JaneEspenson.com

UPDATE: I almost forgot to ask. Does anyone out there want a hot towel? Follow the link to find out about a possible benefit of buying pencils. Tell your friends!

It’s an all-strike update entry today, Gentle Readers. There’s just so much to cover!

First, I bought more pencils today. If you haven’t bought your limit yet, might I suggest something? Let’s see how many we can buy before the big Mutant Enemy picket day at Fox on December 7. This action won’t last forever, and it’s nice to have a goal-date, don’t you think?

Second, I’m going to have a very busy picketing week this week. Look for me at the Universal Studios Barham gate early tomorrow morning, then at Paramount at 9 AM on Tuesday to walk with other women Sci Fi writers (look for the group with the pink hats), and then on Wednesday morning, I’m participating in a special walk-with-the-bloggers picket at Warner Brothers with John August, Craig Mazin, and Josh Friedman. Come by and collect us all!

Third, I had a thought today. (No, really.) While the rest of the viewing public is having to withdraw from their shows as, one by one, they slump into reruns, you writers don’t have to. Write your spec scripts (you lucky non-WGA guys, you), and you’ll still get to commune with the characters you love. If you’re going to need a spec of an existing show for next year’s fellowships, this would be a grand time to write one. (Remember not to pick a brand-new show, and also remember, a script is always a more valuable research tool than a completed episode is.)

Lunch: bagels, cream cheese, fruit and teeny-tiny cream puffs

UPDATE: I’m told that the links in this post weren’t working for some (but not all) readers. I think they should work now.

Gentle Reader Braden has expressed frustration with characters overusing each others’ names in scripts. This is an interesting topic. I’m sure you know what he’s referring to — characters on film tend to address each other by name far more often than speakers do in real life.

Braden refers to actually highlighting these uses of names in the dialogue of scripts that he’s reading. Ah… interesting that he references the written page. Yes, Braden, absolutely. When you’re reading a script, these overuses can be very annoying, largely because you’re also reading the name every single time the character says something — in the character slug line. When you’re actually watching the finished product, the overuse is less obvious and helps you learn the names of all the major players so that you know who’s who when off-screen characters are referenced.

There’s also, I believe, a practical reason that writers have characters overuse names the way they do. It’s intimate. That’s why salesmen like to call you by name. It helps us believe in a connection between the characters. I also like the way the use of name can break up sentences, creating a more unusual rhythm. You can probably think, Gentle Readers, of a way in which I even do that around here sometimes.

So, yes, Braden, it can be overdone. If you’re noticing it at all, then it almost certainly is overdone. Uses of names should be subtle and almost subliminal. If they’re too obviously above the statistical norm then you’ve got a problem. Also, since you guys are creating scripts to be read, not produced, you should be aware of what I mentioned earlier. You’ve got your characters’ names already splashed all over your pages, so be careful. We know that’s House, so we don’t need to be hit with one.

Strike: I’m puzzled and a little upset by this piece posted yesterday on TV Guide online. It says that most of their reader responses are pro-studio — an earlier draft of the story, found here even implies that only 37 percent of their readers are pro-writer. On a site specifically for TV fans? Can that be right? (No. It can’t.) The piece even asks, “So, is everyone tired of the writers’ demands?” Well, either this reporter is somehow getting a skewed picture of the fans’ position, or I am. I discovered that it’s easy to register and leave comments and vote in polls at tvguide.com. Don’t you agree?

Lunch: scrambled eggs with fried tortilla pieces mixed in and lots of Sriracha sauce.

I like to give examples of writing solutions from scripts that I’m currently working on. But I’m not currently working on a script, obviously. Just now, when I went to look back at my most recent script for inspiration, I realized that I literally had not opened Final Draft in a month! Holy Cow!

So instead, I’m going to tell you about a recent email-composing experience that I had. Don’t worry, it applies to script-writing too. I wanted to express amazement, and I typed, “That’s amazing with extra zs!” When I reread it, I felt that the joke was muddy. Since “z”s are used to express sleepy noises, the point of the whimsy was kind of unclear; boredom is the opposite of what I wanted to convey. If I’d said, instead, “he was dozing with extra zs,” then at least the thoughts are pointing in the same direction. My joke wasn’t terrible, but I feel that it only worked at about 70 percent strength. (I removed the joke from the email.)

