Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Tasks and Slams

I've been doing some thinking. Scary, I know, but bare with me for a minute.

A while back I posted about my so-called Recipe for Conflict. In it I talked about a Wordplay article by Terry Rossio titled "The Task". He describes the Goal as usually being general, positive and desirable and the Tasks being the specific, negative and undesirable things that must be done in order to achieve the Goal. This idea cleared a lot of things up for me, especially when you combine it with the idea that these Tasks should all lead to one specific Decisive Action. A final attempt by the Protagonist to reach the Goal. It's all or nothing. Everything is riding on this one action, the Final Task. The outcome determines if he wins or looses. This idea helped me to up with external things for the protagonist to do that were all related to the Goal. As helpful as it was though, it kept me in plot mode and didn't help me get inside the head of my character. So I set out to find an Internal equivalent.

I took all the information I already had about character flaws, needs, arcs, etc. And reorganized it in my head and looked at it from a different angle.

The protagonist should have a Flaw, a specific character need or defect that must be overcome. So overcoming the Flaw is sortof like the Internal Goal (even if the character doesn't know that's what they are aiming for).

In David Freeman's book, "Creating Emotion in Games: The Craft and Art of Emotioneering", he describes a Slam as an incident which forces the character to wrestle with his FLBW (Flaw, Limitation, Block or Wound). After many slams, the character will eventually overcome his FLBW and be pushed through the Character Arc. I suddenly saw Slams as the internal equivalent (or maybe the opposite) of the Task. Tasks being things the character does, and Slams being things that happen to the character.

The Character Arc is the moment in which the character overcomes his Flaw and becomes a different, better or stronger person because of it. Then I remembered reading somewhere that in Anti-hero or Tragic Hero stories it may be the moment the character decides NOT to overcome his Flaw. The word decides stuck in my head. If the character can decide NOT to overcome his Flaw then he should also make the decision TO overcome the flaw. I immediately saw the Charcter Arc as a more active process, not something that passively happens to the character, but something he actively chooses to do. I also saw it as the internal equivalent of the Decisive Action. (Or again, maybe the opposite, if the Decisive Action is deciding to act and the Character Arc is actively deciding.)

So for the External Story, we have:
#1 Goal - Beginning
#2 Tasks - Middle
#3 Decisive Action - End

For the Internal Story we have:
#1 Flaw - Beginning
#2 Slams - Middle
#3 Character Arc - End

It's funny, I now feel like I have a much better handle on the external and internal storylines. Even though I have read all of that information a hundred times before, just the act of rethinking it and reorganizing it in my head made it more accessible, more concrete. Also, with multiple Tasks and Multiple Slams all taking place in the middle of the story, my second act suddenly seems easier to fill. Well, it seems easier anyway. I guess we'll find out.

A quick plug for David Freeman (and I don't even know him). He gives a screenwriting workshop in L.A. and NewYork called Beyond Structure. I don't live close to either city and couldn't afford the workshop even if I did. I bought his book "Creating Emotion in Games" hoping it would cover some of the same material. I can't comment on the material covered in his workshops, but the book is a goldmine. It was written for people who write interactive games, but it's more about storytelling than game designing so much of what he writes can be applied to screenwriting as well. He even includes many examples from movies. Every screenwriting book will tell you that you need to write good dialogue, create characters we care about, create believable character relationships etc, etc, but David Freeman gives you specific techniques to do these things. It's not a step-by-step book, but more of a collection of techniques to be used however and whenever you please. It won't tell you how to write a story, but it will make the story you write better. This has become one of my most used "screenwriting" books. I refer to it often, and can recommend it without reservation.

Now, If I could just figure out how to write a story, I'd be set. ;-)

2 Comments:

Blogger Neal and Barbara Weckworth said...

Just a note to let you know that I read your post. Now I just hope that you don't "Slam" my "Flaws"!

Sounds like you are getting things into a perspective that you can understand and deal with. That is the important thing. Sometimes books are written for the writer to understand and it takes some doing to translate it into a "lanquage" that the reader is comfortable with. I think that is the distillation process you are going through. Good luck.

Neal

2/7/06 8:17 PM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Neal, you're right. I read books and articles and it all makes perfect sense... in theory. Actually knowing how to apply it to a story I'm writing is something entirely different. I always feel like I'm missing something.

It's funny how I can read something a hundred times then I read it one more time, or I read the same thing from yet another guru, and it clicks in a whole new way. Then I get that forehead slappin', "oh, of course" thing going on. These little moments of insight seem to be coming bit by tiny bit. As long as they keep coming I'll be happy.

Thanks for your encouragement. It truly means a lot to me.

