Application of Drama #1

There's a potential confusion ahead - let me make it absolutely clear that when I talk about Role-Playing Games I am not talking about anything to do with attempts to spice up my married life.

I am talking about a type of game invented in the late 70s: The original Dungeon & Dragons followed closely by a whole plethora of similar games.

Just in case you don't know here's a potted explanation: Take a group of, say, 6 people. One of them runs the game, essentially creating a whole universe (using one of the aforementioned games, or out of his head) and the others become characters within that universe. Unlike other games (and especially unlike the so-called computer "RPGs") in this type of game the players can essentially do anything.

Let's get a little more concrete: the players might be a group of unwilling Assassin Hedgehogs (the result of genetic modification) that have been co-opted into an organisation called Animal Spectrum (as in "Captain Scarlet" but with animals) and go on missions to protect society from zombie terrorists.

Okay, that's a little extreme but a genuine game. Or a bunch of Samurai from medieval Japan escorting their Daimyo to Kyoto, and staying at a village plagued by demons (the Teacher likes running Japanese games).

Or Superheroes in Manchester (I first ran that game over 10 years ago). Or Victorian adventurers in the Martian Wilderness. Or outlaws in Sherwood Forest in a Babylon 5/Robin of Sherwood mash-up. Or Time Lords who have forgotten who they are. Or fighting time-travelling Nazis. Or 1960s secret agents like Austin Powers. Or Immortals who discover their world is a computer-generated illusion in a Highlander/Matrix combo. Or in the Wild West with magic.

This is a sample of the games that our group have played over the last 25 years. We take turns at running games and go for as much variety as possible. Sometimes we've even been known to play straight D&D as light relief.

Role-playing games are interesting, the role-playing itself is improvisational acting. You get some people who can only play one type of character (regardless of game) - others who are versatile and create different personas.

The person running the game, for the purposes of this blog I'll call him/her the "Referee", is responsible for the game - responsible for creating the environment in which the players can role-play. A good referee can create an excellent experience - and a good referee can do this off the top of his/her head without planning. Planning is a good thing - or at least having a plan is a good thing - being able to respond to the actions of the players is an even more valuable skill.

You want the players to follow a clue that will take them to the next set-piece. But they don't, instead they decide to go down the pub, the Referee cannot force them to follow the clue (that negates the concept of the game) instead he must adapt.

A common misconception of RPGs of this sort is that the Referee "narrates" or "tells the story" to the players. That would be a very poor game, and certainly not one I'd want to be involved with. But there is a story and the players go through it.

This is all leading somewhere and I shall explain. Prior to getting my recent contract in Sheffield and being able to live at home I was working away for nearly two years. In that time I hadn't been playing (0bviously) but that is also the time period where I began scriptwriting.

The Sheffield contract started in the Summer. Come December we finished a game and it was my turn to run a game. I decided to go for Superheroes in Manchester again with completely new characters (since it had been over 10 years).

But it also occurred to me that there must be a similarity between scriptwriting and running an RPG. Players enjoy games when they are involved with the drama, so I wondered if applying what I knew about creating drama would work.

RPGs are a very different animal to scripts for one very important reason, mentioned above, the Referee cannot tell the players what to do. Scripts are ... well ... scripted. RPGs are free-form. So it's an interesting experiment.

In Part #2 I'll describe how I constructed the opening and went about using scriptwriting drama techniques to make the game work - and what I did wrong.

---

What's on the turntable? "Hide in Your Shell" by Supertramp from "Crime of the Century"

Writing about writing

Yes indeedy.

I was watching Elf yester-eve. I hadn't seen it before and I'm not a huge Will Ferrell fan - but as I mentioned in this post, I'm not the sort of person that feels the need to turn their emotions up to 11, when anything from 1 to 10 might be more appropriate.

Elf is okay, amusing and doesn't get overly sentimental despite being a family feel-good movie. I wouldn't be averse to seeing it again, but wouldn't go out of my way to see it.

But that's not the point. It's the important similarity between Elf and The Fugitive that I'm talking about here - actually Elf isn't a perfect example but it has elements that reminded me of the point.

