JMS on Writing
Volume 13

Fm: KEVIN P. KENNEY

I think you've said B5 came to you all at once, in the shower. But it couldn't have been everything, could it? So, in broad strokes, could you define the order in which you created the universe/story? Something like: the main conflict, the locale, the characters, key events...

On the other end, was there anything major in what we've seen so far that got added in after the fact? I guess that Sheridan is #1 here, now 'bout #2? (Talia was a subtraction...)

Doesn't work that way. I can't separate out the elements like that, it's all of a piece. It's like, when someone asks you to remember your first relationship, you don't define it or bring it up in terms of trips in cars, clothes you were wearing, or the like. It's a whole. And that's how I tend to tell, and how I developed, the story...sort of like remembering it all.

jms

Fm: KEVIN P. KENNEY

It looks like year 5, if it happens, gets shortchanged, sorta like a novel's main action being completed 100 pages before the end. I assume its too early for you to have considered strengthening a thread or adding one to give the entire season a purpose (aka arc). It sounds like that TV Zone article was right in saying the (major) arcs would end in season 4 (no matter what). I realize minor/character arcs would carry over, but it looks like season 5 would end up having the tone expected for CRUSADE. This is exasperated by my expectation that you won't get the renewal notice in Feb/March, but 24 business hours before the drop-dead date, as in the previous 3 years, thus not allowing you the time to slip any of the major arc episodes back into year 5.

No, it doesn't get shortchanged. There's an *awful* lot there, and again, this show has always proceeded in waves...the Londo/Cartagia thing didn't start until year 4, and that's turned out to be one of the favorite threads for many people. Similarly, there are a bunch of elements that would come up late 4 and early 5 of similar or greater intensity. If we get 5, they go there; if we don't, they go in the sequel. Nobody gets shorted. It isn't like I've got a limited number of pages in my head...the B5 basic arc is worked out for 100 years into the future and 1,000 years into the past. I think that's plenty to get me through.

The other error is in deciding that the shadow war is the major arc or the thrust of the story. It isn't. It wasn't even *there* the first season, and didn't start cooking until midway through season 2.

By comparison, one could finish volume 4 of a history of Europe just after the First World War, *written at the time*, and say, "Well, so the war's over, what're you gonna put in volume 5, we now have peace in Europe." Well, there's always something interesting just around the corner....

jms

[ Summary: In response to another poster, this person states that he can be called a writer, even though he doesn't make his living writing and hasn't published anything. He gives examples of several authors who are considered "writers" today but who did not write for a living while they were alive. ]

You make a number of logical errors in your original message, and in your approach to the discussion.

For starters, most of the people you cited are 19th century writers or turn of the century writers. For most of history, writing was something very few could do as a full-time profession because the field paid very, very little. It was thus *necessary* for most writers to sustain themselves with other avocations.

And yes, some of those you define were bankers or teachers, but their first chosen love was writing. I think they would define themselves as writers first, bankers second. Or third.

Additionally, I believe the discussion at hand is of writing as a *profession*, not a hobby. Everyone writes. Just by taking part in this online service, we're all writing...but are we all *writers*? If the answer is yes, then the term no longer has any meaning...you may as well say we are all speakers. Any writer knows that language has specific meaning.

Sure, you can take a frog and cut it up, or administer warm soup to a cat, but does taking care of a pet make you a veterinarian? You've mended cuts and bruises, does that make you a doctor? These are *professions*, not hobbies.

Similarly, writing is a profession. Yes, it has its share of dilletantes and sightseers and "well, *I* did it once, so I'm every bit as much a writer as James Joyce ever was"...but that's simply silly.

You can define yourself as an *aspiring* writer, or an *unpublished* writer, or a *professional* writer...in that there's latitude. But to try and lump anyone who types into the same category as Mark TWain or C.S. Lewis is paralogia of the worst sort.

jms

"Unfortunately the auteur theory doesn't relate to television, which is more or less what you seem to be alluding too above. Nevertheless, I'd definitely classify you as an "autuer" even though the term is meant for film *directors*."

Education time.

Back a while ago, the Cahiers du Cinema in France undertook a program designed to showcase the various elements that went into creating a motion picture. Specifically, how each division was the author of the film; the director, the cinematographer, the writer, others. The first series of screenings/presentations they held were on the director...and they got all wowed, and the big guys showed up, and there was much fanfare...and that's where they stopped.

