The Writing Show

Sigh, this will not be an informative post. I've reached the point now where the Writing Show is repeating itself regardless of the fact that the subject is always different. It isn't so much that the panelists are saying the same things over and over again, it's just that I'm becoming aware that the ones who end up somewhere as in published, acclaimed, whatever, are different. These people tend to take things over the top. Megan Holley mentioned that she sold her house to produce a movie that went nowhere. She lost her house and gained nothing. All I could think of was, "huh? you're kidding right?" Because you know what she talked about later in the show? She answered a woman's question about other (influential) people's input in her screenplay by saying that you have to allow them to have ownership in the movie. Accept their ideas and then convince yourself that it was yours in the first place and it is a great idea, you really really believe in this idea and yeah it would really improve the script so you write it in. There is the answer right there...people who go on to be successful learn from their mistakes and they aren't afraid to make colossal mistakes, they learn from these experiences, and they are ambitious enough to sacrifice ego in order to achieve the ego's ultimate goal, to be produced (published, whatever the goal might be).

Clay McLeod Chapman has perfected the art of impromptu. Having never been to New York and unfortunately missing the one time he brought the Pumpkin Pie Show to Richmond I honestly don't know if his shows are impromptu or not. All I know is that the moderator asked him a question. The simple answer was, "I don't know." He took ten minutes to say this and the entire room was clapping when he finally said I don't know because it was fabulously done. It doesn't sound the same when I write these words but you have to understand he threw in all the right cues. The question was whether it was more difficult to write a novel than a short story. He starts off telling us how he came to claim he could write a novel. He ends up telling us about how he stressed and wrote, deleted, changed, and had an editor tell him how to write the book. He entertained the audience with this story to the point that they were clapping spontaneously to say, "That was a well told story." The best writers, the ones who end up going somewhere know how to engage an audience, to tell a story, so that the audience is so vested in the story that they want more, they buy the book. I've done it several times for different authors because I think anyone who can talk that well must be able to write that well.

The other speaker I didn't like. I mean there were things I did like about him. He truly seemed to believe that there is a lot of talent in teenagers and he really wanted to be the one to discover that unique talent, the next I'll say Michael Jackson since he died the night of the Writing Show, and this is good. Believe in people. The thing is he seemed so down on theater itself and said things such as how it has changed to be more like movies. "You've got two people talking over a table," instead of the grand sets that are meant to be larger than life. All I could think of was Tennessee Williams and the Glass Menagerie, The Elephant Man, The Seagull, and a Fountain Bookstore was selling one, (blasted I can't remember the name) again it was a close set written and performed before movies took over, and it was a classic for it's timeless story about human nature.

I'll glance through my notes and see if I can't do a more journalistic post later. For the moment what I glean from the Writing Shows has changed. I don't listen the same anymore. I'm trying to build up the courage to take that leap of faith and risk it all.