The short answer to that question is no.
Which does not stop me from thinking about it.
At a restaurant dinner with a couple we enjoy and
appreciate, a (recently retired) woman who wrote promos for television
observed,
“No one grows up dreaming of writing promos for television.”
Her understandable point being,
It is a writing job
– of sorts – so you do it. Contentedly, because it’s “in the
ballpark.” The problem is, you are not
on the field; you are assembling the program.
I was IMDB-ably on
the field. But, as with not fully examined
dreams of all kinds, I was unaware of
what that entirely involved.
Great chefs’ hands and bodies are inevitably carved up. But unless they are obsessive self-mutilators,
the prospect of stitches was unlikely what drew them to culinary endeavors. I never lost fingers writing for television. But the experience undeniably left its mark.
Writing for TV is a collaborative undertaking. It has
to be. There is too much material for
one writer to crank out entirely by themselves.
(Exception: If the series
order is relatively short, allowing one writer or a two-person partnership to
self-write the scripts before entering production. Enviable Example: Fawlty
Towers.)
Movie scripts are generally “serially” written. One writer breaks the proverbial ice,
then subsequent writers are retained sequentially, in hopes that their cumulated efforts will deliver the scriptorial train to its ultimate “Green lit” destination.
then subsequent writers are retained sequentially, in hopes that their cumulated efforts will deliver the scriptorial train to its ultimate “Green lit” destination.
Sometimes, the participating screenwriters are specialists, recruited
to upgrade one failing deficiency in the script. For example, uncredited women writers are frequently
brought in to make the screenplay’s “female component” more genderly believable.
“Women generally pee sitting down.”
“So ‘Brent and Kathleen stand side by side at adjacent urinals’
is wrong?”
“Thanks for the money.”
Book writers traditionally work alone. To my knowledge, novelists rarely reach out
for specified assistance.
“I’m terrible at adjectives.”
“What about adverbs?”
“I called them already.”
That doesn’t happen.
Though it was enjoyable to imagine.
In series television, you write the scripts’ preliminary drafts
by yourself – although some shows, notably the Chuck Lorre-produced series are
entirely “room written.” During
“Production Week” – and I am referring to shows filmed before a live studio
audience – the subsequent writing responsibilities are then appropriated by
“The Room”, improving the story and/or the jokes that fell flat during the runthroughs
in late-night, ”gang written” rewrites.
I can’t imagine too many writers being passionate “Team Dreamers.”
“When I grow up, I want the script I put my heart and soul
into to be ‘punched up’ by strangers, replacing stuff I think is good with
stuff they think is better.”
It seems to me – and who else have I got to go by? – on the
“Dream-Nightmare” continuum that unenviable happenstance veers maddeningly
proximuous to the latter.
“Change what you want.
I love it.” Is that a credible
reaction?
Over time, however, I believed I had made peace with that
unsatisfying M.O. But a story that came
to mind during today’s effort reveals,
“Not so fast.”
I had written a script for – I no longer am sure what but it
could have been Rhoda. The episode turned out pretty well, though my
original rendering had been vigorously rewritten.
Sometime later, I encountered Allan Burns, co-creator of The Mary Tyler Moore Show who kept an
eye on its subsequent spinoff series Rhoda,
and one of the nicest people I have ever met.
Allan congratulated me on the episode. I appreciatively said, “Thank you.” Not just being polite; I was also viscerally delighted
to be complimented by an acknowledged “giant” in the industry. Then, as a gesture of enthusiastic
encouragement, Allan advised:
“You ought to submit that script for an Emmy.”
Hearing his suggestion, a sudden volcano erupted within me. I could barely control the explosion, its
outward manifestation making me louder and angrier than was appropriate
addressing a man who could instantly end my career when I said,
“No!”
Why the voluble response to such a flattering suggestion?
They had rewritten the heck of that script. How could I possibly submit it for Emmy consideration as my own?
I wanted to be
recognized for my writing, not as
some weasly, glory-grabbing imposter. Yes,
I had gotten the ball rolling. But then
it was, “Thanks a lot, Pomerantz. We’ll
take it from here.”
Is that other thing really writing at all, or just a raucous
“joke-fest” with free dinner?
I was reminded of everything I hated about “The System.” You get into this wacky enterprise to communicate directly with the audience. The collaborative process undermines your original “raison de write.”
I mean, is that other thing even writing at all, or merely a raucous "joke-fest" with free dinner?
You are thinking, “Am I sensing ‘ingratitude’ here?”
You mean because the conditions weren’t entirely as I’d
expected? Perhaps. (My face, retroactively red at that
acknowledgment.)
Cooler Head Conclusion:
Writing in a room is unquestionably writing.
But it’s not writing writers imagined when they imagined
being writers.
To which I tell Younger Earlo: “Get over it.”
And apologize belatedly to Allan Burns.
Totally connect with the horrors of that room writing system. I never liked it. To assume that group-think is always better than the original artist alone with his carefully contemplated thoughts and not bombarded by others' thoughts, to me, does a disservice to the ultimate audience. Not that those final Marys, etc., weren't wonderful. But the Lorre joke machine is something to which I have a visceral negative reaction, to the point I race for the remote even when a commercial for a show of his comes on.
ReplyDeleteYour acceptance speech for that episode of yours, had you put it up: "I couldn't have done this without all the other writers who rewrote me. Oh, wait... I've just been given a rewrite of this speech from the other writers... Wow, this is a first! They didn't change one word!"
In some ways, writing computer programs is similar to what you describe here for writing for TV. One big difference, though, is that software is never really done. Because it's "soft", it keeps getting changes. Both to fix problems (bugs) in the orginal but also to extend it with new features or keep up with changing technology. Rarely does one person work on these projects and even more rarely does anyone stay on the project for very long. New people come in to fix the bugs you left in the program (of course you say, "that's not a bug, it's a feature.") or to add the new feature that the new head of the department wants.
ReplyDeleteBut every new programmer wants to add their own distinctive design so there is a ritual "trashing of the previous programmers" (as Dilbert once put it) to point out how anitquated the design is and how it could be improved by using the new Blue Squeegee Framework of program design (I made that name up). So, the new guy gets to rewrite everything and cram it into their design method and, of course, introduce a huge number of new bugs, er, features.
Some programmers try to make their programs so intricate and hard to understand (to display their own brilliance with no comments of why they did things that way to guide the next programmer) that there is no other choice than to rewrite the whole thing. But a lot of the same ego is involved as with writing for TV. Or at least it seems like that from what I read from your blog.