I am currently writing a short story that I've been working on in one way or another on and off for about a year. This is because it has taken me forever to figure out that that would be a good format for it. I've never really been a short story person, I could never figure out how to get everything necessary in a small word count, but I figured I'd give it a go and so far I think it's better than any other format I've tried for it. The story started out as a novel, but I planned it out and then thought it might be better as a TV show, with the story expanded to focus on more characters and plotlines. I then decided it was a film, and then decided it was a different film with the non-expanded story I originally had. Finally, I've circled back to prose and settled on a short story, and we'll see how that is once I finish it. Sometimes when you start planning a writing project you have the format in mind first- "I want to write a novel." In fact, I think that's the case a lot of the time. But, as in my case, you might start out with an idea for a story in one format and then find that it simply doesn't work. The story itself should always inform the format. In this post I want to look at exactly what makes certain formats suit certain stories better. What's the structure?Is it one singular story, in three acts for example? Or is it episodic, with lots of smaller stories adding up to a larger one- or simply a character or situation you want to explore through several episodes? The episodic structure would suit TV (is it a miniseries with a definite end? how long will it continue for? is there an overarching story, or is it like a sitcom?), a webseries (one long story that is able to be told in smaller sections), or even a webcomic or graphic novel (they can switch from location to location easily, and be a lot more relaxed in structure than a typical film or novel). A single, contained story suits a film or novel best, or even a play. How introspective is it? How visual?This will tell you whether it needs to be something that takes place in your head, like a novel or short story, or something that needs to be seen, like a film. Often one of the big reasons that film adaptations of books aren't quite "as good" (which of course is subjective) is that books can be very introspective, and really delve into a character's head- their thoughts and feelings and perception of the world- especially if the book is in first person. In film, the only real way of doing that in a similar way is voiceover, which unless done well can feel cheesy and distracting from the rest of the film. Stories don't always have to be written in prose or poetry to be introspective, though. I think musicals do this too, just in a different way. Songs like "Electricity" from Billy Elliot and basically all the songs from The Last 5 Years give you an insight into a character's emotions that aren't possible in that same way without music and/or words. Also, think about how visual your story is- does it need a certain aesthetic or feel that can be communicated better with a visual format like film? Is the story enough to sustain your chosen format?Relating this to my own story I was talking about earlier, the reason I didn't turn it into a novel was because I didn't feel that the story I had come up with was big enough to sustain an entire novel. I tried planning it as a novel with several plotlines and perspectives (think Cloud Atlas but all the stories are in the same place at around the same time) which is where it turned into a TV show with an episode per plotline, but I think the short story format gives me more space to focus just on the core story I wanted to initially, but doesn't drag it out to be more than it needs to. So think about whether the particular story you have in mind suits a novel or short story, or a film or short film, and if it doesn't suit your initial plan either switch the format to a shorter one or try to expand the story in a way that works. Is it a parody?I'm thinking specifically of a) stories that parody a specific different story, such as the Twilight parody film Vampires Suck, and b) stories that parody or play off a specific form, such as the TV show Jane the Virgin, which is based on a telenovela and explicitly plays off the form. If you've decided to make a parody in this way it won't be too hard to decide the format- it's the format of whatever it is you're parodying. In what way do you want the audience involved?Another consideration is the level of audience involvement you want. I haven't talked much about theatre here, but the connection between the story and the audience is hugely different between film and theatre, and is something worth thinking about. Stories can also be communicated through video games, which obviously involve a high level of audience (player) participation. Do you want your audience to observe your story (film, TV etc.), participate in it (video games) or experience it vicariously (prose)?
Don't be afraid to try something new if it suits the story- never seen yourself writing a film? Give it a go anyway! Be ambitious. Obviously these are only guidelines- adaptations prove that stories can work in multiple formats if they are tweaked to fit its qualities, and there are always successful experimentations with form and structure. If you have any thoughts on this, let me know!
0 Comments
This new series I'm going to be posting segments of every now and then is pretty self-explanatory. In Writing Tips from Around the Web, I'm going to collect writing resources and advice from all over the internet on a different topic each post. This week, we're looking at Sitcom Writing. 1) Sitcom GeekSitcom Geek is just what it sounds, a website dedicated to sitcoms, and more specifically the writing of them. It's written by James Cary, a professional writer who co-created Bluestone 42 and has worked on Miranda, so the guy really knows what he's talking about. The information available ranges from advice on structure, character and outlining to advice and information on the actual business of sitcom writing (where to send your script, etc.) If you want to write a sitcom, basically everything on there is worth reading. Since he's British, he refers mainly to the conventions of British sitcom. Here are some of his posts that I think are good general introductions to the blog: 13 Rules of Sitcom Outlining Your Sitcom Script Writing Original Dialogue: Part 1 Part 2 2) The BBC Writers' RoomThis specific page I've linked to above is the BBC's genre toolkit for sitcom, and it links to a page where you can read scripts for several BBC sitcoms. This is really useful because a) the genre toolkit tells you what a specific production company thinks makes a good sitcom, and b) reading scripts is important to get a feel for pacing and layout and formatting. The Writers' Room in general has good advice on developing a TV show/script, although it's mostly not specific to sitcom. 3) Guardian Article- 'How to Write Comedy: Writing Sitcom'I don't really know what to say about this article except go read it. There's some tips and advice about getting to know your characters and avoiding cliches, so it's a good overview of things to remember when writing a sitcom. 4) Simon Dunn, 'Sitcom Writing Advice'This article is really useful. Dunn outlines the many elements of sitcom writing- knowing your characters, structure, dialogue, rewriting- and provides plenty of examples to demonstrate his points. He also points to shows that he thinks are useful to watch and analyse to learn more about the craft; for example, he says that Dad's Army is a good example of an ensemble cast. 5) British vs American ComedyIt's a well known fact that British and American comedy differs hugely. You only need to compare the two versions of The Office to see that, and although you can enjoy both you need to think about which you're going for, and where your show would be produced. Here's a few different discussions on British vs American humour. A.V. Club, 'The Difference between British and American Comedy Might Be Optimism' Forum thread on The Escapist: The Real Difference between British and American Sitcoms What Culture, 'Are British Sitcoms Really Better Than American Sitcoms?' And Finally, 6) Netflix and Amazon VideoI'm not even kidding. If you want to write a sitcom, you need to know how they work, and the reading above is going to be incredibly helpful for that, but also just watching sitcoms is important. If you want to write a pilot, watch pilots from several different sitcoms and make notes on how they introduce the characters. If you want to tighten the structure of your show, watch a few episodes of different sitcoms and try to outline the structure of them to see how it works practically. If you want to write a mockumentary, watch shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation and make notes on how they use the form. Do your own studying to really think critically about how sitcoms work, and that will be hugely beneficial for you in your writing. Good Luck!Image from: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/news/a44359/friends-inconsistencies-continuity-problems-loopholes/
This is the one we're all familiar with. The Clueless Newbie- the character that enters a world completely unfamiliar to them, and we are introduced to it along with them. Harry Potter is the clearest example of this. In the first book/film, Harry finds out about wizards, witches and Hogwarts, and has everything explained to him by Hagrid and other characters. This gives us all the exposition that we need without feeling like it's forced in for our benefit, because it's information that Harry needs. This audience surrogate is also important emotionally- we as the readers or audience experience a sense of awe and wonder at the wizarding world that we see reflected in Harry, making us empathise with him and feel included and welcome in the world. The Mockumentary CrewThis is for mockumentaries like the brilliant and hilarious vampire film What We Do In The Shadows. In this genre of film/TV, the characters introduce themselves, their world and the other characters to the camera crew and audience, giving it the illusion of reality even when we know it's completely fictional (particularly if the characters are vampires and werewolves). In this situation, the camera itself is the audience surrogate, and it's as if we ourselves are being directly addressed by the characters and invited into the world. This means that everything is explained to us to give us proper introductions to the characters and exposition. Unlike with the Clueless Newbie, the exposition is explicitly for us, but isn't forced, as it is when implausible-dialogue-between-characters-who-should-already-know-everything-that-they're-conveniently-repeating-for-the-camera is used for exposition. The exposition is natural, and is part of the storytelling of the mockumentary form through character interviews and introductions. The Rational Central CharacterThe Rational Central Character, for example Jane the Virgin's Jane, provides a focus of calmness and rationality when everyone else around them is being ridiculous and everything that happens is crazy. Because of this character, the plot can get as wild as it wants to and the audience accepts it because they see their own confusion mirrored in the rational character. Most of the characters can take actions that seem wildly emotional/irrational/crazy, but as long as we see that someone in the story is aware of how crazy it is (so we know the writers are also aware of it), we go with it. Implausible, wildly far-fetched plots are hard to relate to and enjoy on more than a shallow level (soap operas, 'reality' TV- not that these formats don't have value, but they're certainly not as emotionally affecting as something more plausible). Grounding the plot in a point of rationality makes it more real, plausible, and relatable. The narrator in Jane the Virgin also serves a similar purpose- at one point when a plot twist occurs, he says 'wow, I did not see that coming!', reflecting our own reactions and heightening the drama by highlighting how unexpected the event was. Or it makes us feel clever if we did actually see it coming. So to summarise, audience surrogates are important for making us feel included in the world, for giving us required exposition, and for reflecting our reactions to the story so we can identify with a character. Are there any types I've missed, or reasons they're important? Let me know! Image from http://www.thewrap.com/15-harry-potter-magical-facts-sorcerers-stone-15th-anniversary-photos/ Wonder Woman has had an awful lot of pressure on it, let's face it. Hollywood has had a tragically small amount of attempts at making a female-led superhero film (see this article), and director Patty Jenkins is only the second female film-maker to be given an over $100 million budget. Wonder Woman has more than lived up to expectations, however, with many calling it the best DC film or even superhero film since The Dark Knight (see here, here, here, and here). I loved the film, for many reasons. Let's look at some. Firstly, every single performance in the film is excellent. It has been said before and I'm sure does not need repeating, but Gal Gadot is the perfect Wonder Woman: she plays Diana with a complex, believable mix of naivety, innocence, intelligence, compassion, badassery and strength. It's really refreshing to see a female character this complex, never mind a female superhero leading her own film. Chris Pine also puts in a great performance, and their chemistry is great and gets the audience behind them. Every supporting character is memorable, from the villains to Steve's sectretary to the soldiers who accompany Diana and Steve to the front- they all feel unique and developed, without getting unnecessary focus and screen time. It also goes without saying that a great female-led superhero film was way overdue, and I loved seeing one. I felt so empowered when I left, and I think that's incredibly valuable for women and girls everywhere. That moment in No Man's Land- if you've seen it you know which one- was so powerful and brilliant. Wonder Woman's theme is incredibly effective, and every time it played my heart jumped up a bit with excitement. In regards to the feminist aspects of the film it would have been nice to have focused a little less on Steve and a little more on Diana, but I recognise that the focus on Steve was necessary for the story (more on that below the spoiler line.) I would have also liked to have seen a bit more of Steve's secretary as I felt like her potential as a character was a little wasted, but there were obvious reasons why she couldn't have been at the front, and it was very nice to see Diana be an independent badass. As well, I really liked that we got to see Diana growing up and becoming who she is- she is never referred to as Wonder Woman, just Diana, which means we can relate to her more and appreciate her character development to an extent not seen in many superhero films. Yes, there are plenty of origin stories out there, but there always seems to be a moment when the protagonist becomes A Hero. Diana doesn't do this- she remains herself throughout. Even as she becomes more sure of herself and more knowledgeable about her powers she does so in a slow, realistic development rather than one moment of change. When Diana goes to London, Gadot plays the fish-out-of-water scenario with complete innocence and sincerity, not seeming to be aware of the comedy or deliberately and cringe-inducingly play it up for laughs at all. This sincerity makes the comedy funnier, the action more meaningful, the emotions harder-hitting, and the character completely believable and