Home Contact Biography Works Media News

Jane Recommends
Who Hates Whom / Bob Harris

Who Hates Whom: Well-Armed Fanatics, Intractable Conflicts, and Various Things Blowing Up A Woefully Incomplete Guide by Bob Harris

"The geopolitical equivalent of scorecards that get hawked at ball games. Only Bob could make a user’s guide to our increasingly hostile world this absorbing, this breezy, and—ultimately—this hopeful."
~ Ken Jennings, author of Brainiac


Jane in Print
Serenity Found: More Unauthorized Essays on Joss Whedon's Firefly Universe, edited by Jane Espenson

Flirting with Pride and Prejudice: Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece, edited by Jennifer Crusie and including Jane Espenson's short story, "Georgiana"

Finding Serenity: Anti-Heroes, Lost Shepherds and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's Firefly, edited by Jane Espenson and Glenn Yeffeth

Jane in DVD

Jane in DVD

Now Available:
+Battlestar Galactica Season 3
+Dinosaurs Seasons 3 & 4
+Gilmore Girls Season 4
+Buffy: The Chosen Collection
+Tru Calling
+Angel: Limited Edition Collectors Set

Jane in Progress


Home » Archives » November 2006 » Punching People With Words
[Previous entry: "Flowwwww"] [Next entry: "Why John Lennon Remains Interesting"]

11/27/2006: Punching People With Words

So, tonight, I stumbled upon a rerun episode of "Scrubs" on Comedy Central while waiting for The Daily Show to start. And I saw a lovely example of a neat trick that can be a real help when you're writing a spec script. It's the ol' unanswered question trick. And it's based on the notion that you don't need to explicitly give the audience any information that they can figure out on their own, because audiences like to figure things out. And, even more importantly, that they secretly like to be kept waiting.

It's such a simple trick. If the story's been building up to a big question like "Are you leaving me?," "Will you marry me?," or "Are you a vampire?," you can have a character finally get up the nerve to ask it, and while the audience is waiting, breath all bated, pulse all poundy, you cut away to some B-story scene. Then come back to the character who asked the question, behaving in a way that tells you what the answer was: they're crying, dancing, or lying bloodless in an alley. There's something totally compelling about never having to hear the actual answer. This is *even though* it seems as though you're violating one of the basic principals of screenwriting by moving a big moment off-screen.

The truth, is, of course, that the big moment, in this case, is not the action, but the reaction. And it's made all the more powerful because we join it in progress, and because we aren't given it when we're braced for it, but somewhat later. It's like that trick where someone pretends to punch another person, then pulls the punch, and then sucker-punches 'em real fast as soon as they relax. Neat, huh?

Lunch: Tamales at "Mexicali." Get this, they were totally over-salted. That never happens. Weird.


Get Blog Updates Via Email

Enter your Email

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz


Walt Disney Writing Fellowship Program
UC Berkeley
Jane recommends you also visit BobHarris.com



November 2006

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Powered By Greymatter
Greymatter Forums

Home | News | Works | Biography | Frequently Asked Questions

Site design Copyright © PM Carlson
This is a fan site owned and operated entirely by PM Carlson with the cooperation and assistance of Jane Espenson. This site is not affiliated in any way with Mutant Enemy, 20th Century Fox or ABC.