JaneEspenson.com

Friend-of-the-blog Danny Strong (you know him as Jonathan on Buffy) has done something very very right. I keep trying to put up links to the news articles, but for some reason they’re not working, so you might have to cut and paste this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517683.stm
or this other one:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id1c3d218198539cb327dc332da76eb60

Or just Google the words “Recount” and “Pollack”. Holy Cow.

How did he make this wonderful thing happen? Spec scripts. In this case, feature specs. Danny wrote several of them. They got him noticed, gained him a good reputation, which led to him writing this project (not a spec) for HBO. Fantastic. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

No one is born with a good reputation. You get there by working. And then reworking. Not just by producing masses of product, but by concentrating on learning how to improve the product.

Congratulations, Danny!

Lunch: chicken cacciatore at the Universal Cafeteria

Just a reminder — my episode of Andy Barker, PI airs tomorrow night (thurs) on NBC! Check it out. After it airs, I’ll talk with you all a bit about writing action sequences, since I got to write a really fun one for this episode.

But while we wait for the ep to air, I say we go to the mailbag. Robert in Orlando asks about how a novice can get an idea for a show to a network. Sorry, Robert (and everyone else with this very popular question), I’m afraid I don’t know of any such open door. I was working as a writer for more than ten years before I got to pitch pilot ideas to network executives. If there were a quicker route, most TV writers would take it.

Networks like to hear pitches from writers with the experience to write a polished and producible script, and ideally with the experience to run the show themselves. In short, it’s just not a system that’s really set up for input from the outside. But there is a way to the inside of the system, if you want to write a spec script and use it to apply to programs like the ABC Writers’ Fellowship. So pull up a chair and we’ll talk specs!

Finally, to comment quickly on some other notable notes:

In answer to Richard from New York — thank you for your letter — I’m not allowed to use any writing submitted to me, but thanks for lovin’ the blog! In answer to Andrew, also from New York — yes, I think your interpretation of the Balzac joke is exactly right! And a thank you to friend-of-the-blog Leona for the lovely card. And to Scott from Alameda for his Battlestar insights.

Thank you everyone! Soon: action!

Lunch: an ice cream sandwich (I know, I know)

The amazing Ken Levine weighs in today! Ken has written for shows including M*A*S*H, Cheers and Frasier, and is as impressive a writer as you’re ever gonna find anywhere. You can, and should, check out his blog
here.

Ken has a comment about my last post. He says:

“You make wonderful points about comedy scripts needing to be real and grounded even at the expense of additional laughs. That was a cardinal rule on shows like CHEERS and FRASIER. But I think today’s show runner and network executive would look at that as ‘too traditional,’ and ‘not edgy enough’. The standards have been so lowered on the current crop of sitcoms that what passes for good wouldn’t be passable ten years ago… I think the advice you gave was dead on, but as I was reading it I was wondering whether most of your readers even had a clue as to what that meant. And you can’t blame them…”

Ooh. Feisty and interesting. If I’m reading Ken right, he’s suggesting that writing a *good* spec might be somewhat different than writing a *spec that gets you hired*.

He makes an excellent point. If you look at shows that are older than the ones he mentions, like, say, The Odd Couple or Barney Miller, they often genuinely had the feeling of a filmed stage play, with all the quiet moments left in. A spec that felt like either of these shows now would probably feel slow and under-joked. I’m not certain that a Cheers or Frasier spec would have the same feeling, but I’ll bow to Ken’s experience on that.

However, I still think that a spec that manages to land a genuine emotional moment is going to stand out above one that offers nothing but empty calories. I’m going to have to trust that today’s show runners and network executives know that hiring a writer who can write something real is going to pay off in the long run. You’ll have used the rest of the spec to prove you can churn out jokes. Most writers who are writing comedy specs are pretty good at churning out jokes, in fact. But not every writer can strike one o’ those emotional chords that suddenly makes an audience care about a character or a relationship.

And, although many of you are probably quite young, you watch shows in syndication, and you’re seeking out the best of what’s out there. You’ve probably seen some of those wonderful moments they did so well on, for example, Friends. The Ross/Rachel moments, for example. And you’ve seen the Jim/Pam stuff on The Office. Even a show as kinetic as Arrested Development had some touching father-son interactions. I would advocate reaching for moments like these.

