Style = immersion Longer version: style is the level of language or writing or story-telling that creates an immersive experience for the reader. Does the text deliver on the implicit promise of the genre? Is the writing (not just dialogue and plot, but scene descriptions and action) funny? (or scary? or mysterious?) Do the sounds of the words and the pacing of the sentences make me feel like I am there in the scene with the characters? Even though this is a screenplay and not a movie, can the language make me feel like I am experiencing what a movie audience will experience?

I think style is the hardest thing to describe, and one of the hardest things to develop. You know it when you see it, but when you start thinking "what's my style?" or "how do I develop a style?" the whole concept starts slipping away from you. I suppose it might be about your story universe. Writers like Quentin Tarentino and Joss Whedon have their own definable universes, a sort of world view that spills over into whatever story or genre they're writing - is that where their distinctive style comes from?

I'm still chewing on this. Here's another thought: the key to understanding screenplay style is "serving the reader". I find in discussions of style (or "voice") there's a school of thought that this is where the writer gets to show off, impose themselves on the text, and in effect say, "Hey, look at me! I'm so funny!" (or "so smart" or "such a wiseass" or whatever). I'm from the other school, that says: style is where the writer gets out of the way, puts the reader first, and asks, "Have I taken advantage of every writing opportunity to give the reader a vicarious experience of the story? Have I taken away all the obstacles between the reader and a full experience of the story?"

"What is the key to understanding screenplay style?" ... good question, this. It seems to me that there are two parts. The first is the 'voice', that is, 'who speaks'; and the second the 'vision', that is, 'who sees'. The style of a work depends on the relationship of these two elements with each other, with the audience and with the writer. A first question is perhaps, 'Whose story is it?' That is, who is the character at the centre of the story, who is seeking the goal, who are we concerned most about? Our answer: the Protagonist. A second question is perhaps, 'Who is the best character to tell this story?' This is the narrative character and may or may not be the central character. In Sherlock Homes, for example, the narrative character is Dr John Watson, but the protagonist is Holmes. So, to me the key to 'style' lies in the decision of who should tell the story, and the relationship that character has with the audience and the writer's ideological standpoint. Then there is the decision as to the use of a first person narrator, such as Bridget Jones's Diary, where there is a voice over commentary leading the audience through the story, or guiding the audience to the events of the story. This first person technique possibly allows a closer relationship between the audience and the main character. It's been successfully used in crime and hard-boiled detective stories as well as romance and teen dramas and supposedly limits camera omniscience by limiting the characters who have the 'vision' access. Can work nicely to develop suspense, because the audience is limited only to the vision characters. Stories are frequently told in a more omniscient view, using the camera with a wider range of 'vision' characters and limiting the 'voice' characters to the main characters in order to create or maintain conflict from different perspectives and opposing points of view. This usually results in a better examination of the writer's ideological standpoint, and positions the audience with a clear view of two sides of a dilemma or grand argument that may lie at the heart of the conflict. With an omniscient viewpoint, the audience is able to consider the argument more objectively than from a narrated viewpoint, and therefore be more involved in the protagonist's decisions and actions. The writing skill is knowing where to limit the vision and voice, the two main devices that convey the presence and attitude of the story teller.

So character and plot are the "what" of the story, and style is the "how"?

Perhaps, "what" and "who", and then "how"? Yes, I'd agree with that: how the story is transmitted or encoded by the writer and how it is received or decoded by the audience, that is the 'style' ... who tells it, how it's told ...

Good observations all. There are a handful of writers, Shane Black, Quentin Tarantino among them, who have their own unique voice as evidenced in their screenplay style. That suggests a certain amount of consistency in terms of tone and attitude in order to have their style settle into the consciousness of Hwood readers. But it also suggests that they are drawn to the same type of movies so their voice doesn't have to change. I have a helpful 'formula': Genre + Style = Narrative Voice. You have to write within your genre. Pick out three scripts from three different genres, and compare their scene description, even the look of their pages, and you should see some differences. A comedy should be funny. Thriller scary. Drama dramatic and so on.

I’m certain that I should stay out of it and allow Scott the final say. But I humbly want to add that I think out of all the topics that have been covered so far, the issue of style feels like the passionate part and the least clinical. To me, style is the combination of all the unique touches of the storyteller. I think that if Tarantino, Gondry and Nair all told the story of Little Red Riding hood we would have 3 narratives that are similar in content but ultimately 3 totally different films. Style can encompass the pacing of the dialogue or which details the storyteller focuses on. The minutiae, the artistic flair, the whateva the heck it’s called. Does this make sense, or have I failed to grasp this concept?