4/7/06 9:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Gathering More Resources

I've been doing a lot of thinking about my writing process lately, thanks mainly to afonso. ;-) When I get stuck in a script, usually because of a lack of conflict in act 2, I try to create conflict that will fill the holes in the story. The problem is, it always seems forced and unnatural.

Then, I had an insightful moment yesterday. I think the reason my conflict always feels forced and unnatural is because I try to come up with conflicts in the plot; problems, obstacles, circumstances, situations, delimmas, etc. What I should be looking for is conflicts within the character; their fears, their secrets, their old wounds, their scars, their deep-seeded motivations for doing what they do. I need to figure out how to create problems that not only get in their way, but get under their skin as well.

To help me out with that, I ordered three books yesterday.
1) The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types by Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson
2) The Literary Enneagram: Characters From the Inside Out by Judith Searle
3) Screenwriting From the Heart: The Technique of the Character-Driven Screenplay by James Ryan

Several months ago I read How to Write a Great Movie by Jeff Kitchen. He wrote a chapter about the enneagram and discussed it's benifits in creating characters. I did a little internet research and found some free online enneagram tests. (#1, #2, #3, #4) I had friends and family fill them out and send me the results. It was pretty interesting, but I didn't take it any further. Now I'm ready. I bought the first two books because I think the enneagram will be helpful in creating deep, well rounded characters. I bought the third book hoping that it will teach me how to put those characters on the page.

By the way, the tests told me that I'm a #5 - the Investigator. A curious researcher but must fine tune everything before acting- working things out, preparing, practicing, and gathering more resources. Hmm. I've been gathering resources and practicing this screenwriting thing for a few years now. I wonder how long it takes most 5's to figure things out. ;-)

Take a test, they don't take long. If you do, let me know the results.

6 Comments:

Blogger Neal and Barbara Weckworth said...

You keep this up and we will be able to say "We are related to a famous writer!"

I enjoy reading about your travails in writing screen plays.

Neal

24/6/06 9:11 AM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Ha ha. You keep right on thinking that way. If I keep plugging away at this, I'm bound to figure it out some day.... Right?

I'm glad you're getting so much enjoyment out of reading about my false starts, my misadventures, my failed attempts to be a writer. Jesus! What's wrong with you. ;-)

Just kidding. I'm glad you enjoy it.

24/6/06 10:42 AM  
Blogger Neal and Barbara Weckworth said...

It is like watching a flower bloom! It starts out as a bulb in the ground and after much effort it blooms and I can be a witness to the process. :)

All good things come with effort they do not just occur. Who was it that said that success is 99% persperation and 1% inspiration? Or somethning close to that.

Neal

25/6/06 9:48 PM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Ha ha. I hope you're a patient man, I may be a slow bloomer. I just hope we don't discover I'm a "bloomin'" idiot.

I worry about the bloomin' idiot thing when I re-read my work and I find things like "deep-seeded motivations" instead of "deep-seated motivations". It felt right when I wrote it, though. Now that I think about it, I don't know which is right. Like I said, this may be a slow ride. : )

27/6/06 6:08 AM  
Blogger Neal and Barbara Weckworth said...

Wonderful comeback! "Blooming Idiot" See you are learning real fast to think and be creative. Keep it up.

Deep-seated is what I always thought was the correct statement.

Hmmmmm the other works to I guess.

Neal

27/6/06 8:19 AM  
Blogger Jeri said...

LOL. I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about the deep-seeded vs deep-seated issue.

27/6/06 10:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Friday, June 16, 2006

I'm Not Giving Up, Just Moving On

Okay. Enough is enough. I've been working on this latest script and I haven't gotten anywhere with it in a long time. I'm stuck and I'm not sure where to go with it. I honestly think I need to do some more research on my subject. But I also know there's a good possibility that I'm just procrastinating and looking for excuses not to write this story. I'm also afraid that if I start researching, I could still be researching a year from now and not have one new word written. So I think it's time to put it aside (again) and work on something else for a while. I haven't given up on this. I still think there's a story there. I just haven't fleshed it out yet, and trying to force it is becoming torturous. It's time to move on.

The next question is, what do I work on now? I got my notebook of story ideas out and read through them. One of them sparked several new ideas right away and I actually got excited about writing again. Ideas started flowing, conflicts started developing, characters started to show themselves. I'm psyched. I'm ready to write. I'm excited to see where this story will take me. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? So, I'm on to a new project.

Meanwhile, I will read up on the other subject and see if I can figure out how to tell that story. This way, the research isn't taking the place of writing. Ha ha. I'll play a little trick on my non-writing self. We'll see how it goes.