Muddy jokes can be hard to catch, since your note-givers often aren’t going to bother expressing a little bit of confusion, especially because they’re often afraid it will make them look dumb. This is a reason that it can be a good idea to go through your script in a lot of detail with one special and very patient reader. ASK THEM about the jokes — is this one clear? What did you take the intent to be? And the all-important, “Have you heard it before?”

This can also help you catch other unclear moments that you might not be aware of. For example, I once read a script in which a character exclaimed, “Bread and butter!” for no reason I could discern. It turns out that this is a regional expression, used by kids walking together when they’re forced to split, say, to walk around a post. The problem was, the writer didn’t know it was regional. Like most of us, she assumed that the expressions of her own childhood were pretty much universal. Readers, if properly questioned, can save you from much embarrassment of this sort.

Strike: A good (if damp) time was had by all at the Sony picket today, and I’ll be back at the Barham gate of Universal at 6 on Monday morning. Maybe we’ll have another “Cylon doughnut delivery” — Krispy Kremes delivered in a box decorated with photos of Cylons saying funny things. We have very nice fans.

Lunch: Cup o’ Noodles with an added shot of lemon juice. Perfect for a rainy day.

Hi, all. So did you enjoy “Razor,” the new Battlestar Galactica movie? It represents the last bit of Galactica in which I was not involved — the last bit I can watch as a pure fan. I recommend it — it’s packed with chilling and gradual revelations. Great stuff.

On the writing front, Friend-of-the-blog Maggie has called my attention to Pamela Ribon’s fascinating blog. The entry I’m linking to here has a fantastic list of clams and a great discussion that reveals how they sometimes end up in scripts by staffs that know better. I don’t know Pamela, but — Hiya, Pamela! Great work! Her blog looks like a great source of inside info, especially for those of you curious about the room experience. She really captures how in-the-room interactions work.

I’m interested to see that “X is the new Y” is on her list. It highlights the fact that often it’s the form of the joke that gets clammy, even though different variables can get plugged into the equation. I was calling these “clamshells” for a while, and it’s not a bad way to picture it — no matter what you stuff in there, from the outside, it’s a clam.

In strike news, I continue to buy pencils, and I’m looking forward to another week of picketing. HUGE thanks to Gentle Reader Claire who sent me a care packet of strike snacks and shoe liners. Yay!

Lunch: a variety of snacks eaten at my semi-weekly Scrabble game: brie, Fig Newtons, crackers and chips.

I’m back! I hope you all noticed that while I was away, the amazing Pencils For Moguls project swung into motion. This is a chance for you guys to provide a measurable, visible symbol of the thing the striking writers couldn’t readily rally or measure in 1988 — fan support. Buy some pencils! I’m a fan as well as a writer, so I’m going to buy some, too.

Since it’s been a while since I answered a question, I’m going to dig into the mailbag today. Dan in Pennsylvania writes in to ask about a technical difficulty that often occurs when you’re writing a spec of a produced show with highly serialized story lines, like Desperate Housewives or Lost or Heroes. He’s worried that his spec requires that the reader understand the point in the arc at which he’s placing his spec. He asks, “Could one actually write in their spec a ‘Previously on Desperate Housewives’ sequence in order to take care of the exposition.”

I’ve put off answering this question because I don’t have a definitive answer. My instinct is against scripting a ‘previously’ because I’m afraid it’ll look like you don’t know that’s not part of a standard script. It would be great if you didn’t have to provide any set-up at all, actually, if you could make things clear enough in the script itself that even a less-than-informed reader could infer what they need to know from the script itself.

But if you really think the story requires set-up, I would recommend keeping it as brief as possible, a little header across the top of the first page (not the title page). Something like:

Note to readers: This episode follows these events… [list].

But that’s just my instinct. The only people who really know the answer are the ones who read entries for the Disney and Warner’s Brothers programs. The people who run those programs have my email address… so if they want to write in with their opinions, I will report them. In the meantime, good luck, Dan in Pennsylvania. I hope this helps. And buy pencils!

Lunch: nachos and a small Caesar salad at the Rainforest Cafe

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »