There's an excellent post today on mystery writer James Lincoln Warren's site about Story Literacy. Go read it. I'll wait.
Hey. Welcome back.
One of my mentors, (my first boss out of Uni, actually) was fond of saying that he thought that the idea of taking undergrad journalism studies was ridiculous, because you were so much better off actually doing a general degree in something else. If you could write, you could learn the journalism. But there comes a certain point where you can't distill knowledge and insight if you don't possess any yourself.
I took Radio & Television Arts as an undergrad, and for the most part, I've never regretted it. Okay, I did waste ten years whoring myself in low-rent infotainment, but nobody's perfect, and I did get to interview P.J. O'Rourke, Peter Gabriel, and Ted Turner along the way. What I missed, though, was the value of a real grounding in the canon.
I make a vow to try and catch up every once in a while, but the victories are few and far between. I'm proud of my Mark Twain phase, and hell, Great Expectations was better than I thought it would be - but there's never enough time to really read and absorb -- not when you're hustling as a freelancer.
What I do have, though, is the benefit of about sixteen years of crushing Catholic dogma. And, unlike some RC's I know, I figured if I was going to dutifully go to the classes, maybe I'd read the Bible now and again, too.
I'm consistently amazed by the number of times I talk to younger writers, (and by that, I mean anyone my age and younger,) and find that they don't know the basic myths, have no knowledge of the Poetics or Greek Drama. Never mind Brush Up Your Shakespeare: there's lots that just haven't read him.
It extends to movies too. Warren talks specifically about Film Noir. I've had that conversation, too. Then there's the comedy writers who have never seen The Marx Brothers, Keaton and Chaplin, or Preston Sturges. Or Drama writers that have never studied Alan Bennet or Dennis Potter or Harold Pinter or Edward Albee or Capra or Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller or Dalton Trumbo or Capote or Paddy Chayefsky or Billy Wilder.
I've met young turks who want to write half hour comedies who don't know who James L. Brooks is. "No, wait," they'll say, and my teeth will grind cause I know what's coming... "didn't he write for the Simpsons?"
This is turning into an old fogey post from someone who's not actually old enough to make one, but bear with me a second here, cause I'm getting to the point.
I started teaching part-time at the same University I attended when I was 25 years old. That means I've been seeing a parade of 20 year olds come through for more than a decade. And what I've found, unmistakably, in that time, is that the cultural memory has shrunk.
Time was, if you were 20, you'd know about stuff that happened long before you were born. You'd recognize who a singer was. If you heard a cover song, you'd eventually find out who did the original and feel a momentary burst of embarrassment that you didn't know that someone had been there before.
This, at least for my generation, was a natural outgrowth of something that we kind of always resented: always being in the shadow of the #%#%@ baby boomers.
Because of the baby boomers, for whom no degree of self-congratulation or self-absorption was ever too great, I think I was thirty before I ever read or saw something where a character was exactly my age...a story that was aimed squarely at me. I don't know if that had anything to do with why I knew who Jack Paar or Steve Allen was, why I got Uncle Miltie jokes or knew that Orson Welles had been the Shadow... but I know that it made my own explorations and creative efforts richer. In fact, it probably caused me to go back further. The crushing orthodoxy imposed by having to know the boomer cultural narrative meant that I went back further: that's how I discovered flappers and Jelly Roll Morton, and Sinatra and Cole Porter.
I've seen a lot of students over the last few years, when they try to sell themselves, say, "I know pop culture." As if that was something to be lauded; as if that wasn't the bare baseline these days.
Effectively, in my experience, I've found the cultural memory of a 20 year old today doesn't stretch much past about 1996. 1996 was "back-in-the-day." You can't make a literary, cultural, or other reference that pre-dates that time, and have any confidence that it'll land.
Unlike when I was growing up, today's newly minted adults (all of them budding screenwriters, or at least so-I-imagine,) have been culturally targeted and catered to all their life. The machine slices them ever thinner, trying to satisfy them by giving them exactly what they want.
Which is great, until you sit your ass down in the chair and actually try to say something.
The Internet is a crazy and amazing thing. It still surprises me that if I hear a snatch of a lyric of a song I haven't heard before, that I can Google it and know who sings it in a minute; not spend weeks hoping to catch an announcer telling me who's singing it on the radio. It stuns me that I can be writing something and wonder if it's a cliche, and Google that line and get 8000 hits and know for sure. I'm floored that I can run across a word or a name when I'm reading something and -- never mind have to write it down and look it up on my next trip to the library -- I can click, type, smack, boom, know it within ten seconds without leaving my chair.
We live in an age when it has never been easier to satisfy your curiousity and thirst for knowlege; and yet lots of you don't seem to be curious any more.
Well...not good enough.
If you haven't read your Bible, read it. Don't assume that reference was from Star Trek. It's easy enough to find out where it really came from. When you're working on a story, Google the particulars, ideas of plot, time, setting -- see what can you learn?
To some of you, this may seem, like, obvious. But trust me, I read a lot of newbie scripts every year.
It's not obvious.
If you're not curious, I don't know how you can be a writer. I simply don't know.
