Writing

Writing the Treatment

by

Bryon Stedman  asked me this question in a comment to another post:

I have a situation where a broadcast entity claims they want to hear my idea for
a boxing series or made for TV movie. The characters belong to my family from a
comic drawn by my father.

If a narrative is they way to go, what are the key points to include? Do I go as far as dialog and cameas shots and locations or simply text with main characters CAPITALIZED? Advice requested and appreciated.

A series treatment and a TV movie treatment are very different. A series treatment sells the characters and the franchise of the show…the relationships and format that will generate stories week after week. A TV movie treatment sells a story.

If the studio is already familiar with your Dad’s comic, I don’t know why they need you to come up with a series treatment…the strip itself sells that or they wouldn’t be interested in the first place.

A series treatment isn’t about telling a story…it’s about describing the characters, how they interact within the unique format of your show. Who are they? What do they do? And how will who they are and what they do generate 100 interesting stories?

For a TV movie treatment, you’re selling the characters and their story.  At this point, you’re trying to sell the broadstrokes…they can pay you to work out the rest. Write up a punchy over-view of what happens in the story, as if you were writing a review of a great movie (only minus the praise). You want to convey the style and tone of the movie. But don’t go into great detail. Keep it short, tight and punchy.And whatever you do, DON’T include camera shots or dialogue.

Don’t fixate on treatment format, because there isn’t one. Tell your story in the style that works best for you. Don’t worry about whether the character names are in capitals or not (it doesn’t matter). Concentrate on telling a strong story.

A Day in the Life

by

Yesterday was a typical day for me…when I’m not writing/producing a TV series.

While dealing with the business of writing (exchanging emails with my editors & agents, watching a pilot for an upcoming staff job interview, arranging a book signing for August, etc.) I worked on writing several things all at once — one for pay (P), the rest speculative (S). 

1) My second MONK novel (P)
2) A series pilot treatment for a producer/studio to pitch to the networks (S)
3) A TV movie treatment for a production company  tailored for one particular network (S)
4) A series pilot treatment that Bill and I are going to pitch to the networks (S)

At the end of the day, when I emailed yet another revision of the pitch/treatment to the production company, I realized that three quarters of my day was spent on speculative work. Then I started thinking about just how much of my time and creative energy goes into writing punchy pitches & treatments that never go anywhere.  I would guess that Bill and I, together and individually, have probably written hundreds of pitches & treatments over the last 2o years, and out of all of them, maybe two dozen have led to non-paying options and a little more than half that number have led to actual paychecks for writing the script (and/or producing the project).

That’s a hell of a lot of spec work…most of which led to absolutely nothing. 

On the other hand, I’m sure every other screenwriter/TV writer/freelance writer probably has roughly the same experience. A good portion of a professional writer’s time is spent managing the work you’re doing now, promoting the work you’ve already done, and hustling for the work you’re going to need tomorrow.

And most important of all, somewhere in the midst of all that, you also have to write.  Speaking of which, what am I doing blogging? I’ve got work to do!

The Made Men of Mystery Fiction

by

There’s a phenomenon in mystery/thriller fiction… I call it "The Made Men." These are authors who wrote several terrific books…a string of career-making, break-out, wonderful books which have made them icons/leaders/celebrities in the genre…but have been writing  mediocre (or worse, far worse) books for the last few years. And yet, each new book from one of these authors is treated as if it’s another masterpiece, and the hyperbole used to describe the author and his work gets grander with each new release.

Are reviewers in a trance? Are readers under a spell? I don’t know. But I must be one of the few who didn’t get hypnotized. 

My theory is that for some special authors,  once you reach a certain status in sales and critical acclaim, from that point on you are untouchable. You are a genre "Made Man" (though this applies to female authors as well) and seemingly no matter what you write, you are held in the same high regard by critics and readers alike. I recently read the latest book by one of these authors and am dumbfounded that anybody could have ranked it as a masterpiece…or even particularly good. It certainly didn’t come close to matching his previous work (by the way, just because I say "his," don’t assume I am talking about a male author). So why all the praise? Made Man, that’s why.

Am I way off base?  Or am I simply a lousy judge of good writing? Or is it sour grapes on my part? Or am I on to something here? Your thoughts are welcome.

Self-Promotion vs Self-Destruction

by

I received this spam email today from Richard Brawer. The subject heading was:  "New Book from MWA Member."

