A little Ipecac for Cana'jun TeeVee Scribes.

Kelly J. Compeau alerted me to this post from TVwriter.com when she reposted it in a comment over on Alex's blog. I don't check out tvwriter.com too much, but I have a friend, a working writer, who swears that Larry Brody's insights helped him a lot. The full discussion is here.

Here, to me anyway, are the most relevant parts:

Canadian productions generally do not want Canadian Writers. They want U.S. Writers...

Sounds strange, doesn't it? And it doesn't apply to Canadian Directors. Just Canadian Writers.

When it's the point system, Canadian co-productions will trade the Canadian Writers for Canadian Directors in order to secure U.S. Writers. Canadian Directors, in fact, have done very well in the U.S., but no one in the U.S. is talking about those Canadian Writers.

When it's French/Canadian, many times they will hire Canadian "Writers" but, in fact, have a staff of U.S. Writers writing without credit (amazingly enough, sometimes with their offices in Los Angeles).

When it's a purely Canadian production, they will look for U.S. Writers who have landed immigrant status in Canada.

The reasons for this aren't going to be something that is easy to say or easy to hear. It's going to be upsetting, especially for Canadian Writers. And it is this: Canadian Writers are generally regarded as not very good. Their story plotting is slow, their characters are confusing and/or shallow, their logic is flawed and the products aren't very exciting. Please keep in mind, I'm giving you the general prejudice, not saying that I agree with it or would feel right applying such a generality to a specific person.

But, in fact, this is true with almost all other foriegn productions, they all prefer U.S. Writers. In this perception, U.S. Writers reign supreme. We could get into a long discussion as to why (personal belief is that the U.S., after WW II, basically recreated the world according to U.S. Standards and TV was the major emerging techology at that time). But even the French had to enact laws to prevent U.S. Television product from overwhelming their airwaves.

It does read rather harshly, doesn't it?

But the thing is, I can't really fault much of what's said there.

Now, I can quibble -- especially with the part about Canadian directors. For every Jeremy Podeswa who finds his way directing U.S. TV, there are other Canadians who are used to being auteurs in our small film industry, who misunderstand the role of the director on the TV series, and who fail horribly. There are horror stories that people in the know have heard about big-time (such as it is) Canadian directors who have screwed up series because they didn't follow the template or "make the show." These are things whispered in confidence, not usually shouted. Nor shall they be here.

There's also a reciprocal element that might not be familiar to American readers, but that I'm sure any Canadian, UK, Irish, Australian or French readers will understand (okay, maybe not the French) -- and that is the rule of nationalistic mediocrity.

That rule can be boiled down to this: If they work in the U.S., they must be better. This rule has allowed many people to get away with murder in Canada. It doesn't matter what the relative quality of the U.S. credits were -- merely that they had them. Agin. No names.

But what of the central point, here? The idea that

Their story plotting is slow, their characters are confusing and/or shallow, their logic is flawed and the products aren't very exciting.

Well. Honestly, I have to say that in many cases, not all, but many -- this is deadly true.

It's depressing. But back when I was reading scripts for cash, I was dismayed to see several high profile projects that were on their way into production where the plot took forever to get going, and where things were hopelessly muddled.

There's a lot of reasons that could be behind this. One is a lack of opportunity and mentorship for beginning writers. As I've said here many times before, fewer shows and fewer episode orders mean a dearth of opportunity for new writers to get better by learning from experienced showrunners and moving up the ladder. In the U.S., you move up the ladder, taking on more and more responsibility (and greater skill) as you go. Here, often the only way to break in is to create your own show...sometimes long before you're ready, or even have that much TV experience. And unlike the UK, there isn't great support for playwriting here, so that you can matriculate in the theatre, and move to television as an accomplished writer in another medium.

Then there's the problem of lack of opportunity. It enforces a sort of clubby nepotism, at best, or outright cronyism at worst -- where the same people keep getting projects because they have gotten "into the club." I would never, ever point fingers at any show or writer in specifics -- because TV, like all art, is subjective. What I consider genius might leave you cold. (I will also delete anyone slagging off any particular writer or show in the comments below...this is no place to settle scores.)

I do think it's pretty telling that in Canada, I'm considered to be a "young writer," when in L.A., I'd be considered practically geriatric.

Another reason for the problems of slowness and pacing could be the fact that there are a lot of non-writers creating shows here. A deal is so hard to put together, and in many cases, the person with final say isn't necessarily a gifted writing showrunner. They could be a very fine producer, or salesperson, but not so much with the writing. The writer's voice is marginalized or ignored, or treated as a voice in the chorus, no more influential or meaningful than any other.

Or they're hired too late in the process. The desire to pinch pennies and maximize budget means that once a show gets out of development and gets greenlit, the writers they hire don't have too much lead time before shooting (to save on weekly salaries.) That's penny wise and pound foolish, nine times out of ten.