Now, I could well be wrong here. Ken is a very smart guy, and he’s making a more complex point than I think I’m giving him credit for. Writing for the purpose of being hired is a very tricky business indeed, and you’ll each have to decide for yourselves how you’re going to strike the balance between what you want to write and what you think someone is going to want to read. Just don’t let the winds of television fashion blow you so far over that you’re no longer doing what inspires you.

Lunch: pizza somewhere in West Hollywood.

Yowza! ANOTHER “I wish I’d written that” situation. This time, it comes from Friend-of-the-Blog Maggie, who posts this wonderful entry about jumpstarting the creative process. This list is so good I’m going to go do all of these things at once — you’ll find me asleep on a train. Seriously, check it out.

And while you’re there, look at some other entries too. Maggie does a great job of reminding us (well, me, certainly) that the writing process is *fun*, that there’s a reason we have picked this. This is a staggeringly important thing to keep in mind.

And it brings me to something else. I’ve been banging my head against a certain scene in my pilot. It was just too long, featured incidental characters whom we aren’t really invested in, and was so packed full of pipe that it simply couldn’t get much shorter. And of course, attempting to shorten it just meant that I took out all the jokes and character moments, which made all the pipe that much pipier… oh, it was awful. And suddenly, yesterday… brainstorm. The scene disappeared. The same information is now delivered by some of our regular characters in a fast-moving series of intercuts between two separate scenes about emotional manipulation, instead of just about information-imparting. Ahhh. That feels better.

Whenever a scene fights you to that extent, when it simply refuses to get written, take a step back and make sure there isn’t something you can do to get rid of the scene. EVERY scene should have a reason to exist beyond moving the story. And once you find that reason, it won’t just be easier to write — it’ll be fun to write.

Lunch: Leftovers from a delightful meal I called in from Acapulco (the chain restaurant) last night… enchiladas and beans and rice. Mm.

So, all right, let’s talk more about that thing about not building a spec around a guest character. I’ve tended to follow that up by saying that centering a spec around the show’s main character is best. And certainly, there are shows where that’s the case. Most shows, in fact. A House without House at the center will not stand. BUT…

Friend-of-the-blog and dazzlingly successful writer Jeff Greenstein has told me of the specs he wrote, with his then writing parter to get into the business. Specs that got attention, that got them meetings. Their trick? Write to the underdeveloped character. Hmm. Interesting, no? This only works, of course, in a show with a strong ensemble, in which the series can shift the focus around a bit. And, of course, the main character should come into it somehow… crucially affecting or being affected by the story.
A good way to approach this technique might be to think about the main story being centered on the *relationship* between the main character and the underutilized ensemble character.

The example Jeff told me about was a spec episode of Murphy Brown, in which the story was created to center on Miles’ 30th birthday. Miles was a strong supporting character, who hadn’t, at the time the spec was written, been given tons of air time. And the topic of age/accomplishment is obviously well-chosen to get a reaction from Murphy.

I’m reminded of some of the Buffy episodes I wrote — “Superstar,” and “Storyteller,” specifically. This is one of my favorite things to do (although I have to say that the original ideas for these episodes came from Joss). I love taking a character who is secondary (or tertiary), especially if they tend to be discounted by the others, and showing how they are the masters of their own house, the centers of their own universes. In real life, no one is a tertiary character — everyone’s feelings count for as much as everyone else’s, so I like it when the same thing holds in Fictionland.

Be careful, gentle readers, don’t lose sight of the center of the show, make sure it’s an episode you think the actual writers of the show might write. Then pick part of the ensemble that has been out of the spotlight… and light it up!

P.S. Such good mail lately! Thank you to Micky in Long Beach for a great letter — good luck on the writing career, Micky! And a generous note from Cheryl in Lodi offers encouragement to Angie, the recent correspondent who contemplated giving up our ink-stained pursuit. Cheryl is finding that success in screenwriting doesn’t have to be limited to the under-30 crowd. She encourages Angie to hang in there. Thank you, Cheryl! I haven’t heard back from Angie — I hope that means she’s too busy writing spec scripts!

And candies! German chocolates from faithful German reader Nic! Wow! Thank you!

Lunch: scrambled eggs and cream soda

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »