Ask an Author: Screenwriting vs. Novel Writing

Books: You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost) by Felicia Day

Picked this one up prior to traveling to London and it was a nice, quick and easy read for the plane.

I am not, for the record, any particular fan of Ms. Day, though I've seen many of the shows she's been in (I'm a fan of Joss Whedon, so . . .) Why, then, did I decide to read her memoir? Because it sounded interesting. And as I read, I realized we have a lot of personality traits in common.

• Weird upbringing in the American South? Check. (Though mine was distinctly different from hers, I was equally isolated and had difficulty making friends.)
• Crush on Commander Riker? Check. Named my favorite teddy bear William. Though later MacGyver became my man.
• Creating elaborate worlds that combined favorite book and TV/film characters? Check. Mine had Han Solo and Indiana Jones as identical cousins, Patty Duke style, and for some reason they all spent a lot of time on the Enterprise. Also time traveling into the antebellum South, cuz I love me some houses with big columns.
• Astrology? Check. I still read charts for friends.
• UT Austin? Check. In fact, it sounds as if we attended at about the same time.
• Obsessive/addictive nature? Check. For me it was TV shows and movies rather than video games, but yeah. You should see my scrapbooks.
• Having a friendly support group hold you accountable and get you to start writing? Check.
• A people-pleasing, perfectionist nature? Check. I didn't necessarily need kids my age to like me, but boy howdy did I want my teachers to love me. All my self-worth was caught up in that, and I still struggle with it.
• Wanting to erase yourself from the world (digital or otherwise)? Check. I went through that a few years back, deleting accounts left and right, and I'm starting to feel that way again now.

Anyway. It's a great little book that doesn't require Felicia Day fandom to enjoy or relate, though whether you find her life and experiences interesting may be predicated on how much you like . . . geekdom? Day doesn't say anything specific about time on the Buffy set or other such things, instead focusing on her own work with The Guild and Geek and Sundry. We do get a lot about commercials and auditions, though, and acting classes, etc. And a bit about conventions, of course. (I was the guest at conventions when I was at UT, back when fan fiction had to be published in zines rather than just slapped onto the Internet. I was a fanfic author of some renown at the time—well, and my Sherlock fic from a few years back is still considered the gold standard—and those conventions were so fun. Maybe I'll get to do it again some day. Thanks, Felicia, for giving me permission to own that I got my start writing fanfic before moving on to more "serious" work.)

Other topics covered include mental illness and Gamergate. On the whole, it's a somewhat spotty story, but a good one. Worth the little bit of time it takes to read.

Adverse Possession

So in 2011, as I was getting back into writing, one of my friends suggested I try a short stage play. The result was "Warm Bodies," which premiered in February 2012 as part Valley Rep's (now Exit 7) play contest. "Warm Bodies" then went on to be featured in Source Festival's theatre program that June. And was then picked up by a production company in San Diego and made into a short film they retitled Adverse Possession (because Warm Bodies was already taken).

I say "a production company" because it seems their name is in flux at the moment.

But in any case, they've given me permission to share the final result, which you can see here.

The film has been submitted to a couple festivals; we're waiting to hear if it gets in anywhere. I wasn't involved at all in the production itself (most screenwriters aren't, I don't believe). I did get periodic updates, which I very much appreciated.

The big difference, I think, between having your play staged and having it made into a movie—and if you read this site with any regularity, you may have heard me say this before—is that plays are fluid. They change from production to production, and sometimes from one night to the next in the same production. But once it's committed to film, it's static. I don't have a preference, mind. I just find it an interesting distinction.

In any case, I'm very grateful for the beginner's luck that landed me all these marvelous opportunities. I hope to continue to be lucky! I do have another script optioned, and two more in the oven. Plus that book of mine coming out in January. So I guess I can't complain. (Well, okay, but I've yet to get another play staged. Humph. Still, I prefer to count my blessings.)

Thanks, Neil

Too bad when women say it, we're just being bitchy. It takes a man saying it for anyone to listen.

(I'll give Neil the benefit of the doubt in assuming he wasn't merely trying to get out of hugging anyone.)