7 Comments:

Blogger Afonso said...

If you want a hand let me know. Maybe all you need is some discussion and a different point of view.

Grab my MSN or something.

Cheers

16/6/06 9:50 AM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Thanks, afonso. That's very generous. I'll keep that in mind.

I worked on the new story all day yesterday. It felt good to have ideas moving through my head again. The other story created quite a drought. Maybe a little time away from it will help.

Thanks again.

17/6/06 7:07 AM  
Blogger Afonso said...

The combination of the two isn't all that simple. The idea is to allow rules to shape your creativity.

Once you know the rules and study them hard, they will become an integrant part of your knowledge, which means your ideas will be generated on top of those rules.

This is what the gurus refer to as CREATIVE LIMITATION: once you are familiar with the norms, conventions and whatnot, you have the necessary boundries around which to exercise your creativity, as if ideas already came tailor-made.

Know the rules. But then, just let it fly. It'll come.

You are very right about "going technical" when things are wrong, because that's probably the best way to find the holes in your work, except of course having someone else analyse it for you.

On the act structure issue, I think you have to figure out the best approach for your story. By the way you write about structure in the comment you left and throughout your blog, you obviously know how structure functions. There is no textbook answer to how many turning points you should have.

When the ideas come to you, see how they work. That's when you'll get your act breakdown. Don't force a structure onto your ideas. Do the opposite.

Act structure is actually a very subjective business if you ask me, so don't be bound by it. (ex: the first Indiana Jones, in theory and as explained by "the" Robert McKee, has 8 acts, yet - - - isn't it obvious there are other possible analysis of the movie?).

Anyways, good luck with your new idea (not "structure"!!!).

Cheers

17/6/06 6:14 PM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Thank you so much for your comments. They have been helpful and very reassuring.

I like to think of screenwriting "rules" as curbs. I can get in my car, and go anywhere I want to go, except in people yards, on the sidewalk, or through the city park. Curbs don't prevent me from going where I want, they just keep me from going where I shouldn't. And if I get a wild hair and decide to take that shortcut through the city park, I can always jump the curb. (As long as I understand that it's not the conventional way to get across town and that there may be consequences.)

I agree with you, structure is subjective. One person could say that Indiana Jones has 8 acts, someone else could say it fits perfectly into a 3 act structure and I could find a way to show them that they're both right. If you have a good story, I don't think it matters how it's deconstructed after the fact. It's still a good story whether it has 3 acts or 8.

I think it must take a different part of the brain to construct a story. Probably the part I'm lacking, wouldn't you know. : )

I'm new at this, but so far all the stories I've written or tried to write have fallen into two categories.

1)I have a concept that interests me and I have a lot of story ideas to flesh it out. Then it becomes a matter of deciding which ideas work best and putting them in the order that works best for the story, in which case I don't worry too much about structure. The structure seems to come as a natural part of the storytelling process. And as long as the ideas are there, I don't have much trouble tweeking them, changing them or coming up with something different.

2)I have a concept I'm interested in, but I don't have enough story ideas to keep the story moving. Then I look at the structure to try to figure out where my holes are, and I say, "Yep, there's my holes. Right there in act 2." They're always in act 2. There's never enough conflict.

When this happens I get sortof hyperfocused on plugging the holes in my structure and trying to create conflict where there is none. It feels more mechanical than creative, it's no fun and, so far anyway, it doesn't work.

Yes, I know I have a post titled "Recipe for Conflict". Ignore that. That was wishful thinking. : )

The fact is, I haven't figured out how to create conflict, how to create story ideas, how to deliberately come up with something where there is nothing without it feeling forced. Either it comes naturally or it doesn't come at all.

I've never really thought about all this before, at least not in this way, so I want to thank you again for the conversation. It has made me analyze my own process, and although I still don't know how to fix it, I now have a better idea of what needs to be fixed.

Thanks again.

19/6/06 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

my current script was started last year and abandoned for same reason, I just felt that it needed a lot of research and prep work, and I wasn't about to devote that much time to it. I did another screenplay, now I am back on it with a fresh perspective...sometimes a step back is a positive

20/6/06 7:33 AM  
Blogger Jeri said...

Moviequill-
Did your fresh perspective come from doing the research or from looking at the story or the characters from a different angle? I'm just courious.

21/6/06 3:55 PM  
Blogger Afonso said...

Sorry only now read your reply to my comment and just wanted to make one observation: I don't know why, but you never write the word "character" in your comment...

Like you alluded to, I think we are completely different (aspiring) writer, which is a good thing I believe.

Cheers

29/6/06 5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home