complex. Because of the scenario- superhero helps win a world war- the Captain America comparisons are inevitable, but in my view, although I do really like his plotlines, Captain America has all the complexity of a cardboard cut-out compared to Diana. Both are heroes by choice, both are brave and selfless, but we really feel it from Diana, and see her struggles with it, rather than simply being shown it as with Captain America. SPOILERS FROM HERE ON IN! If you haven't watched the film, stop reading and go do that. I really recommend it. Warning: that's not a rhetorical question.And it's something that's really been on my mind the past couple of weeks. As someone studying for a degree in English Literature, whose passion is storytelling, who wants a career revolving around storytelling... why? Why do I want to do that, to waste my life doing that, when such terrible things happen in the world as the attack in Manchester (my hometown) last week? In the light of that, and the awful things that human beings are capable of, the idea of storytelling itself being important- the idea which has been one of my core beliefs as long as I can remember- has seemed... Silly. Frivolous. Unimportant. Futile, even. If I had wanted to develop the skills and go down that path earlier in life, I could be on my way to being a nurse, or a doctor, or a policewoman. Or having some career that seems more obviously useful. Over the past week I've been trying to bring back my belief in the importance of stories because, after all, that's the path I have chosen and in fact is the one I have the skillset for. I suppose this blog post is another way in which I'm trying to do that.
I've always thought that the thing at the core of storytelling's importance is its capacity for creating empathy, which I suppose is a way in which I am seeing storytelling as failing. The people behind the Manchester attack, and many others like it, must completely lack empathy. I can see no other explanation for how a human being could be part of something so horrible. So storytelling must therefore be useless in this case. But. Just because storytelling fails to prevent awful deeds by people with no empathy, it doesn't fail completely. Storytelling does not always mean fiction: we've all heard the stories of Manchester after the attacks- the Sikh taxi driver who gave rides for free on the night, the homeless man who fearlessly helped the injured, the crowds singing Oasis' 'Don't Look Back in Anger' in memory. These are the stories- true as they are- that have built the narrative of a community coming together with strength in the face of grief and a horrific attack. And though the story may one day find its way into another form, for us it has been unfolding in front of us on our social media feeds and news shows and papers and websites. Which doesn't make it less of a story. Which doesn't make it less real. Which doesn't make it less important. Also, think about representation: of marginalised groups like the Muslim community, the LGBTQ+ community, POC, people with disabilities. Increased visibility of marginalised groups is incredibly beneficial to society. People seeing themselves represented in media and in storytelling is invaluable to their self-esteem, their acceptance of themselves, their feelings of belonging to the culture, community or society around them, their feeling like they can achieve things: their feeling like they matter. And it's just as important for people outside these marginalised groups to see them and see their experiences and- there's that word again- empathise with them, understand them and accept them. In a combination of these two scenarios, intersectionality is important to consider: a white bisexual man may feel as if he knows what it's like to be bisexual, but in fact his experience might differentiate entirely from that of a black bisexual woman. Storytelling can help us to be more open and understanding. And in another strain, it can help us to feel less alone. I've just found out that one of my favourite shows, Sense8, has been cancelled, which I am gutted about. As every show does it has its faults, but it is the most diverse show I've ever encountered, in terms of ethnicity, culture and sexuality, and completely celebrates human love, empathy and connection. I'm not going to talk much about the advantages of storytelling as escapism, because I feel like that concept speaks for itself. There's plenty worth escaping from in this world- as long as you remember to come back and help and participate and be in the world when you feel more able to deal with it. As I said before, the title is not a rhetorical question. I didn't plan this post out much before I wrote it, so when I started I had no clue what my answer would be, and I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the points I've made. Part of me still feels some sort of futility in regards to the power of storytelling. So please, tell me: why is storytelling important? |
"After nourishment, shelter, and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world."- Philip Pullman Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
Follow the blog on Twitter to catch new posts every Thursday |