Yes, but what is the point? I hear you scream.

The Protagonist and the Hero's Journey.

Everybody knows that the Hero goes on a journey and they change in the process.

Everybody knows.

**** ESSENTIAL SPOILERS FOR THE FUGITIVE AND ELF ****

Actually that isn't always true. (Please note, I am not turning my emotion up to 11 here, I said "it isn't always true" which means there are instances where it isn't true, and instances where it is true.)

Who's the protagonist in the Fugitive? Dr. Kimble, whose wife is killed by the one-armed man, or so he claims. What journey does Dr Kimble go on in The Fugitive? Um ... none. At the beginning he knows he's right and at the end he's exactly the same. The only journey is proving he is right, he doesn't change.

But, his pursuer, Tommy Lee Jones's character, he changes but he isn't the protagonist.

In Elf Buddy is the protagonist, no question, but the journey belongs to his father. He's the one that does the classic Aristotleian Dilemma-Crisis-Decision and Action-Resolution. And it's really obvious. (Buddy does have his own sub-plot which involves some change, but it's a sub-plot.)

What it means is: the Protagonist does not have change, they can be "Steadfast". But someone does have to change.

I'm not going to pretend I thought this up all by myself, however it's taken me a while to absorb this concept thoroughly and find other examples. It comes originally from Dramatica which I read up on for a while - it appealed to my computer programming background (which is why, I suspect, some people think it's too automated - but as usual that's not right, it's just another tool which you can choose to use or not use).

So that's today's take-away, or leave-behind depending on your viewpoint. And if you want to disagree, well, I don't mind, but have a good think about it first.

---

What's on the turntable? "Something to believe in" by Clannad from "Sirius"

Planning

Must be my week for epiphanies.

There are two types of epiphany (in my humble opinion) first there's the "OMG! Of course!" epiphany, then there's the "Oh." epiphany. The latter is when you realise you have been rather stupid.

I had an "Oh." epiphany on Friday.

It goes like this: I have written two quite good scripts (Monsters and Air) I have also, in the last year, written three not-so-good scripts (Unit X, Running and Tec). In the not-so-good ones the dialogue and action are still good (so I'm told by those that know), the premise was fine in each case but the structure just didn't quite work.

So one has to ask: why? Or more accurately: what changed between the first two and the last three? What did I do differently?

So I had a think and epiphanied.

There is a writer who goes by the name of Jeff Kitchen and I used to refer to his book "Writing a Great Movie" ad nauseum on this blog - because it is an excellent book. And don't be fooled by the title, it's not just for movies, it applies to TV, stageplays - pretty much any storytelling.

Even the book's introduction contains amazingly useful storytelling techniques.

The point about this book is it contains stuff that you can actually use, genuinely helpful ways to analyse your story and turn it into something even better. He starts off with Aristotle's analysis of drama, and goes on from there.

If you're the sort of person who objects when you think someone is dictating a screenwriting structure - well, so do I but I can see what works and what doesn't. Jeff Kitchen isn't a guru and doesn't dictate. He does describe what has been shown to be successful and effective story structure (Aristotle), but you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

But the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.

When I wrote Monsters and Air I used this book extensively (it's the only screenwriting book that I've ever kept with me, and kept re-reading). And those are good scripts. When I didn't use the book I ended up with not-so-good scripts.

It was arrogance, of course, I'd done two good scripts so I thought I knew what I was doing. Ha.

So yesterday I sat down with the planned web series, Winter, and started applying the various techniques from the book to it. One and a half hours later I had something that was essentially the same, but now had a much better structure and various ideas had been expanded.

Winter will be a 6 x 5min web series and requires that each episode ends on some sort of cliffhanger - just like the old cinema serials. And this needs to be integrated into the overall structure of the story - which still has to have (in Aristotlean terms) Dilemma, Crisis, Decision & Action and finally Resolution.

And using the techniques in the book I should be able to manage that without it looking contrived or "constructed".

And that's important.

---

What's on the turntable? "Phaedra" by Tangerine Dream from "Phaedra"

Strange

Other people don't blog because they're busy.

I fail to blog when I'm not busy.

The first day of the new job was fine, suffering from information overload because the site is huge (I've been brought in to finish it by the deadline - just like the re-brand of Paramount Comedy), and I have to do meetings, oh well. Nice company though. Travel time is about 80 minutes but with some judicious route-choosing I can probably cut that down.

But when it comes to writing I can't get started on the re-write of Running because I can't print it out (no ink). Does that sound like an excuse? I suppose it might be, sort of, except I really want to be able to read it through properly, and you can't read things properly on screen. But I have been thinking about its structure and how it needs to change. I need to go back to basics - the Aristotle level of basics.

Still, I watched the Swedish Wallander this evening. I liked the Brannagh version very much, but this is in a different class. It's all so understated, the photography is superb, the acting is brilliant, the plot is tight and the dialogue - is sometimes comprehensible - it's excellent.

I think having the dialogue as subtitles helps in some ways, it allows the actor's expression to really come through, somehow.

---

What's on the turntable? Still quiet.

My body is my tool

(Title reference: "Not the Nine O'Clock News", Rowan Atkinson as the mime artist called "Alternative Carpark".)

Among all the forums, newsletters and blogs that I read about screenwriting, I've noticed a recent trend - the promotion and complaints about writing tools. Someone will say how a particular author's method for screenwriting is really great - so much better than Brand X. And then someone else will come back with how anything like this stifles creativity blah blah blah.

An instructive instance of this appeared on the "Artful Writer" forums only yesterday. I've just joined Artful Writer on a recommendation from James Moran , who had quoted an interview with Scott Frank. Someone had asked Scott whether any experienced and professional writers actually use the sequence approach to writing features, Scott was a little sarcastic in his first response. But a couple of postings later he said he'd check it out.

I use a lot of writing tools, mostly those from the book "Writing a Great Movie" by Jeff Kitchen. Apart from one, these tools weren't developed by him, they are things written by Aristotle, Polti and others. They actually include the so-called "Sequence method" but only as part of a bigger technique and without the more prescriptive additions that seem to have appeared.

I set great store by Aristotle (who never wrote a play), and this is why: Where Aristotle lived they had an annual play competition for which the subject matter was fixed - every play had to be about the same myth with the same characters. Aristotle observed that some plays were good and some weren't; and because they were all about the same storyline with the same characters he could separate out the plot elements to analyse them. Which is how he came to write the Poetics which describes the plot elements that existed in the successful plays.

I use writing tools that I know can help me put together a better story, and help me remove those things that won't work.

I remember when Desktop Publishing tools first appeared back in the late 80s. I was editor in a magazine publishing company at the time and our company was one of the first to move to computer-based layout. The layout and typography guys adapted to the new computer-based tools (mostly) and turned out better-finished work at a faster rate than previously. They were professionals and were now using better tools.

But the DTP revolution had another effect, obviously anybody could buy these tools - and they did - and they used them - but they had no training and usually no talent. And what they produced was garbage. They broke the rules of typography (like having a maximum of three font styles on a page) - because they didn't even know such rules existed.

Then companies began to include cookie-cutter designs with their software, for things like newsletters and pamphlets, so these untrained people could choose designs and fill them in - it meant that the designs looked reasonable. And yet, without a true comprehension of the rules of design and typography, these things are lacklustre. No sparkle. No real talent.

This is what happens with screenwriting.

You can follow McKee's monomyth for example and create a mythic story with all the right beats in the right places - even if you have minimal talent. The result will look like a proper story but it'll be lacklustre. No sparkle.

The thing is this: Each tool has its place, it has a purpose and an end product. But the tools themselves will not generate a good product. (You can't put an uncarved block next to a lathe and chisel, and expect to come back next day to find a beautifully turned chair leg. Not unless you know Rumpelstiltskin.)

If you are writing a story for which the monomyth structure is the way to go then fine. Utilise that tool to assist you in producing a better story. If you find that your story has illogical jumps and you can't quite make things connect use Jeff Kitchen's effect-cause tool to fix it. If you find that your protagonist does not engage with the reader, use Aristotle's Dilemma tool. Apparently the Sequence method is good for helping you through Act II and keeping things going.

But this requires you to know and understand the tools at your disposal. A professional does not reject a new tool out of hand, he checks it out, he sees if it will be useful. Is it a real tool, or just something someone's invented to make a quick buck? You can't know unless you look - which is why Scott Frank said what he said on Artful Writer.

I admit I do not understand people who reject all writing books, and other teaching, out of hand - it strikes me as ignorant. I have read Seger's books - I didn't like them and didn't feel they had anything to offer me. But I read them. Jeff Kitchen, on the other hand, provides a plethora of genuinely useful tools. (Apart from the character stuff - which I don't like and would never use. I have my own tools when it comes to character and have zero interest in pop psychology.)

I would contend that every professional writer (when I use the word professional I'm talking about attitude, not whether they've been paid for a script) has a toolbox. It might contain homemade tools, it might contain learnt tools, or a combination. But the toolbox is there - because writing is rewriting and when you are rewriting you're using something to analyse what's already been written and that something is a tool.

I must admit I have ended up saying something different to what I was going to say when I started - and I have convinced myself I need to read McKee and Campbell even if I never use them.

As a final note about the stifling of creativity: No tool will stifle creativity if used correctly. Just as woodworking tools are entirely safe as long as you understand them and how to use them.

In regard to Tec I didn't end up writing any scenes, I started an outline instead. I needed a different tool because stories of this complexity need to have their detail worked out first, otherwise they are not going to work.

PS: I'm not going to mention the Writer's Guild of Great Britain's special membership offer because everyone else has. (Doh!)

---

What's on the turntable? The Boy is playing "Yellow Submarine" on the saxophone...

Monsters outline

So I'm pretty much finished on Monsters for the Red Planet competition, there's one scene that needs a bit of modification because the technology doesn't match what happens in the scene after. No big.

My first 10 pages are honed to perfection and carefully edited to hit a cliffhangar at the bottom of page 10. What? Every trick in the book, I say. Bill Martell says you should try to get some sort of mystery or cliffhanger at the bottom of every page. Something to keep the reader reading.

What is big is the problem of the one page pitch. I am truly rubbish at this. My ideas are so big, there are so many interleaved plot-lines, there's so much background, that it's "impossible" to do a quick and easy outline.

So I went back to basics. Who's the protagonist and what is her story? I also recalled from somewhere that you should concentrate on the emotion and character, less on the actual events. So I wrote six episode titles, figured out that I could spare three lines per episode for the page and put together an outline. In addition I use Aristotle's Dilemma, Crisis, Decision/Action and Resolution principles in the outline so that it told the story. It worked pretty well.

I need to go back to it for some editing but it's not bad considering how bad I am at this. Just read David Bishop who also points out thrillers should be have thrilling pitch docs, comedies should have unny ones and so on. What does that mean if you have a Teen Sci-Fi Detective Action Thriller? Hm.

I also added a paragraph that mentioned that this was the journey of the protagonist and that there were major plotlines covering the other major characters.

---

What's on the turntable? "Magic Touch" by Mike Oldfield from "Islands", not his best work in my opinion but listenable.

A Writing Process #3: Making Drama out of Crisis

Last Friday I was on the train back home. I'd found a "standard" class seat that allowed me to use my computer (I usually have a problem where my portly form doesn't allow enough room) however, as it turned out I didn't use it. I was still at notebook level.

I'm working my way through some of the tools provided in Jeff Kitchen's screenwriting book "Writing a Great Movie", illustrating as I go. My new work-in-progress has the working title of "Running" and it may be set in Canada but the city is not too important at this stage.

In the last blog on this subject I looked at Aristotle's first principle of Dilemma. After that he observed that the situation becomes steadily worse until you reach Crisis where the Dilemma reaches breaking point, at roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through - the Second Turning Point of some gurus.

