I'm reasonably fluent in Afrikaans, and I've tried translating short pieces into English. It's not easy. (Afrikaans is similar to Dutch.)

I think translation means writing what the author would have written if his home language were English. That meant understanding the piece in all its nuances of meanings as well as the author did, and expressing it in language at a similar level (formal/informal, educated/plain-spoken etc.)

As to writing down something already pre-existing in the ether; nope. Maybe something short, like a pop song or jingle. I have the image of chipping away the unwanted notes to reveal the melody like dinosaur bones embedded in rock. But bigger pieces like screenplays I believe can only be painfully assembled and glued together with sweat and blood.

I've always had a sense that my stories are waiting for me to discover them.

Writing for me is often much like looking through a smudged window that I have to almost endlessly wipe at as I get more and more clues as to what could be behind it. I get glimpses so I keep at it as more is revealed. Eventually, i reach the point where I've done all the polishing I need to do and before me is the entire thing in all its glory.

There are lots of windows floating around in my world--

This is really interesting. Now that I think of it, all of our stories should pre-exist in a way, because I feel that we are trying to express some truth or concept that comes to our realization. The translation of that then becomes pictures and words.

I don't feel like I make up a particular truth when I think of a story, but rather discover it. Then I put that truth or concept into a situation in order to have a way of expressing it to myself and others. At least that is where story comes from for me.

As far as characters and plots waiting to be discovered... well, many characters can express a single concept. So yeah, I can see that too. Thank you Scott! I love this cerebral stuff.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Reminds me of William Goldman's response to the auteur theory, "What's the punchline?" In other words, after you've written a winning script or book, you can analyze it any way you want and it will always be right. Just like an astrologer who says, "yes, you're rich/poor/pretty/ugly/fat/thin because the planet XYZ is transitting Scorpio." Who's to say no? Equally, Mr. Cunningham is a successful writer and he can attribute his success to any theory he wants. Who's to say no?

The trick is to find an analytical framework that works BEFORE you write, that can be used systematically and with some level of cause and effect.

Thx for the post.