What's hard about this is, if I brought this script to a workshop, they'd have me delete two-thirds of it based on "the rules". Too much novelistic writing. Too many inner thoughts ("show don't tell!"). Too many adverbs. Too many camera directions. And if I said "But Shane Black/Alan Ball/Charlie Kaufman does it all the time," they'd say "You're not Shane Black/Alan Ball/Charlie Kaufman, and you're giving your readers the excuse they need to stop reading, so don't." Would it be possible for us to to a script analysis of a successful script which was a spec written by a nobody? I still have trouble navigating how many of these "rules" are rules, and how many are just the knee-jerk reactions of readers who have found some rote criticisms that are easy to use during workshop.

Ray, this is a great question. Do you mind if I take this up as a GITS Reader Question? I'll be running the next series on that in a few weeks. This is a big topic, one I think deserves a bigger hearing.

Ray, the rules are basically for unproven writers. Proven talents consistently break rules though they all well aware of them. When an unknown does it, it appears that they are unaware of the rules, which is why they pull the old rule card out on you. What I find in amateur spec scripts is that it's usually a case of inconsistent rule breaking i.e. secondary slug lines thrown all over with traditional ones...narrator commentator overshadowing action lines...a shitload of underlining, bolding, and italicizing for no reason, etc. At the end of the day, you've got to remember not to do anything that takes away from a great read. If you want to break rules, I'll read it, but be consistent and make sure it's not distracting. Remember, readers read multiple scripts per day, must read them fast, and can instantly become annoyed with anything that slows them down which for an amateur script=pass pile