Movies: Tales from the Script

I was told that, as a screenwriter, I should see this little documentary. But I have to say, while it was interesting, it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, either from personal experience or from having heard similar stories at conferences or in screenwriting books.

The film talks to a swath of screenwriters—Shane Black, John August, John Carpenter, William Goldman, Frank Darabont, Paul Schrader to name a few (and a couple token female writers, including Guinevere Turner, which made me wonder whether they either couldn't find any others or didn't try?). And just as at so many writing conferences, these screenwriters told anecdotes to illustrate the life of a screenwriter, the process, just how difficult it can be on various fronts, from selling the script to working with actors and directors and so on.

I've said it before, that there's only so much one can take away from these kinds of stories. Because every writer has them (or, starting out, hopes to have them) . . . And how much they apply to others is questionable. Because everyone's experience is going to be different. What worked for one person won't necessarily work for another.

I wish I could remember which of the screenwriters said this last night, and I think it perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on the matter (paraphrasing): That there is a wall around where you, as a writer, want to get to. And there are tiny cracks in that wall. And everyone is feeling for a crack. And once you find it and get in, the crack you used closes up behind you, and no one else will ever get in that way again.

So it's very little use to try what's worked for others because the system—the wall—has gotten wise to that technique and won't fall for it again. The problem being that it's becoming increasingly difficult to find any cracks; the wall has been shored up, patched, reinforced. And meanwhile there are more people than ever before trying to get through.

The documentary touches only lightly on how studios no longer make smaller movies (a matter of concern to me, as that is what I write). Nor does it really explore independent outlets as an alternative. This is a discussion of screenwriting at the mega level, even if some of the screenwriters are known for scripting dramas rather than blockbusters. A couple of them say, "Well, my movie would not be made today," and that is the extent of it.

The bottom line is, no one can say, "This is how you break in and get your script sold and produced." Because there is no one way that it is done. Hollywood is a machine that no one is entirely sure how it works. When you're on the outside of it, it's all grinding gears, and you have to be prepared to run the gauntlet. Once you get in (if you're lucky enough to get that far), you're still surrounded by threatening machinery that can grind you up and spit you out again. But at least it's a little easier to navigate. More space between the gears, more room to stand and move. And, weirdly, the goal seems to be to stay in rather than get out. It's sort of messed up that way.

My only other issues with Tales from the Script are technical: the sound was a bit muffled, and some of the transfers of clips from other films were not great.

On the whole, it was an interesting little documentary, but not actually all that helpful or informative. Maybe it's simply for complete and utter newbie writers. I mean, I know if I sell a script it will be changed. I'm fine with that. Otherwise I'd tell that story in prose instead. And I know there's no such thing as "made it." Because in Hollywood you're only as good as the last thing you wrote. You're hot off a blockbuster? Great. But then you think you can write some little film that no one will want? You're outta here. You have to prove yourself over and over again. It's not one hurdle, it's hundreds.

But the first is the highest and hardest.

And Then . . .

This. As a reminder.

Because I do have a script due at the end of the month. And I'll be at a writers conference* this weekend and need to pull together a synopsis on the off chance someone might actually be interested. In, you know, my writing. Sigh.

*I feel weird not using an apostrophe after "writers" but that's how the official site reads: San Francisco Writers Conference. So . . . The conference doesn't belong to the writers? Are the writers meant to be from San Francisco? (They actually come from all over the world; it's a massive conference.) I thought the "San Francisco" only described the location, but if it describes the writers . . . And yes, I might only be procrastinating. But check up on PepperWords after this weekend as that is where I'll be posting everything I learn in the writing sessions.

Screenwriting: 20 August Makes Finals

Just a quick note to announce my screenplay 20 August has been named a Finalist in the Richmond International Film Festival. Thanks, RIFF! With any luck I'll be seeing you at the end of February!

Looking Ahead to 2014

As we wind down the year, I already have a number of projects lined up for 2014:

• More rewrites on a rom-com I've been co-writing.
• Finishing the thriller script I've been tapped to write.
• Finishing St. Peter Ascends and getting the Peter Stoller trilogy published.
• Writing that television pilot.
• Continuing work on at least one of several other novels I've been tinkering with.

Busy! I'll be starting the year on a writing retreat in Half Moon Bay; hopefully a running start will set the tone for 2014. Things in motion, as they say . . .

I'm also hoping that one of my current scripts will be optioned and/or move toward production in the coming year. There has been interest from various sectors but nothing definite, nothing signed, and as we know in this industry, it's all talk until the lawyers are involved. I do at least know Adverse Possession will be finished up (they are scoring and coloring now), so that's something.

2013 has been a good year and I hope to continue the trend. I won Table Read My Screenplay and placed pretty well in a number of other competitions and film festivals. It's a start. In 2014 I'd like to keep it moving in the right direction.

What goals do you have for the coming year? Are you looking forward to anything in particular?

Screenwriting: Please Stop Telling Me to Make My Own Movie

Cross posted from PepperWords.

The latest hot advice to would-be screenwriters is: Go make your own movie.

I understand why. I really do. The chances of getting your script read, much less noticed by anyone with any clout in the industry is nearly nil. It's even less than it used to be, if that's possible. Studios have become increasingly risk adverse, unwilling to take chances on new writers or unproven ideas. They want known quantities: Writers who have a track record and/or properties that have built-in fan bases (like all those comic book superheroes).

So what is a writer to do? Go indie, naturally, and prove him- or herself by getting noticed on the smaller circuit. And this should be easy, right? Since there are so many would-be directors and acting hopefuls just looking for the right content? Except . . . Not really. A lot of those would-be directors, and some of the actors too, are also writing their own stuff and have little interest in yours. OR, alternatively, what you write is not what they want to film. So as a writer you are back where you started: Nobody wants your script.

And here's where the DIY advice comes in. "So film your script yourself!" And we're told it's easy, or that there are resources to help us or whatever. But for those of us who aren't prepared to take on that kind of project, surely there must be another option? What I'm saying is, even if producing your own film isn't a bad idea, surely it can't be the only one.

I, for one, am not ready to wade into the Kickstarter waters, nor am I able to put up a bunch of my own money to make a movie. While I'm sure I could find willing crew and other help, and while I'm quite capable of managing large projects (I have a project management background), going and making a movie is no small, quick, or simple process—at least, not if you're hoping the movie will be a good one. You want it to look a certain way, namely professional. You need equipment, good sound and lighting, and later editing and music. You need locations, which may involve permits. Making a [good] movie takes time, and it takes money, and it takes people who know what they're doing.

And when all that is done and you have a finished product that you are hopefully proud enough of to share with the world? You then have to try and get people to notice it. Maybe you put it on YouTube and beg people to watch it. Maybe you submit it to festivals and hope for acceptance. But the bottom line is: Even if you go through all the trouble of making your own movie, there's no guarantee it will launch your career. You continue to swim upstream and against the odds.

Yes, it's easier to sell something that is finished than something that is not. People still prefer to watch movies rather than read them. The arguments are all valid, but that's not really the issue for me. Telling a writer to produce/direct/film his or her own movie is like telling a nurse to do brain surgery—she may or may not have an idea of how to do it, and she'll still need a surgeon, an anesthesiologist, and all the rest. And maybe she's eager to have a chance to try brain surgery. If so, good for her (perhaps not so good for the patient). But for those who are not so eager . . . Can't you just refer us to a good doctor?

I write all this knowing full well I am very fortunate to have a script of mine in post-production. A short film that I did not have to make myself. Admittedly, I have no idea how it turned out; as a writer, I labor under the knowledge and understanding that once the script leaves my hands, my control over it is diminished if nonexistent (depending on the circumstances). And that's fine. I am not one of those writers who insists on it being just as I envisioned it. Because if I were . . . I'd make the movie myself.

On Creativity

I was reading this article on Salon.com and I have to say . . . Isn't it interesting that creatives cannot make a living at their work? If you are not a big-name writer or director or what-have-you, if you are not a member of that elite, then it is unlikely you scrape together many pennies doing what you (I assume) love to do. (And for the purposes of this write-up, I'm talking about people who are artists and/or creative for a living.)

Even the "big" screenwriters will turn up at conferences if it means free food. The creative pool is growing steadily smaller, even as more and more people are trying to jump in. Thing is, as studios get increasingly risk averse, they fish for only the biggest writers, directors, actors. (There are more actors that make big money than, say, writers, but there are still many struggling actors out there in the world, too. These have my sympathy.) What this means is, even screenwriters who once could get steady gigs . . . can't. So they supplement their incomes with appearances.

And there are more and more of these conferences every year, too. The industry is creating its own market. People want to "break in" so they go to conferences. But fewer people are able to break in. So there are more conferences . . . And still fewer results.

You see it with film festivals, too. Every tiny town on the map has a festival now. And with competitions. How many of those are there now? Only a few really mean anything in the industry, but as more and more independents make movies and write scripts and hit walls in Hollywood, more and more towns and . . . whoever the fuck comes up with competitions . . . will take up the slack by luring these hopefuls toward their limelights, rather like will-o-the-wisps leading unsuspecting travelers into a bog.

The Salon article talks about the literature that has sprung up around creativity, books like Imagine by Lehrer (which I have read), and how so many of the books use the same handful of anecdotes to illustrate big creative breakthroughs. The Post-it Note story for one. The Swiffer for another. And is it any different in the writing world (or directing, or other creative endeavors)? The story of the guy who wrote the one big script or novel and sold it for a million? You hear it over and over again, but does it prove anything? Except that it happened once? How about the one in which Stephen King's wife rescues his manuscript from the trash. Okay, but . . . So?

Is creativity valued? Not really. People want more of the same, more of what they already like. Make it a little different, not a lot. And studios and publishers want more of what they can sell, which is predicated on what they've already sold. So more of that, please, for them. (Television is sometimes more willing to take a chance, but that is because they also have more ability to kill a project and cut losses if it starts to go south.)

The only time creativity gets applause is if and when it succeeds. Then it becomes another anecdote for the oft-repeated list. But that's only on the rare occasions creativity is given the opportunity to succeed. Because few people want to take a chance on a book or movie that is truly out of the ordinary. Most really creative work doesn't see much daylight. If the book gets published (even self-published), if the movie gets made by a group of friends working together on weekends, even still the chances anyone will read it or see it are slim. And God help us every time a creative piece fails. Because then the studios and publishers are all the less likely to take a chance on the next screenplay or manuscript that shows originality.

So if there's a class of creatives, we're pretty low in the hierarchy.

Even if you look at people who problem solve creatively . . . Companies get antsy when it's suggested they do something differently. And the more radical the suggestion, the more antsy the company gets. So, no. I don't think creativity is all that valued. Anywhere.

Hindsight, they say, is 20/20. The ideas people eschew today may be seen as invaluable tomorrow. Alas, we can only live in the here and now.

SWCW 13: Recap

So the Screenwriters World Conference West has just wrapped here in L.A. It's been a good time; I met a lot of interesting people, I learned a few things and heard (again) many things that writers need to hear but, because we are solitary creatures, often do not hear nearly enough. We hear it and think, Duh. I know that. But knowing and being reminded are not the same thing.

I've also had more soda and candy bars than are good for me.

I arrived Friday afternoon. I'd say "just in time for traffic" but every time is "just in time for traffic" in L.A. Still, Friday afternoons can be worse than most. So I missed the keynote but was able to jump in with Pilar Alessandra's Pitch talk, wherein she gave us templates to help work out our pitches. Very helpful, though when I moved on to Danny Manus' talk on Loglines & Queries, I of course got some contradictory information. One has to remember that every studio, every production company, every agent and manager is different and has a different idea about how best to do things. Going to conferences like this one only underscores how subjective it all is.

This is NOT an excuse, however, for writers to say, "Oh, they didn't like my script because they didn't understand it" or whatever. If you're getting the same response everywhere, if it's all "no," then go back to your script and figure out where the problem(s) is (are). If you're lucky enough to get feedback (or have enough money to pay for a consultant to give you feedback, which can be invaluable), see if what they say makes sense. Sometimes it's crap advice, and it really is just that a person didn't like the script. But sometimes—and this is especially true if you're hearing the same thing from a lot of different places—there's still more work to be done before anyone can really hope to sell the script. And when you send that baby out there into the world, you do really want it to be as good as you feel you can get it. It won't be perfect, but it needs to be (as they say in the medical world) "viable."

[slightly blurry] snap of one of Manus' visual aids

I ended my first night with a panel on Tips & Tricks of the Trade. It was moderated by Jeanne Veillette Bowerman and featured Robbie Fox, Doug Richardson, and Tom Schulman. (Yes, that Tom Schulman, the one who wrote Dead Poet's Society.) Honestly, this panel was a lot of remembrances and anecdotes, but it was fun. Fox stated that short films are the way in these days, that writers should make shorts and get them out there because studio and production people would rather watch something than read a script.

A lot of what we heard over the weekend is the emphasis on the business being a relationship biz. This goes to the whole "who you know" aspect, but it also goes beyond. Because first people have to get to know you. So you want to stand out . . . And yet not be weird and creepy . . . Being confident is good, but being cocky is not . . . You want to be someone other people want to work with.

More that we learned: That studios are making fewer and fewer movies, meaning there's less work for writers. Studios don't want original content because they aren't "building from the ground up" any more. They want to grab properties that already have fans (comic books, popular novels, etc.). This is in large part because 2/3 of ticket sales are now overseas, and the audiences over there (especially China) eat up the epic blockbusters.

And by the way, did you know the studios keep databases and exchange info regarding scripts and writers circulating through town? Speaking of being creepy . . .

On Saturday morning I attended the panel on getting an agent or manager. If you're wondering what the difference is (at least in California), an agent can solicit work and negotiate on his/her client's behalf and a manager cannot. Managers more guide, counsel, promote the writer's career. They can help the writer prioritize projects, tell them whether an idea is salable. Managers usually work in conjunction with agents.

This panel also said that specs for existing shows are a dying animal; nowadays writers need two original television pilot specs instead. (Well, but again I got contradicting info from one of the managers in the pitching session, so . . .)

Here's what's true: There is a constant need for fresh, original material in the television writing market. But the agents and managers are also (again!) looking for personalities that are not high maintenance, people who are reasonable and flexible, who are professional.

I pitched on Saturday to six managers and production companies. One passed. Four asked for contact info and/or business cards. One requested a script. I don't know if that's successful? It's a start, I guess. And it was good experience anyway.

This morning I started with the Getting Past the Reader panel that featured Brian McDonald, Kathie Fong Yoneda, Richard Botto (of Stage 32, which is a site that's done me solid this past year or so), and Karl Iglesias. This one was also moderated by Jeanne Veillette Bowerman.

When asked what they look for when reading a script, some sample responses included:

• Roughly 50/50 ratio of dialogue to description (when simply flipping through the pages)
• Dialogue that "plays" rather than big blocks of speech
• Proper formatting and no typos
• That the script isn't too long
• Writing that is visual and meant for the screen
• Action
• Characters with emotional connection to the audience

They of course told us we should read [successful] scripts to see how it's done (but try to keep in mind many scripts online are shooting scripts, which are written differently). They pointed out that it's confusing to have characters with names that are too similar. They pointed out how important it is to pull the reader through the script by having a great story, never giving the reader a reason to stop and think too hard.

(After this panel I had the chance to chat with Mr. McDonald, who was very encouraging as I bemoaned my struggles with a current screenwriting project.)

At the Breaking Into Hollywood panel (Lee Jessup, Michael Tabb, Chris Soth, Barri Evins, moderated by Adam Finer) much the same kinds of things were said. There is no magic formula; every writer's journey is different. But here are some things they said to do:

1. Constantly be generating content
2. Expose that content (i.e., get feedback)
3. Network

Do it all simultaneously. Be doing it all the time. Don't write, then stop and take time off from writing to network. Keep all those balls in the air.

Remember that, until you have a huge hit movie, you're always breaking in. You're only as good as your last script. Build relationships and think about what you can give rather than what you can get. And know who you are—create a writing identity, a personal brand—because that's what you're really selling.

(Also, shop at Trader Joe's.)