"Head Writer" is a term that you see used in Canada for series all the time. In the United States, you don't see that credit except on panel or sketch shows like Letterman, or The Daily Show or SNL. You certainly don't see it on drama series. To Americans used to the progressing (writer-based) titles of Staff Writer, Story Editor, Executive Story Editor, Co-Producer, Producer, Supervising Producer, Co-Executive Producer, Executive Producer it's going to be pretty puzzling, too. The head writer is different than the US system because whatever influence they have is really at the discretion of the Producer (who doesn't write.) They could have a lot of influence. They could have none. Trust me, to those of us concerned with improving our craft through steady work and learning, it's a little frustrating, because there's no way to know what kind of situation you're going to be in until you're in it. In TV, if the writing is not respected and given its due, then only three things can replace it: the ascendency of the actors (which comes with its own set of problems) or directors (who will always favor their particular episode over what's good for the series as a whole) or, more likely, the power will rest with a non-writing producer (who have the production on their mind, and who may, or may not, have good story sense. If you come from a writing background, you can get very quickly when something's up or wrong with the script. If you don't...it's a crapshoot.)

Of course, the best non-writing producers are the ones who do listen to their writers. The ones who will allow a case to be made for why it needs to be this way, not that way, and, when the case makes sense, nod their heads and go, "yup." Not decide out of ego -- I'm in charge so what I say goes -- but "I'm in charge and the most important thing is the show, so I don't care if your idea is better than my idea so long as it's the right idea for the show."

I've worked for those people, too. And all it means is an extra step. The job still gets done. Those showrunners are golden, even if they don't write. Because in the writing room, the best idea wins -- so if you internalize that skill, you're halfway there. It's not that the Head Writer concept can't work. It plainly can -- but it takes a very special kind of producer, with a very special kind of ego. It's just a general indication that the idea of writers as essential parts of the process is somewhat debased in the Canadian system (unless they've worked in L.A.!) Most of the time, the deal takes precedencce over the art.

What else could result in the categorization above? Well, until recently, getting a show on the air in Canada meant getting it through CTF and Telefilm, too, the quasi-governmental agencies that help fund TV in Canada. That meant guessing what the funders would go for -- which weren't always the most commercial, grabby ideas. That's starting to change with the new funding system, thank heaven. Broadcasters now have a little more power to greenlight shows that they think are good -- not ones they think can get through the process.

Then there's development. Slow-pacing and muddled scenes can often come from an over-development process that leads to scenes that are supposed to be about "character" that stop the story dead in its tracks, rather than weave that character info with a crackerjack, exciting, speedily moving story.

Sadly, sometimes, I have been asked in notes to back away from big act outs. I've been told to take longer setting something up when my every instinct is telling me to get to the point. I've heard horror stories of much, much worse from other writers. In fact, touch wood, except for a very few cases, I've had a pretty charmed experience with development people. I count myself lucky on that score.

Some of the most refreshing work I've done lately is in animation, a genre to which I'm still a little new. The nice thing about animation is sitting in a meeting with a good story editor and hearing, "that idea's great, but we need to get to it by the end of the teaser." This is when it was pitched as the Act One out. Nine times out of ten, that's way better than the reverse.

"Don't rush through this" is a crippling note you get a lot in Canada.

I want to say whenever I get that note, "can't we rush through it, but have the impact weigh larger? In other words, can't we do two things at once, here?"

It's not always the case, but often, the idea to keep shit moving -- and moving fast -- is not a bad one. I look at the act outs on 24, Prison Break, LOST, House -- and I think, "is it just me that knows that even if your show isn't action based, even if it's emotional and interior a lot of the time, then your act out has to have the emotional-interior equivalent bomb for one of the characters -- in other words, the emotional equivalent of a great Jack Bauer double cross on 24?"

Anyway. The bottom line is that I know personally, and have met, and have read, LOTS of Canadian writers who are willing and able to scrub down, wash off, and change this categorization of our talents, given the opportunity and the freedom to actually do it, and take the risk, and not have our ideas committeed, overdeveloped, pounded to pulp and squeezed out --

--but at the same time, I also hear the other side of the story.

It seems like I've been making a lot of excuses here, right? Spinning plates and vamping and explaining why it's not the Canadian writers' fault. And every example I've given above is true. It does happen. But there's another reason.

As Pogo said, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us."

Sometimes, we do suck. I'm not saying this with classic Canadian defeatism, but in the spirit of honest, forthright, and needed self-criticism.

I've met and spoken to a lot of well-meaning producers looking to employ Canadian writers, who get scripts from Canadian literary agencies where there are typos and grammatical errors on every page. This happens more than you think.

I've read writing samples, sent out to try to get work - that were boring.

Boring! How can your sample be boring?

I know a kindred spirit when I meet one, because they'll be familiar with every new show that's out there. They will have seen at least part of an episode. They know what's on the air, they know what's doing well, they know what's coming up. Why? That's the price of being a professional. You'd be surprised how many writers working in Toronto, or Montreal, or Vancouver aren't really that familiar with what's new, and what's out there. I've even met writers in Toronto who want to write for television who say that they hate television. That depresses me no end.

As much as we all may carp about the lack of opportunities and all the rest of it, we must not shirk from the criticism implied in the above post, either. There is definitely a bit of Cassius going on here. You remember what Cassius said, don't you? In Julius Caesar.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in our selves -- that we are underlings.