Looking at Back to the Future, the dilemma is that Marty must get back to the future (and now he's on a time limit) but he can't go back until he's fixed his parent's relationship. So where's the crisis? No idea, I'm making this up as I go along. Clearly it's at the "Enchantment under the Sea" dance. He kisses his mother ... that's not it ... Biff pulls her from the car ... his dad gets some backbone and floors Biff ... none of these things are Marty's Crisis. He must make them kiss, if they don't kiss he disappears in a puff of unsmoke. This is the Crisis, he's out of time and out of choices.

After Crisis, says Aristotle, comes Decision & Action. The protagonist has been squeezed by the dilemma and must make a decision and take action to deal with the crisis. Marty makes the band play by taking the place of their injured guitarist. They play and just as Marty is fading out his parents-to-be kiss.

At this point I have to mention a film that Jeff Kitchen mentions in passing on the subject of Crisis, Decision & Action: The Firm. The dilemma is that the protagonist is working for a firm of lawyers who work for the Mob. But the only way out is to betray client/lawyer confidence for which the protagonist would be disbarred (and the Mob would chase him down and kill him). Yet he can't stay. As you expect with a John Grisham story, the Decision and Action are tense and exciting while the final resolution is brilliant.

Finally there is Resolution. The Decision & Action don't completely solve the Crisis, they just handle the situation, the Resolution finishes off the Crisis for good.

So I went through my ideas for "Running" and applied these concepts to my protagonist, Rebecca. I had already analysed the dilemma so, using Jeff Kitchen's suggestions, I followed this through amplifying the dilemma, imagining ways that it could get worse and worse until it reached that Crisis point. Events that make the dilemma worse are the ways you fill up the second act while staying on track.

So I created a Crisis using these ideas, plus the earlier ideas I'd had, and from the Crisis comes Rebecca's Decision & Action and the final resolution of the whole situation.

The end result is that I now have a story, end to end. Some of my ideas have disappeared in the mix, while new ones have arisen. And there's a coherence to all the concepts which means that I won't be wandering off all over the place.

I have to say that I find a lot of this planning very tedious because I really want to get on with the writing, but all my experience tells me, and so does David Mamet, that the time and energy spent in re-writes is more usefully expended in planning. The more you prepare, the less rewriting you have to do.

---

What's on the turntable? "The Kids are Alright" by The Who from "The Ultimate Collection". It's all the fault of the CSI programmes, 40 Who tracks, lovely.

A Writing Process #2: Running with Aristotle

I have given my new work-in-progress the working title "Running", I always like to have a snappy title I can use to refer to things.

Although "Running" is intended to be a collaborative work I'm really liking the way it's shaping up and it'll be fine even if the company don't like the idea. (I'm all fired up and can't hang around for their response, the muse has grabbed me by the short and curlies and shoved me in front of the computer ... well, notepad in this case.)

Because of the way this story came about I'm working my way through Jeff Kitchen's writing tools from his "Writing a Great Movie" book. Yesterday I attacked with the 36 Dramatic Situations which began to give me a handle on character and relationships.

This evening I started reading through his introduction and came across his reference to Aristotle's "Unity of Action". This comes up in other guises when people talk about scenes, characters, dialogue, sequences and so on being irrelevant. The idea is that the work you create must have a "Unity of Action" every part of it must be part of the whole such that if you were to remove it it would damage the whole.

If something can be removed without affecting the whole then it's redundant and should be cut. (In "Une Nuit a Paris" I have a redundant character who's for the chop next draft.) But you can apply this rule right from the start, Jeff Kitchen expresses it as: "A Single Action; A Single Character; A Single Result".

But my conception of "Running" has two lead characters, I could break the rule but I've learned that my expertise is not yet sufficient. So I decide the protagonist will be Rebecca while her brother, John, can serve to express the next bit of plot construction.

Writing gurus often talk about things like "turning points" particularly in reference to the switch from Act 1 into Act 2. Aristotle doesn't. He has "Dilemma", the two lemmas. The best way to express it is the "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation.