The closing keynote was with Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. You may know them as the guys who have written Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor: The Dark World. But they came a long way before getting to do those kinds of cool scripts. It was fun to listen to their story and think about where I am on the curve of my own writing journey. (Sort of entering the "talking dog movies" part of my professional arc.)

Which reminds me. I have a couple rewrites to do and an outline to finish . . . And a dinner date with an old friend, too . . .

The Writing Life: Ups and Downs

. . . Sometimes all in the same day.

In fact, I've noticed that news comes in batches. You hope it's all good. Sometimes it's all bad. And then there are days like today, wherein I woke up to bad news but have now received some good news to balance things out a bit.

Bad news first, as they say: 20 August failed to make the Top 100 of Table Read My Screenplay. Didn't even make the list of Honorable Mentions. This was the contest St. Peter in Chains won last year, so I had what I thought were reasonable expectations of at least making the first round of cuts. But again, screenwriting is subjective. All art is, really. And though on the whole 20 August has received very positive feedback, there have been one or two people/places that have not liked it. Can't please everyone.

But then! The good news: 20 August made the short list for the Silent River Film Festival River Scroll Award! So that's exciting. Instead of one of 100, I'm one of 12. That's not so bad. And on a day when I really needed a pick-me-up, this is a nice one.

The Writing Life: Projects and Minor Wins/Losses

I've come to the point in my writing career when I need to make and prioritize lists of projects. Because there are some that I'm doing for myself, on my own time, and others I've agreed to do for and with others. There are some that have, you know, contracts and obligations and all that kind of thing.

I like that people want to work with me. I'm flattered, actually, and still at that stage where I'm a bit astounded, too.

Here is my current list:

1. Expanding the St. Peter in Chains screenplay to full length by marrying St. Peter at the Gate to it. I've agreed to have a draft done by early September.
2. Rewriting another writer's draft. (Meeting with him in September to sort out details.)
3. Writing a draft based on another writer's outline. (Phone conference next week to sort out details.)
4. Getting back 'round to 20 August to tidy up a few things.
5. Writing the pilot for Hunting Victor Frankenstein.

And that's just my screenwriting list. My prose list includes:

1. St. Peter Ascends
2. Sherlock's Daughter (working title)
3. More Sherlock Holmes stories
4. Another K-Pro novel
5. Helping my mother pull together her book about being a hospice chaplain

Meanwhile, news on the competition front: 20 August made Quarterfinals in CWA. Alas, the Sherlock script and St. Peter in Chains did not. I'm not surprised Peter got cut, and really, it has already won one competition and its destiny seemingly lies elsewhere anyway. But I was sad for my Sherlock script, which did get really great feedback, except they'd said it was too long and I should cut it back to 50 pages, which makes me think the reader didn't realize the show is a 90-minute format. I like to think their mistake is what worked against me (rather than my writing), but who knows? I'll believe what makes me feel better and hope my talent gets recognized by the right people eventually. Though, busy as I am, I can only suppose I'm getting noticed by a someone . . .

Screenwriting conference at the end of September as well. Need to brush up on my pitching . . . One more thing for the list . . .

20 August

Today we mourn the passing of Lucky, neé Bernard . . .

When I gave 20 August that title, I was merely picking the date I began writing. The stage version came first, the screenplay later. The stage play has never been produced due to production requirements, but there is interest on various fronts in the scripted version, and I hope yet to see it made into a movie.

The original play was set in London, but for the screenplay I've Americanized it a bit, since that's where the producers and directors who are interested in it are located. But when I was writing (and I've said this before in previous posts) I sort of had a young Ewan McGregor's voice in my head when writing Dixon (who narrates the piece). Not sure in American terms who that might translate to. Actually, not sure in British terms who that might translate to these days. Sigh. I'm showing my age. (Let me just say however, for the record, that Mr. McGregor is older than I am by a good half decade.)

I wrote 20 August in a ridiculously short amount of time; I remember Hurricane Irene happening the day I finished it. I chose the title, and then chose the name Bernard at random, and only discovered later that 20 August is the actual St. Bernard's Feast Day. One of those magical moments when whatever you're in the process of writing suddenly seems meant to be.

Anyway, it didn't seem right to let the day pass without a mention.

Screenwriting: Preliminary Finalist in the Creative World Awards

I submitted three scripts to the CWA this year, and I'm pleased to be able to announce all three made it through the preliminary round. 20 August under Drama, St. Peter in Chains under Short Screenplays, and Sherlock: "A Society of Martlets" under Television (proving that girls can write this stuff just as well as boys).

Of course, there are still many stages to go (quarterfinals, semi-finals, finals, and then the winners), but I'm just very pleased to have jumped one of these hurdles. Meanwhile, my current project is extending St. Peter in Chains to full length by adapting St. Peter at the Gate and adding it to the existing script. Though it hasn't been formally optioned, I do have someone interested in taking it on as a film project, so that is encouraging. I also have someone interested in 20 August, though it needs some tweaking. But I'm pleased that there is interest in my work, and that people are asking me to help them refine their scripts as well. Better to have projects than to sit around twiddling my thumbs!

Television: The 12th Doctor

Peter Capaldi has been announced as the newest incarnation of The Doctor on Doctor Who, taking over from Matt Smith at the end of the year. Already remarks are running the gamut from "Hip hip hooray!" to "Oh, another old white guy, what a bold new direction /sarcasm."

While I'm inclined to think that those who are really excited by this unveiling are the kinds of people who would have been happy no matter what because they are determined to like all things Whovian, I really have no opinion one way or another on Capaldi as Doctor. Yet. Truth is, it will depend as much or more on the writing as on the actor. Give even the best actor a crap script, and even if he does his best to elevate the material, it will still be mostly crap. Give a bad actor a great script and the material elevates him.

Why yes, I am a writer? Why do you ask?

Seriously, though, it's the truth. Look at movies that have been known to have rampant script problems, ones that go through multiple rewrites and several screenwriters—they're typically a jumble that even special effects cannot save. It all starts with story.

So I'll withhold judgement on Capaldi as the latest in a long line of [yes, white male] Doctors and wait to see what they give him and how he manages the part.

The Writing Life: Projects on My Plate

So here's what I'm doing these days:

I've finished St. Peter at the Gate. Hallelujah. The goal is for it to be published on Amazon by next Tuesday, July 30. A little later than I'd wanted, but better late and all that. There will be another Peter Stoller story next year, but for now I'm Peter'd out.

Now I must turn my attention to doing the rewrite of 20 August. I've had a lot of positive feedback on the script, which has been very encouraging. Time to attend to the little things that aren't working. This is how I work out the kinks; if many people are saying the same or similar things, I know that's where to focus. The feedback for 20 August has been remarkably consistent from various sources regarding where to tweak, so that's next on my docket.

And! I've been asked by other parties to do rewrites of two other scripts, so . . . After 20 August, I will do those in turn.

I'm also attending the Screenwriters World Conference West in L.A. at the end of September.

Oh, and I have an original television pilot to pull out of my, er, ears.

At some point thereafter I will possibly extract myself from screenwriting and go back to some prose. I've had multiple requests for more Sherlock Holmes stories (am mulling a sequel to "The Mystery of the Last Line") and a few for more K-Pro books (and I have some ideas for those, too). I also have ideas for two other books . . . So, yes, plenty to keep me busy for the time being. Though I hope to get out and do some things as well. I live, like many writers, as a kind of hermit a lot of the time, but I do stick my head out of my shell now and again as well. Or I get forced out by people demanding to see me, which comes to the same. (Never, however, trust a writer you see too much of. If you're seeing them, they aren't writing, which makes them less of a writer and more of . . . something else. Unless they write in public? But then that's just showing off.)

I will also make time to read and watch a few movies so I will have things to continue to post here. And I'm going to at least one more concert this year (August 11); you'll be able to read about that here, too. So if you're not looking forward to my movies or stories (though I certainly hope you are), you still have something to anticipate. Keep checking in here and on PepperWords for all the latest. Oh, and check in with Sherl from time to time as well, if only to keep him happy. Or the closest to happy he ever gets anyway.