The whole "auteur" idea got corrupted to mean just one category, and that was never the intent. Further, there's no such thing as an "auteur," that's just a name a bunch of French intellectuals/critics came up with, becaues they feel the need to somehow figure out who's responsible (and the author can't possibly be the author, after all, no no no...)

So you now have situations where a director can put "A Film By" in front of his name, even though he came in LONG after pre production, long after the script was finalized, who does nothing other than direct. The possessory credit (which feeds right into the "auteur" notion) is something heinous and offensive to most writers...it was originally not allowed, until Hitchcock (who one could argue was definitely the auteur of his films in many ways) asked for an exemption for his films. The WGA agreed, but that was only supposed to be for HIS films, nobody else...even called it "The Hitchcock Clause." Only once you let that particular cat out of the bag, everybody begins using it.

The whole "auteur" theory is utter nonsense.

jms

[ Summary: The unpublished writer who prompted JMS to write about what it is to be called a "writer," responds to JMS' post. ]

Well, I think I still have to argue with you on this one. Your message is clouded with misconceptions and misinformation and poor judgment. If the conversation went as you describe -- short of getting into a prolonged exercise in "he said/he said" -- then the initial snotty response (to use your term) was yours, not his.

First, a couple of disclaimers. I have no vested interest in this discussion other than I happened to see it out of the corner of my eye. I have nothing to gain by ragging on you. I have about 35,000 different things I could (and probably should) be doing right now, but I think something of merit may come out of this conversation.

Second disclaimer: I have no special love of John Ordover, so this does not proceed from any partisanship on my side. We have, in fact, crossed swords on many occasions, and I was never more pissed off than the one time a guy shook my hand and I discovered afterward that it was Ordover, who I would otherwise have refused. If you look up the word Haughty in the dictionary, you will find John's picture beneath it. Personally, I have little patience with him.

But...and this is an important but...I have never heard anyone speak an ill word about John as an editor. And in this profession, that's saying a lot. So for my money, at least in this one specific area, that says that he knows whereof he speaks.

So now that all agendas are out in the open...we proceed.

"How many writers have an opportunity to write as a profession even now? I wouldn't want to be a journalist or contracted writer with deadlines. At least not at this point."

Actually, if one looks around, there are more books and magazines and newspapers and ezines than at any point in the past. In the past, writing was a profession that could *only* be practiced by those who had either a patron or an estate or a job that did not require their full and complete attention. There are more venues for publication now than at any time in the past. Go to an ABA (American Booksellers Association) Convention some time if you want verification...rooms the size of football fields packed to the gills with publishers of every sort, hawking endless lines of books and magazines and the like. It's dizzying.

If anything, the problem is that there's more competition these days, and print is in general going through a kind of upheaval at the moment as it tries to fit into the electronic age. But there's FAR more opportunity than at any time previously. And more people are working as writers part-time or full-time now than before. Even if you have a full-time job, you just find a way to make the time IF IT MATTERS TO YOU. If it doesn't, you won't. Real simple.

"But,_if_I_have_no_other_source_of_income,_what_am_I?"

An unpublished writer.

"Me: I have an idea for a Trek novel, but I'm not comfortable using established characteres/continuity. Is there some way to just submit an idea to Pocket Books? John: No. To be a good writer takes blah blah blah. Me: I'm not impressed. You're an editor. Like you'd know."

And this is where you make your largest error in the discussion. I can only assume you don't understand the role of the editor in publishing. It's an editor's JOB to know, and to say when asked, "this is what it takes to be a good writer." An editor has to find good books, work with the writer to hone the content of those books, and to make a judgment call on whether or not that writer has what it takes for the long haul; nobody wants to publish one-book-only writers.

It's his (and any editor's) JOB to know. That "knowing" varies from editor to editor, depending on what strengths they emphasize, the needs of their own line of books and the like, but they KNOW well enough to talk about it intelligently. Can they be wrong? Sure, it happens. But that's simply due to a lack of infallibility on anyone's part.

His statement was not rude, or condescending, as you imply. It was a professional opinion that was blunt and to the point, and just what he'd tell anyone else, and what he has an OBLIGATION to tell anyone else. So in the final analysis, it was your response that was out of line.

Believe me, if I could find something to gig John about, I'd take it. As I said, I have no particular affection for him. But in this instance, he's right and you're wrong, and in this kind of discussion you have to set aside personalities and try to focus on something that at least looks like the truth. That puts me on his side in this, and I'm as uncomfortable being there as you are hearing this. But there it is.

"But to imply that because I don't feel confident using someone else's continuity makes me a no-talent or means I don't _know_ what being a writer is... is, well, rude."

Again, wrong. Specifically, your original comment (as relayed above) was that you wanted just to submit an idea or two for books. This is the first and strongest indicator of a rank amateur. Anyone -- ANYONE -- who writes for a living knows that nobody wants to buy ideas, nobody buys ideas in the publishing business unless you've been around a zillion years and your nam is Stephen King...who got that far NOT by trying to sell idea, but by writing and selling fully formed book manuscripts.

Everybody had ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Writers write. They don't just talk about it, they don't try to palm off their ideas on other people ("you do all the work and we'll split the money fifty-fifty!"). They write. It's long, difficult, laborious *work*. It's applying butt to chair and filling up page after page after page, wrestling with the words, failing 999 times, but succeeding that 1,000th time in making the words say what you want them to say.

Editors and publishers and yes, even producers and TeeVee writers are endlessly approached by people wanting to sell them/us ideas. After a while, you just want to run screaming out into the night. He could have simply ignored your message here. But John chose to stop for a moment and explain to you what is required if you're going to be a writer. Not a dilletante, not a sightseer, but a *writer*. If you choose not to profit from that information, that's your choice, but that does not make the information any less valid, or the delivery any more an insult. It's neither rude nor fair, it just Is.

"Now, if he's not interested or whatever, he can just say so. 'No, not interested/don't think it'll work/don't have time'... If he replies, 'No, to be a _real_ artist requires blah blah blah,' he's being patronizing. That's rude."

Let's say you're a chicken buyer. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, so you won't think I'm saying you're a cautious consumer, you buy chickens. A purchaser of fine fowl from MikalMart Industries, the leading purveyer of chickenmeat from sea to shining sea, a king among chickens, we're talking here the brilliant Kilimanjaro of fresh wings and things. Are you with me so far? Good.

You spend every day looking at chickens. Smelling chickens. Fondling chickens. (On second thought, let's not go there.) Suffice to say, you know from chickens. It's what you do. You know the chicken needs to be full, not skinny, better raised natural than pumped full of chemicals and hormones and things nobody else should know about...you know the meat should not look brusied, or appear that it was in life anything but a happy, contented chicken right up until the day it looked up and realized that the god of all chickens wasn't really paying attention to his little prayers and boom, the head goes flying and it's a fine day for chicken sandwiches.

So one day, somebody comes up to you, and says he's a chicken farmer. Well, he's not *actually* a chicken farmer, he doesn't have the time or the wherewithal to actually *raise* chickens, but he has some good ideas on how they should be raised, and he knows, just because he KNOWS, what would make for a good chicken. And you rock back on your heels, and because it's a slow day in the MikalMart Head Office, you've got a few minutes on your hands, you figure, what the heck...and you try to explain to this kid what makes a good chicken...and he cuts you off and says, "Yeah, like you'd know."

Do you begin to see the picture here?

Am I saying that writing is like chicken buying? No, though certainly it isn't a field for chickens. (I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.) But in their ways, both are professions, and both require judgment calls by people in a position to buy material. When you talk to a professional, he will give you his professional opinion. Nothing is served by then saying that the opinion is rude. That's what kills most people who want to be writers; they get easily offended, they don't want to do the work, they don't like the way the field works, they want it to work the way they THINK it should work rather than the way it works. But as with any profession, good information is crucial. Not mythology, not feel-good-aw-that's-okay-sweetie little bunny-hugs. Writing is a field for the strong of heart, who can take stern warnings and rejection and deal with the difficulties of the field, and the lack of real time, and all of the grief...and still persevere.

That's a writer. Whether or not you can do that is, of course, your call. To show us, or not.

Bottom line...though mistakes can always be made, an editor or a writer *can* tell you what makes for a good writer. If you choose to ignore that, well, that's your choice.

Final aside: there's a movie starring James Garner, a western, I'm trying to remember the name...might've been Hearts of the West, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Garner is looking over a campfire at the Young Kid in the movie, and says, "So kid, what's your story?"

The kid sips at his coffee, and says, "I'm a writer."

And Garner smiles, shakes his head. "Kid," he says, "you're a writer when a WRITER says you're a writer."

To quote Sean Connery..."Here endeth the lesson."

jms

[referring to G'Kar's monologue at the end of Z'Ha'Dum]

The writing of it...this is just an estimate, trying to remember, but I think it took me about 10-15 minutes. Which is actually a long time for me to stay parked on any part of the page.

Fm: RAY PELZER

Well, now I don't feel so bad. I realize my brief, occasional scribbles don't come close to yours (or anyone else's), but I've found that when I try to put pen to paper, either it comes flying out at top speed, or it doesn't come out at all. That, and I tend to avoid heavy re-examination of what I've done - if I look at it too long, I start to second-guess myself.

Exactly. Too often, errors come when you second guess yourself. The scripts of mine that have always worked the best were usually written in just a couple of days; the ones I nurse and revise and futz around with for a week or so are always the ones that perform less well.

jms

The emotional impact is always strongest in the writing of the scene itself.

The only way to write scenes such as the ones you list is to feel them yourself, as strongly as the characters do. Anything less, and it comes across as fake or forced. I felt very strongly when I offed Kosh...it was very difficult for me, which was good, because then I knew it'd be hard on others as well.

jms

From: nzsvz9@tpc.natp.gmeds.com (Thomas Catsburg)

Joe,

Got a leather-bound copy of "The Demolished Man" by A. Bester, and I'm tearing through it, and it is the only other work that I've ever read that ever used the word "apotheosis".

Abosultely caught me by surprise!

Was it where you first remember seeing that word? Is writing sometimes like that, where a word, or phrase or combination of words gets tucked away deep in the dark corners for use ... later ... much later?

...

Thomas.

Eye are a riter. Eye read buks and eye remember wurds. Wurds r my bizness. Eye have seen that wurd many, many times. Like in the dikshonary. Eye read the dikshonary for funn. Eye likes wurds.

jms

In some ways, yeah, I think I will have some real opportunities that didn't exist with B5, in that for the first 3 years we had to fight to get ourselves taken seriously by everyone, including WB. Now we have some credibility, and that gives you a certain freedom.

Also, the arc was, for me, a relatively new tool which took me about a year or so to really figure out how to use...then I used it relentlessly for a very long time. Now it's just one more tool on my belt, and I can use it with a bit more precision. It's the difference between using a rapier and a broadsword.

It'll probably start out looking fairly conventional, as did B5 our first year, just until the suits get comfortable and start ignoring us (they're all OVER you in your first year), and then, again as with B5, we'll start getting really subversive...ah loves being subversive....

And there'll be the folks who'll say, "Oh, it's just X," just like they did with B5 in the beginning, saying "Oh, it's just like DS9," which is *perfect* because it lets me sneak up behind them and just WHACK 'em upside the head when they're not looking, as with B5.

Basically, without saying too much, it'll be a MUCH larger canvas, and the kinds of stories I can tell will be CONSIDERABLY more varied and have more opportunities to explore all kinds of interesting stuff, so I can go a bit more nuts on production values, alien stuff, and other areas.

jms

[ Summary: Asks if JMS has ever had fans complain about opposite problems with the same episode, like too much CGI and too little CGI. ]

Yeah, that's common...one person wants more EFX, another more character, another more arc...and if it doesn't have one of those things, that which works for them best, sometimes it gets written off. That's one of the things you learn in workshops...that you didn't like it doesn't mean it's bad, only that it didn't work for *you*. But on many occasions I've seen a note from someone who felt that, because it had no CGI in it, it was perforce bad.