Lots of screenwriting books use "Back to the Future" as a superb example of screenwriting craftsmanship. Jeff Kitchen doesn't, so I will to illustrate. If you take "turning point" as your move from Act 1 to Act 2 then most people would suggest that when Marty McFly goes back to 1955 that's the turning point, his world is upset. As Speilberg puts it his life's equilibrium is all messed up.

Of course he thinks that the Doc has been shot and he needs to get back to save him, but time is not an issue at this point, he has all the time in the world.

But that's not a dilemma. All he has to do is find the Doc and let him get the car running to send him back. Not easy, but not a huge challenge. But what happens shortly after? He screws up his own past such that though he must get back to the future, he can't until he fixes the relationship between his mother and father to be. Dilemma. Complicated by the fact that his mother wants (in the biblical sense) him.

A dilemma is also measured by its stakes: and in BttF the stakes couldn't be higher: If he fails then he ceases to exist.

So, I read through the use of Dilemma as a tool (which can be applied to an existing script as well as used when creating a new one) and applied it to Running. It's another brainstorming exercise identifying the dilemma and then working out all its ramifications.

As a result I've got a really good idea about the main character, Rebecca, and her dilemma (John will dramatise one side while she can express the other). And more plot ideas have been falling out into my lap. This is good stuff.

---

What's on the turntable? "Incantations Part Two" by Mike Oldfield from "Incantations". Part Two (and Part Four) feature Maddy Prior, the singer from the folk-rock band Steeleye Span (who also recently reformed - along with Pentangle - for their 40th anniversary tour).

I may have mentioned my fondness for 70s Prog Rock. This isn't really Prog Rock, it's something else. Mike Oldfield wanted to create "classical music" in a rock mode (a bit like the 70s/80s band Renaissance, only less "pop"). It's not "easy" music; he loves strange rhythmic patterns, and so do I.

A Writing Process

Every writer is different, of course, though there are always features in common - like prevaricating (an important part of the process).

I've been toying with a feature idea after I failed to meet someone at SWF - we'd arranged to meet up but never quite managed it. He has a production company and is looking for scripts based around specific concepts. It's a collaborative thing = no upfront money. But that's okay, after all I haven't exactly proved myself in the writing arena as yet.

So, I've been toying. And prevaricating. But the prevaricating time is now over because the idea was finally beginning to take shape and had got to the point where active participation on my part had become necessary.

Off and on I mention Jeff Kitchen and his "Writing a Great Movie" book which is one of only two screenwriting books I'd personally recommend (the other being "How not to write a screenplay" by Denny Martin Flinn). I recommend them because I have found them very useful.

Jeff Kitchen's book contains tools for screenwriting. It's practical. Like hammers and screwdrivers.

Some people don't like screenwriting books because they feel they are too prescriptive (you must do this only) and/or proscriptive (you mustn't do that ever). Perhaps some are. This one isn't.

Merely owning a tool doesn't dictate what you make with it.

One of the tools in Jeff Kitchen's book is the "36 Dramatic Situations", this is not a proscriptive list of the only dramatic situations you're allowed to have; it's just a list of 36 Dramatic Situations (plus a lot of sub-categories). It originated in the 1700s and was expanded and expounded on by Georges Polti in his 1916 book.

(None of the tools in the book have been devised by Jeff Kitchen, he has collected useful ones together for you to use from excellent sources like Aristotle, Carlo Gozzi and others.)

On this occasion I had some characters and a basic idea for a plot but no real meat. So I pulled out the 36 Dramatic Situations and brainstormed using them, seeing how they might be used in my story. In doing so my characters became fleshed out because I had situations they could get into like "An Enemy Loved".

It's a tool for creating new ideas and new possibilities in your script. You don't have to use any of them, or you might use all of them. And how you actually get the ideas into the script is entirely up to you ... well, me, in this case. The process gave me ideas I hadn't previously entertained that would wring every last piece of emotion out of the story.

It's just a tool and, as with any tool, its effectiveness depends on the wielder's skill.

---

What's on the turntable? "Three Part Thing" by Pentangle from their "Light Flight" double CD compilation.