13 rumbles:
The conundrum here, Denis... those who are not curious would not be reading your blog. They are planted behind the PS2 playing at living a life.
Like you, I've been completely thunderstruck at the apathetic attitude of (some, not all) 20-somethings who don't know the history of anything.
Reminds me of a joke my Dad once told...
What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
Don't know, don't care....
As a young, twenty-something journalist standing naked and alone at the edge of the press-ipice, I couldn't agree with you more. If I knew any Dorothy Parker quotes, I'd insert one here.
9:54 PM
Well, my point and I think the point of the post that I link to is a little different than that. And I don't think it's much of a conundrum.
I deal with people all the time who want to be writers. And they may indeed obsessively read screenwriting blogs and go to Robert McKee story seminars...
...there's a world of screenwriter porn out there if you want to find it. The problem lies with the whole "write what you know" canard -- when you don't actually know very much at all. Like research couldn't help you, you know, know...more.
I'm not talking about the great mass of 20-somethings. They can be as myopic as they want.
I'm saying if you want to write, you can't be that way.
And lots are.
I think we live in an age where people expect to achieve what they want with little ease or effort. And so we get 'writers' who say they want to write a script or novel but they have no clue of the effort, passion and culture involved.
Dennis, you've hit on one of my major gripes: I do some teaching at a MA screenwriting course but most of them are like: "I don't watch TV", "I don't know who Jimmy McGovern/Paul Abbott/Dennis Potter is" etc and it drives me nuts.
Yep, there's plenty of screenwriter "porn" to be had. However, your site and those of "serious" (and working) screenwriters like Alex Epstein, Craig Mazin and John August are not ones that I consider to be "porn". I think they are more akin to the late 70's book, "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask." Fascinating read in some parts, dry theory in others. Those seeking merely the "porn" would not be tenacious enough or capable of digging through the "dry" stuff to get to the "good" stuff.
Are you preaching to the choir? Perhaps.
All I can say is "Amen brother!"
"Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
People who enter this profession (yes, profession) had better be aware that like in high school there will always be the ones who are smarter, stronger, faster and better looking.
You have to at least be better informed...
Oh, and what 'screenwriter porn' (comic)book would I be?
..the really hot kind, with the beautiful cover art that makes you rent the movie even if you think, "I'm not sure that I want to see it..."
but that's...Kari Wuhrer...
And she's in lingerie.
And, Damnit, I don't care if she's an actress...I'm....where's my VISA?
That kind.
I have never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but many in the screenwriting blogisphere worship Joss Whedon, so I dutifully went to see Serenity last night, and I was disappointed and disheartened with it.
Perhaps if he understood the mythmaking capabilities of film, he wouldn't have made such a boring unimpressive movie.
I'm sure Buffy was good, but even I, an unexperienced writer, know how to create a sense of awe, and create the aura of myth around my scenes and characters. Something that Serenity did not have (and in my opinion, film requires to be great).
I just had to tell you, as you are one of the reasons I saw this film.
On another note, I have not read the whole Bible, but the show I am currently writing deals with a Satanist missionary, so you are right, maybe I should read it.
It's fun (and easy!) to mock the baby boomers but if you were ever looking for a generation of well-educated kids, they were it. They came of age in the 1950s when math and science were actually taught in elementary schools, then they went onto college when it was no longer the domain of the richest 3%. They had the nous to see through the sham of the Vietnam War and as the last generation before Vatican II, I'm sure they got more than their fill of the bible.
And aside from the work of the great directors who emerged in the seventies, I haven't seen a lot of classic films from them. I mean, I grew up in the eighties and the movies then were like the negative image of the previous decade? Top Gun or Rambo, anyone? If that's the work of education, bring on the savages...
Jutratest:
Whedon is definitely an acquired taste...and if after sampling Buffy and Firefly, you find his style is not for you, that's certainly fine-o -- that's the amazing thing about subjective art. On the other hand, I despair a little anyone judging Serenity alone; I know they tried to market it as something that could stand alone, but I really think that's simply a dodge. Any resonance that movie had is entirely dependent on you seeing the series that went before. For my part, I found it enjoyable and diverting -- a matinee solid movie -- which is so much better than a big budget Michael Bay thing that promises all and delivers nothing.
To the Gambino Crime Family: (nice handle!)
I don't think anyone needs to extol the virtues of the Baby Boomers, since they are more than capable of doing so themselves (and doing so at every single opportunity.) I tend to prefer the Greatest Generation myself, but there you go...
But it's a bit churlish to remember Rambo and Top Gun for the 80's (even though it did give me a musical) You could just as easily point to Raiders, Amadeus, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Raging Bull, Wings of Desire, Roger & Me, Spinal Tap, The Decalogue or Do The Right Thing. Your list is akin to trying to remember the 70's as the era of Mother Juggs and Speed and Grease.
Let's not forget the classics like:
The Howling, Friday the 13th, Escape from New York, The Thing, Streets of Fire, Starman, The John Hughes pantheon, Bloodsport...
And all those wonderful DTV films that filled store shelves across the country.
Post a Comment