Which is why, in the final analysis, one must listen to the small voice in the back of one's head when writing. If networks comprise one sort of committee, fandom -- well-intentioned as they all are, and as sharp as they all tend to be -- is still another (and larger) committee, even more diverse. As you say, there's no one thing the fans want...they're not some monolithic group...they're a diverse and fasacinating group.

jms

I've had to structure this extremely elaborate tree so I can flip either way depending on whether or not we get a fifth year

Fm: SCOTT BAKER

Do you actually have this entire thing drawn out on paper so to speak? I'd think that when this is all over, that'd be a great collectors item.

I figure they'll probably bury the darned thing with me...and I'll still be laying there and revising it....

jms

[ Summary: Asks how JMS sits down to write an episode of the show and how he would handle a story if he had no background and was given a deadline. ]

It's a combination of things, and very hard to explain. I come to a given episode knowing I have to do X...X might be "this is the one where I have to plant the info about the giant space ferrets," or "this is the one where Lennier gets nailed in bed by Londo." Then I kind of check in on the characters in my head...I know what they've been going through, and I see how they're feeling about it, where they are, what's going on...then I sit down and "watch" the events in my head like watching a movie, or watching the news. Some scenes are vaguer than others, so I keep replaying it in my head until I can see the whole thing...then I write it all down.

In the latter case you mention, having nothing, and being under the gun, I always, *always* start with character rather than a series of incidents or plot points. Because character is the key to everything: plot, structure, all of it. All you need to know is who your character is, what he wants, how far he will go to get it, and how far somebody else will go to stop him. The rest follows naturally.

jms

[Summary: Someone pleads with JMS not to "burn out on us."]

You can never burn out as long as you're doing what you enjoy. When it stops being fun, then you burn out. And I'm still having fun.

jms

"So in other words, you like it here (the Nets) and you do what you do (make great stories) because you're having fun, and you don't compromise on principle. That must be hard in the town you're in."

Not really. Not as long as you know what you're in the business for. I'm a storyteller. The rest is superfluous. And it's not really that hard because I live a sensible life...if they take it all away, I should still be okay, and I can go back to writing books, or teaching. A story is a story, doesn't matter to me which venue it is. Where this town gets you is if you're in it for the money. Money's nice, but doesn't really mean that much to me...you can only sleep in one bed at a time, drive one car at a time, eat one meal at a time...how much do you *need*?

"Joe, you are a truly remarkable man, much like the ancient Bards of old. In my humble opinion, you are Shakespere and Homer wrapped up in one."

Not a chance. If I work hard and write my brains out, then in 20 years *maybe* I'll be fit to carry their pencil cases, but no more than that.

jms

[ Summary: Asks if JMS' ability to "see" the story before he writes it is something which can be learned. ]

I dunno...I've always been this way, seeing it in my head. Helps to have been a solitary-minded kid, I suppose, always off by myself. When I first began to read novels, I saw them in my head in full technicolor with surround sound. Especially with Bradbury's stuff, which is full of imagery; I can still summon up my mind's eye view of Usher 2, the Martian deserts with their silver windsailing vessels, the race for the ship in "The Golden Apples of the Sun"...it's the way I'm hardwired.

Which is why my scripts for B5 (and most shows) are *very* detailed; I don't just write action and dialogue, I go shot-by-shot, close-ups, fades, juxtaposition of shots, lighting, sound, framing of actors, all of it, to try and most precisely recreate the script (and the episode) to look like what I saw in my head.

jms

Twain was the same way; he said, "You should never start writing a work until you have finished it to your satisfaction."

jms

"when you're watching TV, especially shows like the Tick, which is clever and well written, how much of you can just watch the show, and how much takes mental notes and analyzes and second-guesses the writers?"

It's about 50/50. In terms of comedy, I'm always subconsciously working out the punchline as soon as the setup comes in. I'm not one of those people who laughs out loud most of the time at TV shows or movies because I often get there early. Where I do lose it is when the comedy is totally unexpected and unpredictable. I love being surprised.

But in general, part of me is always studying, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not...structure, rhythms of dialogue, that sort of thing. I didn't know quite how much I do this until one evening back in college...see, I have this habit of tapping my fingers to the rhythms of dialogue, on my knee, or on the desk, I'm not aware of it most days, it's just a way of physicalizing spoken rhythms, and we all have different rhythms when we speak that tell a lot about us...and I was at a movie with a young lady, and didn't realize I was tapping out the rhythms of the dialogue on her shoulder until she WHAPPED me a good one.

jms