Pentangle are a folk-rock-jazz-blues combo using mainly acoustic instruments who started life in the late 60s. I was introduced to their music when their "Light Flight" track was used as the theme to the BBC TV series "Take Three Girls" in the 70s (and one of my sisters bought their "Basket of Light" album). They recently reformed and I saw them, totally unexpectedly, on Jools Holland's "Later..." show a short while ago. Fantastic.

Plot vs Character? Bill talks Aristotle

And I meant to mention that Bill Martell's script tip today discusses the perennial argument as to whether script or plot comes first - and he quotes Aristotle and discusses The Bank Job as his case in point.

Bill Martell is definitely worth reading, he knows his stuff.

---

What's on the turntable? "Oxygene (Part IV)" by Jean-Michel Jarre from "Oxygene"

The No. 1 Writer's Guru and screenwriting books

I promised I'd write something about Jeff Kitchen and his book which I found to be the most useful of all the screenwriting books. There was a session at SWF about screenwriting books too.

But this isn't that blog.

This is about a different screenwriting guru. It was the Monty Python philosopher's drinking song that suggested that Aristotle was very quick with the bottle. And he may well have been. But he was also a genius.

The concept of a scientist being a specialist is very new, barely 150 years if that. Before that specialism was not even considered, if you studied life you studied everything.

And so it was with Aristotle, if something piqued his curiosity then he studied it -- more than that: he studied the hell out of it until he understood it.

It just so happened that in Aristotle's home town they had a playwriting competition every year, the organisers would specify the subject (a standard Greek myth or story) and then judge the results. Aristotle noticed that some plays were enjoyable and some weren't. Obviously. But he's a scientist so there's one thing that occurs to him: Why?

He wanted to know why some plays worked and some didn't. And the fact that he had the perfect scientific situation where the variable of subject matter was removed so he could concentrate on what made a good play good.

And he did. Frankly he nailed it. What screenwriting gurus tell you today, he wrote 2500 years ago. He was the first screenwriting guru, even down to the fact that (as far as we know) he never wrote a play in his life.

And you can read Aristotle's "The Poetics" online here. I should warn you that it's not the easiest of things to read. At the start there's a lot of background information which sets the scene for his analysis but it's not entirely necessary to read and it's mainly applicable to the style of play.

On the other hand you could read Jeff Kitchen's book "Writing a Great Movie" which encapsulates and uses Aristotle's main points, as well as some others.

As I mentioned there was a session about screenwriting books at SWF. I didn't go to it. Some people object to them, some people are vehemently opposed to them. That is a viewpoint I find slightly ludicrous after all, nobody forces you to read them.

Books are good for a few things: format, industry insights ("How Not to Write a Screenplay" is invaluable), a description of "principles" which you can actually use to make sure that your work is of a reasonable standard (by which I mean things like "Enter late, exit early" for scenes).

I think those who vehemently object to screenwriting books have this odd idea that they somehow interfere with creativity. I am of the opinion that the only person that would be so affected is one that had limited creativity in the first place.

Every art form has principles which, if followed, ensure a certain level of technical ability from which creativity can blossom. Once someone understands those principles, they can then break them. Picasso was a superb artist who's early landscapes and portraits were "standard". He was a master of the principles before he struck out on his own.

The contents of some books are less useful than others, but that depends on your own personal level of skill and experience. What I find useful may not be useful to the next person, it could be too simplistic, or too advanced.

But the first is Aristotle, he analysed structure and what he said applies as much today as it did 2500 years ago. He's the man. Give him a go, and see what you can learn.

Of course, there are the modern writers who aren't "gurus" but as experienced professionals their words are worth listening to. And for that I can only recommend Script Secrets by Bill Martell with his blog and daily script tips. These are absolute gems.

As an example, just this evening, I finished adding extra material to my Monsters pilot, under the guidance of script consultant Philip Shelley . Then I read today's script tip from Bill and realised that I needed to make my protagonist more sympathetic in the opening, then the audience will empathise with her, and her later actions will be more believable.

Excellent.

---

What's on the turntable? "Sensual World" by Kate Bush from "Sensual World". I have this thing about female singer-songwriters...