that I've heard from people "in the industry," both those breaking in and the gatekeepers.

OK... and how was flowery writing defined on each occasion you read somebody from the industry write this?

At a guess, how many times would you say you've read this written by a verified person from the industry?

Did you research the names of these people to verify they work in the industry?


That's the trouble with second-hand information. It is far safer to argue from one's own experiences. Certainly far better than resorting to fallacies.


I'm happy with defining flowery as bad... because flowery says 'excessive' to me. Then, of course, we must cater to what everybody terms as 'flowery'.

And I used to think scriptwriting was easy.

Quoted from DustinBowcot OK... and how was flowery writing defined on each occasion you read somebody from the industry write this? At a guess, how many times would you say you've read this written by a verified person from the industry? Did you research the names of these people to verify they work in the industry? That's the trouble with second-hand information. It is far safer to argue from one's own experiences. Certainly far better than resorting to fallacies. I'm happy with defining flowery as bad... because flowery says 'excessive' to me. Then, of course, we must cater to what everybody terms as 'flowery'. And I used to think scriptwriting was easy.

What it boiled down to was in certain situations, the script reader for a production company came across something that wasn't their style, or they weren't used to seeing something written in a specific way. So, based on a surface-level reaction (without getting into plot/story/character stuff), the script was discarded and the reader would move on.

The point of all this was that sometimes a reader could be in a bad mood/irritated/frustrated/whatever, and your particular script could suffer. Say they've read 10 bad scripts in a row, you're the 11th, and you write in flowery detail (and it works) on the first few pages...that script reader then tossed it after seeing large chunks of text with no dialogue breaks.

it's an unfortunate occurrence but it does actually happen, according to random people on the internet. But I don't find that scenario unbelievable.

Quoted from Steven The point of all this was that sometimes a reader could be in a bad mood/irritated/frustrated/whatever, and your particular script could suffer. Say they've read 10 bad scripts in a row, you're the 11th, and you write in flowery detail (and it works) on the first few pages...that script reader then tossed it after seeing large chunks of text with no dialogue breaks.

Who said the flowery writing worked? The reader didn't think so. Is it just the writer claiming it worked or did others agree with him/her?

Quoted from DustinBowcot Who said the flowery writing worked? The reader didn't think so. Is it just the writer claiming it worked or did others agree with him/her?

For this example, the flowery detail was justified.

Quoted from Steven And unfortunately sometimes those readers work for the producers that might be interested in  your script.

I wasn't referring specifically to profesional readers at a production companies/contests but just anybody who likes to read scripts e.g. people on this site

Otherwise, I think nailing down a specific definition for flowery writing is tricky as its a very subjective term. I consider it broadly (as I assume most here would too) as heavily descriptive, stylish prose. However, your threshold for what constitutes "heavily descriptive" and "stylish" will vary.

I don't write in a particularly flowery way but I have a high threshold for it if it's written well.

Hence, the Peter Fedorenko namedrop earlier. He posted some very prose heavy scripts here some years back that were largely dismissed but I enjoyed them because he wrote good prose.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I wasn't referring specifically to profesional readers at a production companies/contests but just anybody who likes to read scripts e.g. people on this site Otherwise, I think nailing down a specific definition for flowery writing is tricky as its a very subjective term. I consider it broadly (as I assume most here would too) as heavily descriptive, stylish prose. However, your threshold for what constitutes "heavily descriptive" and "stylish" will vary. I don't write in a particularly flowery way but I have a high threshold for it if it's written well. Hence, the Peter Fedorenko namedrop earlier. He posted some very prose heavy scripts here some years back that were largely dismissed but I enjoyed them because he wrote good prose.

Gotcha. Yes it's subjective, and unfortunately a prod company's reader could dislike anything more than simple action lines.

Quoted from Steven For this example, the flowery detail was justified.

Who said?

Quoted from DustinBowcot Who said?

I did, and I am extremely qualified to make that judgement.

Quoted from Steven I did, and I am extremely qualified to make that judgement.

So you decided the flowery writing was on point, the professional reader didn't... and the reader is wrong. Did anybody else believe the flowery writing was on point?