Hi
Everyone,

I’d like to introduce you to David Nance in his latest case,
"MURDER ON THE LINKS", a mystery set at the Jersey shore, in Monmouth
County.

Book Jacket:

The body of a prostitute is found tossed into
the woods bordering the fifth hole of a posh golf club.  The same day a penny
stock promoter and the daughter of a New York mobster are found murdered in a
mansion in the wealthy community of Elberon, New Jersey. Peer into mob
infested stock brokers scamming worthless paper to naïve investors, and into the
deviant world of the rich with their kinky sexual appetites as David Nance roots
out the murderer from among the members of Spring Brook Golf and Country
Club.

Read excerpts of Murder On The Links and all the books in the
David Nance Mysteries Series at:  www.rbrawerbooks.com

ORDER FORM: MURDER
ON THE LINKS is only offered through the mail from HFFO, Inc.  Please print out
this form:

I think this email is a perfect example of how NOT to promote your book.  Beyond being impersonal, there is no hook, no angle, no grabber. Nothing that would persuade you to do anything except hit the delete key. 

If you are going to send out a spam email, the least you should do is make every possible effort to make your solicitation an attention-grabber, something that hypes your book and makes people want to read it (especially if your book, like this one, is self-published and only available through mail-order).

Let’s start with the subject heading: "New Book from MWA Member." That’s supposed to mean something? That’s supposed to intrigue me? New books come out from MWA members every day. Your subject heading is your headline, your banner, your movie marquee… it should entice the reader to open the mail, not delete it. (I only opened this one because I had a feeling it would make a good blog post).

But he compounds the error by making the first line of his email an utter snooze: "I’d like to introduce you to David Nance in his latest case, "MURDER ON THE LINKS", a mystery set at the Jersey shore, in Monmouth County."

Why would anyone bother to read further? I’ve read  time-share sales invitations that are more exciting.  Sadly, the rest of the email is just as perfunctory and dull.

Where’s the salesmanship? Where’s the enthusiasm? Where’s any reason whatsoever to read the email…much less the book?  Whether the author realizes it or not, the email reflects on him and his book. If the email is flat, dull, pointless and lazy, it implies the book probably is, too.

Rather than promoting his book, I think Richard Brawer has done the opposite…he’s driven people away.

Do TV Scribes Write Differently than Movie Scribes?

by

Screenwriter John Rogers believes TV writers have "a fundamentally different relationship with story than film writers do."

This difference between TV writers and film guys is pretty common,
actually. As one of the relatively few guys who flips back and forth I
think this is because in film, a plot’s something you move your
characters through to change them. In TV, generally, your characters
inhabit the plot, but don’t really change.

That’s true, for the most part.  People want the same show, only different, every week. No matter what trials and tribulations they endure, they will, in the end, be the same person they always were. Captain Kirk was the same guy at the start of his five-year-mission as he was when cancellation came in year 3.  D.A. McCoy on LAW AND ORDER may be getting older, but his character hasn’t evolved.  Matt Dillon got craggier over 20 years of GUNSMOKE but he never changed…and neither did his relationship with Miss Kitty. Gil Grisson on CSI is the same guy he’s always been…even if he went through the mini-ordeal with his hearing loss.

That said, we’re seeing characters change and evolved with thee narrative arcs built into shows like DEADWOOD, SOPRANOS, THE SHIELD, BUFFY and NIP/TUCK. But I would argue that most of the characters on primetime network shows are still pretty much locked in place, even in shows with an arc.

Temperance Brennan Comes to TV

by

TVTracker reports that FOX has picked up a series version of Kathy Reichs’ Temperance Brennan novels… in a way. The series is actually a blend of the books and the true story of Reichs herself who, like her heroine, as a forensic anthropologist. There have also been a few other creative tweaks made by writer/producer Hart Hanson.  Here’s the logline from TVTracker:

Network: FOX
Genre: Drama
Title: BONES
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Television
Commitment: Series Pick Up (13 Episodes)
Auspices: Hart Hanson
(EP, W-Pilot), Barry Josephson (EP N/W), Kathy Reichs (EP N/W), Greg Yaitanes
(D-Pilot)
Cast: Jonathan Adams, David Boreanaz, Michaela Conlin, Emily
Deschanel, Eric Millegan, TJ Thyne
Logline: When law enforcement calls upon Dr. Temperance Brennan and her team of scientists to assist with murder investigations, she often finds herself teamed with Special Agent Seeley Booth,  a former Army sniper whose mistrust of science and scientists leads them to clash both professionally and personally while solving the toughest cases in the
new one-hour drama BONES.

Otto Can’t Stop Going After Cozies

by

Otto Penzler just can’t help himself. He’ll use any excuse at all to attack "cozies." He even found a way to use the launch of the International Thriller Writers organization, of which I am a proud member,  as a way to take yet another swipe at the genre and its authors in a New York Sun article:

We all have our prejudices (yes, you too). I admit that if I were on the Best
Novel committee, books with cutesy pun titles would be eliminated before I read
the first page. They may be fun, they may have their charm, but they are not
serious literature and don’t deserve an Edgar. Which is why someone had the
bright idea to create Malice Domestic, a conference devoted to fiction so
lightweight that an anvil on top of it is the only way to prevent it from
floating off to the great library in the sky. Other readers might eliminate
espionage novels, feeling they are not "mysteries," or books with dirty words
and nasty sex scenes because they think these things have no place in a nice
mystery.

A new organization has just started up as a counterweight to the literarily
negligible works honored at Malice Domestic. David Morrell and Gayle Lynds, two
stars of the thriller world, have helped create International Thriller Writers
Inc.

The formation of the ITW had nothing to do with the existence of Malice Domestic, or displeasure with cozies, or a lack of respect for their authors, many of whom I count as close friends. The ITW was created to:

…celebrate the thriller, to enhance the prestige and raise the profile of thrillers, to award prizes to outstanding  thriller novels and authors, and to create opportunities for collegiality within  the thriller community.

Where does it say anything about cozies or Malice Domestic? No where. This is a case of Otto Penzler making up inflammatory bullshit to serve his own prejudices. Otto has his prejudices, that much is clear. Fine. But to smear ITW and its members with them is another matter. The ITW currently has Otto’s column posted on their website, which implies that we endorse his idiotic views that cozies, and those who write them, aren’t worthy of recognition or respect. I hope the ITW leadership will remove his column from the website.

(Thanks to Toni Kelner for the heads-up)

UPDATE 5-17-05 –  I want to applaud my colleagues in the ITW for doing the right thing:  The leadership has left Otto’s column up on their website, but they’ve deleted the inflamatory paragraphs.

The comments were not necessary for the purpose of sharing
information about us that has appeared in the press, so they were
edited out. The posting of the column on the site in the rather obscure press
clippings section was in no way intended to endorse Penzler’s views.

Chair, ITW Web Committee

Lee on The Road

by

Mystery Writing is the focus of this year’s "Writers Journey Conference," June 3-4 at  the Sisters of Assisi Retreat House in San Fernando, California. The event is presented  by the San Fernando Branch of the California Writers Club.  I’ll be speaking along with Jacqueline Winspear, Penny Warner, DP Lyle, and retired cop Lee Lofland. For more information, click here.  

Edgar Judge Breaks Confidentiality

by

Tony Fennelly, one of the Edgar judges in the Best Paperback Original committee, has gone on DorothyL, a discussion group of mystery fans and writers, to air her displeasure about the committee’s choice for the Edgar. She also talks about some of the deliberations (without naming the specific judges she disagreed with). This is the second year in a row that a judge has violated the confidentiality rules that govern Edgar judging and gone public with details about committee deliberations (Hal Glatzer did it last year in far more detail).  This outrageously unprofessional behavior infuriates me. Judges go into the Edgar process knowing from the outset what the rules are and agree to them. Fennelly and Glatzer’s wrong-headed conduct reflects badly on the MWA, the Edgars, their fellow judges, and the award winners. I think it’s time that the MWA consider adopting disciplinary actions against members who violate the confidentiality of Edgar judging. What’s your view?

Hot Sex and Gory Violence

by

Graham at My Boog Pages has unearthed my sleazy past of Hot Sex and Gory Violence,  which I wrote about in Newsweek.

[The article]  detailed Lee’s work on a timelessly classic men’s adventure series, .357 Vigilante." I’d only read a few lines when I was shocked to realize that I had read this piece when it came out.  21 years ago.

Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.

I
was a big fan of the Mack Bolan, "The Executioner" series back then,
and when I stumbled across the article in a doctor’s office waiting
room I read it. At that time Lee was a disaffected college student who,
instead of partying or dating, spent his time writing about a man with
a large, loaded, concealed weapon.

At the time, I liked to think of myself as a man with a large, loaded, concealed weapon. Sometimes I still do.