Q: Shouldn't You Write In The Genre You Write Best?
A: Yes.
First things first. Are you sure that the genre you think is your best is actually your best? The only way to find out is to actually try, and not everyone has the time to run a trial-and-error routine on their own writing talent, particularly when screenwriting is both time and energy consuming.
Still, you don’t know what you can do until you do it, and the more you do it, the better you’ll get. Hey, you might surprise yourself.
So…given all that, why do I simply answer “yes”, and not say something like, “You should write in the genre that excites you the most” or “you should write in the genre that really inspires you” “or you should let your passion tell you in which genre to write”?
Because there are too many bad scripts in this world. Way too many. If you can write a genre well, for the love of God, stick with it. There’s nothing wrong with moonlighting and giving things a shot, but if you’re the Michael Jordan of sci-fi, please don’t try your hand at either baseball or broad comedy.
Talented screenwriters are hard to come by. Talented screenwriters with the dedication required to be successful talented screenwriters are even harder to come by. If you’re one of the few, suck it up for the rest of us poor movie-going schmucks, huh? Deliver the goods you deliver the best, and save the cross-training for your novel. I mean…really…who wants to see a romantic comedy from John Milius?
Actually…that one might be kinda cool. Ka-Blam!
This article is cruel, Mazin. Just. Cruel.
Or maybe you forgot the fine print about how it applies to everyone in the universe except me? ;-)
HAHAHAHAH.
Yeah. Cruel indeed. :)
well, making only the one film over and over again certainly seems to work for quentin tarantino!
Do you mean to say that Conan The Barbarian, Red Dawn and Apocolypse Now WEREN’T romantic comedies?
Holy crow, I have to know rethink everything …
Milius did Big Wednesday though, and I think it’s pretty great.
Like everybody who writes, I’m well aware of my strengths and weaknesses as a writer. I think my main strength is range, so I’m trying to write in lots of different genres—sometimes in the same movie though, which I guess is where weakness comes into play.
And while I’m thinking of it, I can get bored watching too many straight genre movies. I like it when moviemakers try to do something totally contrary to their style, even if what they come up with fails.
If there are no exploding heads, necrophilia nor alien invasions then I get antsy. I went to see WEDDING CRASHERS and they were on the dancefloor and there I am thinking,” You know what would be cool? Vince Vaughn’s eyes exploding out of his head right there! Then everyone in the conga line trips on his corpse and falls. Now that would be funny.”
I blame it on too many Tex Avery cartoons as a kid…
I know you’re joking, Bill, but I really like the idea of genre characters being thrown into an entirely different genre. What if halfway through Notting Hill a supervolcano erupted? What would those characters do? Certainly not your typical disaster-movie stuff!
I think one of the reasons a lot of movies feel so tired is that they’re the same damned characters over and over again, just wearing different hats.
Damn you, Joshua, for stealing my “Red Dawn” joke! Damn you to HELLLL!
This to me is an essential question when I’m between projects and need to choose my next one.
When I see a film or read a script I fall in love with, there’s always that little voice that says “I wish I would have written this.” But I remind myself that I can’t write the stories of this or that writer I admire. I’m not them. They and only they can write their stories. The same applies for my stories. Regardless of talent, no one can write my stories.
Writing what you write best makes sense to me, but Craig raises the question of how can anyone know before they’ve tried. My personal quest to answer that question is a quest to get to know myself, to reach the truth of my being, and, as a result to find the stories that resonate with my soul; the stories that can best express my journey, my questions about life, my subjective reality, the nature of reality… The stories I choose are like the songs or poems that move me. I feel they’ve always been part of me.
So I try to find among the many stories that come to mind the ones that belong to me, that are a part of me; stories only I can tell. They also happen to be the story that are the most satisfying to write. And I become my own genre.
Daniel:
And that’s great, but you’re using all of the forbidden words!!!!
See this:
http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2005/02/writers_please.html
C.
LOL. I wish I had read that before.
Maybe I can make up for my transgression by admitting that I usually write horror and really really dark science-fiction.
Do you think a compromise could be reached if I used expressions such as “Dark recesses of my soul trying to find the way out of my hell?”
So what d’you say? Friends again?
DL
I’d forgive you, but “forgiveness” is probably one of the forbidden words too.
How about, “We cool, we cool…”
And yes, it is hard work. For me, it’s twelves hours plus a day, every day of the week and every week of the year. I’ve taken only two short vacations in ten years. It’s hell, but I agree with Milton.
DL
LOL.
Hey, we cool. (can’t forget the “hey”, I’m Canadian after all)
:)
You know Michael, I was sitting through NOTTING HILL and wishing that a supervolcano would erupt…
I didn’t comment back then, Craig, but Christ that anti-metaphysical post was great to read:-)
Yes. It is a great post. I agree with all of it.
I also know that the rationalization of the writing processes gives the impression that anyone intelligent enough to undertand the “rules” and mechanism can write. All the how-to books, courses and many workshops are derived from this belief. This belief attracts wannabes more than any of metaphysical BS. And worse, it dismisses talent.
I remember a post by William Goldman in which he says that you can write until hell freezes over, you’re not going to be anymore talented than you were when you started.
As Craig’s post explains, talent is a big part, but there’s a lot more to becoming a writer. But what is talent?
Talent is simply that part of the writing that can’t be taught or learned. It can be developped, practiced, nourrished, etc., but it can’t be explained or even analyzed anymore than one can explain Mozart. Is that metaphysical or what?
I actually think Red Dawn is an under-appreciated film - Ron O’Neil rocks and C. Thomas Howell goes psycho, not to mention that Charlie Sheen is killed, what more can a guy ask for?
Talent is the willingness to suck for a long, long time.
That’s what is in my head when I’m shredding those two measures over and over again in “Rhapsody In Blue.”
I don’t think talent is anywhere near as important as just keeping at it: Ed Wood and Orson Welles both made movies for a living.
Ron Jeremy seems to make a good living in film work as well, though he has quite a different talent …
did “from dusk til dawn” seem any good to you?
Sadly, Mr. Wood and Mr. Wells outlived their money…
Actually, I enjoyed From Dusk Till Dawn as well, and it certainly had a life on DVD and cable, so was it a success? They made two sequels to it -
By the way, RED DAWN is on Spike TV tonight, 9 pm EST for those that need a Swayze fix and have maxed out on Road House! (written and directed by John Milius’s illegitimate child, Rowdy Herrington!)
You’re right Michael, talent is not nearly as important as sticking with it.
But you can make it without talent, you can’t make a good film without.