My Gay Protagonist

"Why can't he be gay?" Andrew Garfield notably asked when discussing Spider-Man (or Peter Parker). And it's a valid question (except to the entertainment industry people who believe that making a main character a homosexual will cut their box office potential by a wide margin by alienating a large portion of the potential audience).

Peter Stoller, the protagonist in my St. Peter series, is gay. And yet the stories themselves are not about him being gay; the plots don't revolve around his sexual preference. His being gay is a simple matter of fact, a part of his life. His relationship with Charles is as real a relationship as a fictional spy can possibly have, I guess, by which I mean you could make Charles into Charlotte and still have the same story, the same tensions, etc. But I wouldn't change a thing about Peter because I love him as he is. (Says the loving mother/creator of the character.)

When I turned St. Peter in Chains into a screenplay, the readers were excited. They were so happy to see a gay protagonist in a movie where his being gay was incidental instead of key. I have so many gay friends, and their lives are not all about their being gay any more than mine is about being straight. This is what I wanted to show in Peter's story. That relationships are relationships are relationships regardless of gender. And that being gay is not the only part of a homosexual's life.

Of course, no one would touch the script in order to produce it. Because, hey, gay protagonist.

I'm currently writing the sequel (it's nearly done!), which is titled St. Peter at the Gate. And maybe I'll take that story and marry it to St. Peter in Chains and do up a full-length screenplay . . . That no one will buy because Peter is gay. Or they'll suggest I turn Charles into a girl (or maybe Peter into a girl). And I'll say no. Because while I'm pretty flexible, pretty easy to work with on most accounts, I'm very protective of Peter. He deserves to be who he is without people demanding he change or hide it. Yes, even though he's a fiction. He's my fiction, and I'll fight for him.

Theatre/Screenwriting: From Play to Movie

A couple years ago a friend of mine who helps run a community theatre down in Texas suggested I try writing a play. I had at that point finished a pretty large prose series and was sort of floating as far as writing projects went, so I thought, Why not? I'd done some acting, had helped out around theatres, so I was familiar with the form and knew what a small stage could likely manage to pull off. And I'd had a scene kicking around in my head for a while that I thought might be a good starting point.

The result was my short play "Warm Bodies." Surprisingly (or maybe it was beginner's luck), this play went on to be featured in the annual Lab Works in Connecticut and then as part of the Source Festival in Washington D.C. It also got picked up for publication in an anthology . . . Though no one has seen this book (yet).

I'm delighted now to be able to say that "Warm Bodies" has also been chosen to become a short film. Of course, since there's already a movie called Warm Bodies, I'm guessing they'll change the title. It feels weird releasing my work into someone else's hands . . . Stranger, that is, giving it to a film director rather than a theatre director. Maybe because of the permanence of film as a medium. After all, when someone puts on a play, it's an interpretation of the written work. It can change from production to production, or even from night to night in the same production. But when they make it into a movie . . . It becomes the interpretation, at least unless or until someone else remakes it.

But after talking to the producer and director, I'm relatively confident that they "get" the script and will do right by it. And I'm damn curious to see how it all turns out.

Screenwriting: More Great Feedback for 20 August

So, a little background. 20 August was first a stage play that I wrote in 2011 (during Hurricane Irene, actually). I had a young Ewan McGregor in mind when writing the voice of the main character Dixon. The play made the short list for a festival in the UK but the staging requirements prevented it from happening.

Then, after St. Peter in Chains won the shorts category for Table Read My Screenplay, other of my work came under inspection by interested producers, and many singled out 20 August as something they'd like to turn into a movie. So I busted out a screenplay version. It's slightly too short (78 pages), but I'm working on that. Anyway, indie films can often get away with being a little shorter.

Most of the feedback on the script has been pretty good. It's not some universally loved script, but more people have liked it than not. And today I got a big boost when the Creative World Awards gave it a score of 8.38/Consider and the following feedback:

The author has done a good job of creating a cast of characters whose interactions seem believable and organic . . . The author has presented an original concept unlike many other products on the market at the moment . . . The skills of the author are clear and the efforts of this creative mind should be continually encouraged. Good job!

Well, if you're going to keep encouraging me, I'm going to keep writing. Speaking of which, I have a deadline . . .