mommyfollows at 2012-06-12 13:08:38:

(Why am I taking such offense to this comment? I don't know. Oh, well.) I'm a religious nut *and* a political ranter... elsewhere. I'm writing a screenplay right now and have others in various stages of preparation. I might not have been paid for my work yet, but an artist is an artist because he makes art, not because he sells any of it, so I must be a screenwriter -- just not yet a professional one. (I didn't have to sell anything to qualify as a religious nut or a political ranter, right?) And I comment here and I would continue reading and commenting even if I found myself in the enviable situation of wondering what to do with myself while I drank coffee on a certain morning during a glorious post-Oscar-win hangover. This blog is the best mix I have ever seen of craft and business. You cannot have one without the other in this field and expect to succeed by anything other than a fluke. This post seems to have struck a nerve. Visual artists of all kinds frequently have this discussion within their circles -- what makes it art? What makes it GOOD art? How dare you mention technique! Classically-trained musicians, they know when they're good: they play the piece in front of them perfectly (or else they get fired). That's an insane amount of pressure. I could have pursued that field but I would be an alcoholic right now had I done so. I don't do that kind of pressure. Still, that's one enviable aspect of a classical musician's career. They know exactly what they're aiming for. The rest of us are elsewhere on the artists' spectrum. Visual artists fumble about trying to make something new, something viscerally different, something that gets a reaction -- something that'll hopefully get someone else to pay them good money. They're on the other end of the spectrum with poets and the non-classical musicians (those musicians who need some mysterious combination of talent and "you know it when you see it" appeal in order to succeed). I don't envy them at all. It's entirely too subjective. You can do everything "right" and still be eating ramen at the end of the day. Writers -- story crafters -- are in the middle. There are the "How dare you mention technique [or talent]!" voices and then there are those who look at the business side and realize that the successful writers are generally (not always, but generally) doing several of the same things in a certain way, and they do their best to study and learn and emulate. Writing success is sometimes a fluke but most often is not. There is learning and there is talent, but while not all helpful talents can be learned -- not all aspects of earth-shattering writing can be taught -- still, enough can be so that someone can earn a living if they work at it. Not every film or novel is meant to be or needs to be earth-shattering. Screenwriters have a unique situation from, say, novelists, however, in that once we've sold our work, what we've sold is not the final product. We're selling the foundation of a motion picture, an audiovisual product -- *not* something meant to be read by its ultimate audience, despite the fact that what we sold was a bunch of words. Screenplays MUST reflect the fact that they are meant to be seen, not read. So we'd do very well to study not only screenplays but the final products we hope to be associated with, the movies. The same will be said for successful filmmakers as for successful screenwriters and novelists and what have you: most of them are going to be doing several of the same things in a certain way, and we'd do best to learn from them if we want to follow in their footsteps or perhaps even become trailblazers. Sometimes those masters even make mistakes and we can learn from those, too. I've never, in my recent months of being a GITS reader, seen Scott post anything saying you don't have to learn certain basic techniques (talents? boo, hiss!) in order to succeed as a screenwriter. Heck, the man *teaches* screenwriting. If you were expecting something else, I have no idea why -- Scott certainly didn't give you that expectation. But I'm sure there are other blogs you could happily read instead if the idea of talent, of just plain being good at something (either naturally or, which much more often the case, by working hard at learning) is so upsetting to you.

Scott at 2012-06-12 14:42:43:

Jake, I'm not sure how much you may have frequented this site, but pretty much all we do here is dig into the craft of screenwriting including a good deal of analyzing scripts [we have a monthly series where we read and analyze a script, breaking it down for five days, plus now added a live Tweet-Cast in which aspiring screenwriters can watch and analyze a movie real time on Twitter with professional screenwriters]. Among other ongoing script analysis series: Great Characters Great Scenes Scene Description Spotlight Script To Screen That's for your benefit if you're not that familiar with the site. Re Scriptshadow: If you ask Carson, I'm sure he'll tell you I was one of the earliest proponents of his site and we actually reviewed a couple of scripts together early on. I think what he's accomplished and does is great, and in general I support anyone who makes a genuine and informed effort to open doors to Hollywood to outsiders. I encourage you to click through some of the archives under Lists. Over 9,000 posts and 30,000 comments, so a ton of ideas and information about the craft. That should give you a clearer view of what transpires here.

Michael McGruther at 2012-06-12 15:22:39:

Unless you can tell me exactly where obvious talent comes from, the best answer is that it's a gift from the universe. It's unknowable. It's from the heavens. From somewhere "out there" If that wasn't the case then you could teach people how to be talented, which is impossible. You can only teach people to use their talents if they already have them. If I could be taught to be talented I would drop writing and pick up baseball right away. Admitting this truth about talent adds immensely to the conversation because it helps you understand if you should even be involved in the conversation or not - for most people the answer is no. I have over a decade of experience in the screenwriting world under my belt and I come to GITS every day because there is always something new to learn or re-learn if you've forgotten. Screenwriting is crafty and like Mommy said falls somewhere in the middle of it all. Signed, A Spirit Award nominee that has been paid money for scripts - aka a "real screenwriter"

mommyfollows at 2012-06-12 19:10:09:

Semantics -- what you refer to as talent is what I would call affinity. Then there is hard-won talent. I would call that "skill obtained through practice." One can be born with an affinity for something, and we can ponder the why and the whence all day long, but an amateur with an affinity for something needs practice before he can be called talented. But... like I said, semantics. My opinion is that a lot of this field can be learned if the student is in the right mindset. Yet we see Scott currently running through thousands of loglines looking for good story ideas, trying to teach us as he goes. What he's wading through might be a constant in the equation rather than a variable. Maybe it can't be taught, not completely. And the idea is an awfully important aspect of screenwriting. Hum... "I'm a perfectionist, and I always think that I can do better what I have done, even if it's good." --Luciano Pavarotti

Scott at 2012-06-12 21:35:54:

Michael, that is quite true in many respects. When was the last time Sorkin or Zaillian, for example, wrote a spec script? Studios basically have as resources for development: Remakes and sequels of existing movies, pre-branded content [whether books, videogames, graphic novels, etc], pitches [which are almost always by established writers in order to hit a studio's comfort level that the script will come in A-OK], and spec scripts. And that is why specs are so important for newbie screenwriters, that and writing-directing an indie film being the two most direct routes to breaking into Hollywood. This also underscores the importance of the story concept. Even though studios are harder sales nowadays [say compared to 1996], it's still possible to sell a spec script if it comes in at an 8 out of 10 [in terms of quality] if the story concept is a killer one.