Co-Writing and Gang-Breaking

In my trolling-for-inspiration question-solicitation mode, W.C. Dixon writes:

Do you find it easier to break a story on your own or with a group in a writer's room?

That's a no-brainer. I think the room is the way to go. You get a bit of Stockholm Syndrome with yourself when you're breaking: you will convince yourself that you've got a solution all worked out when it really is still crunchy. And then when you go to outline, that will bite you in the ass. If you're in a well-put together room, there will always be someone there to say, "wait, wait. I don't buy it, what about this?" And then you fix it.

Working alone -- to geek out for a moment -- is like having a single processor trying to crunch story. The room, you get all those brains crunching at once -- bam -- instant parallel processing.

I find when I break alone, I also tend to get off track easier, and get bogged down in fridge logic issues.

(digression) For those of you who don't read John Rogers, or haven't seen his excellent posts on Jargon Preservation, Fridge Logic is a piece of inconsistency in a story that doesn't really impact the audience's enjoyment: ie: it's something they won't bump on, so you don't really need to worry about solving it. The most famous piece of Fridge Logic ever is probably the letters of Transit in Casablanca. When you think about it, the idea that there are these letters that can get anyone out of Casablanca --because they can't be questioned -- by Nazis -- well, it's ridiculous. But if you think of that at all, it's a half hour after you've enjoyed the film, and you're standing at the Fridge looking for the Snapple and you go, "you know..."

Geek fanboys, when they talk about the inconsistencies in Star Trek episodes, 99% of the time they're complaining over fridge logic. (Sci fi fans are fueled by fridge logic...they'll find inconsistencies where there are none.)

The story logic you have to worry about is where you do something that really is going to make the person bump, or is too convenient, or violates something you've done before (ie: on Star Trek, they establish that you can't beam through shields. If they do that in an episode, that's not fridge logic. That's a mistake . Bump. (/digression)

Aside from those things, there's also some psychological comfort to breaking as a group. You don't own the success 100 percent -- but TV is collaborative, so you never do. But you don't wear the failures yourself, either. The story is our problem to solve, not your problem to solve. And you get to be with people, and though it's hard work, it can also be fun.

Breaking a story by yourself isn't fun. Is never fun. It's just a pain in the ass.

Which brings me to co-writing...have you had success co-writing with anyone or prefer to write solo?

I'm co-writing something right now. It has a lot of advantages and a lot of drawbacks. I firmly believe that once you do have a story, someone has to be the conductor, and move it forward. Most people I know who cowrite regularly have a system where one person takes first pass, one person takes second pass, and they go on like that. I co-wrote a play like that last summer. It can be an interesting process. Generally, when I co-write, it's a project where I was not "the primary" ie: it's not mainly my idea -- a lot of the initial ideas come from someone else. I tend to have very proprietary and solid ideas about how to execute ideas that I come up with myself. In order to have the necessary malleability to make the co-write work, I just find it's better if I'm not the originator. But that's probably a quirk that says more about me than about the process.

There's another common way to co-write tv, which is one person writes Act 1 and 2 and the other writes Act 3 and 4, and then they put them together and try to harmonize voices. I know that sounds horrifying at first blush, but it can really save a lot of time. If you are in sync with your writing partner, and you're working off a good outline, there's no reason in the world why you shouldn't be able to do this. I've done it in production a couple times, though more commonly as a rewrite of a freelancer script.

I remember years ago interviewing William Gibson (or maybe it was Bruce Sterling) about the book they wrote together, The Difference Engine. Apparently their rule was to rewrite over each other and the rule was -- you only saved the current version, you could not change anything back to the way you had it. Sounds like an interesting way to work -- this is in the age of trading disks back and forth. Now I guess you'd just shoot emails back and forth.

I know there are people who actually sit down, looking over each other's shoulders, and write together. I also think this is what most people think of when then think "co-writing." I can't imagine doing this for the life of me. Although I suppose if you're really in sync that could work.

I've only written like this once -- years ago, when I was in University, I co-wrote a sketch with a friend of mine. It was exciting to come up with stuff and get it down right away, right there. It was great to have the instant validation. It turned out to be a great sketch. That sketch probably marks the time when I stopped writing to have something to perform, and realized I took more pleasure in the writing of it.

That writer's on Corner Gas now, by the way. I know the good'uns.

The other thing that I notice about writing partnerships is that a lot of them seem to end acrimoniously. Hardly surprising, I guess. But if my heart's going to get broke, I suppose I'd rather have it be because my heart's broke, not cause an intimate work relationship got wrecked. But again, that might just be me. Your mileage might vary.