JMS on Writing
Volume 14

[ Summary: Asks why so many novels are optioned, but so few are made into movies. ]

The deal is that what makes for a great novel is not what makes for a great movie in most cases; novels are internal, movies are external. And often execs hear about a big SF book, they don't know anything about it except that it's popular or famous, and they option it...then find out what it is and have no idea how to make it...or what it was...or why it works... and after buying it for what it *is* they try to make it into something it's *not* because they're more comfortable wit what it isn't but could be than what it is and can't be.

And the fact that I actually understood what I wrote and was entirely serious in it suddenly tells me that I've been in this town WAY too long.

jms

[ Summary: Asks if JMS goes through a lot of drafts on scripts and if the line about Vir being "harmless" was added after the decision to have Vir kill the emperor. ]

No, I usually go through only a couple of drafts. The line about Vir seemed correct regardless.

jms

"Are you at all concerned that, when it's all said and done, that some fans will scratch their heads and wonder: "You mean thats it?""

No, I don't think so. The story for "Sleeping in Light," the last B5 episode, is such that it is completely moveable, and self-contained, and buttons down the arc in what I think is a very moving fashin. I think that when it's all said and done, the average reaction will be to sit back and say, "That was a good story." Obviously you can't please everyone, and you can't expect to. But basically, yeah, I think it's going to end well.

jms

[ Summary: Asks if this was always G'Kar's path in JMS' story or if he's changed it slightly over time. Also, believes that Sheridan sent the White Star crew to their deaths in front of the League to show them that he will be up-front and honest with people, even if he's sending them off to die. ]

No, this was always G'Kar's path.

I think it also showed the League that he was willing to sacrifice his own people, that he *means business*...and is prepared to go all the way for this, and they'd damned well better be as well.

jms

Certainly there's an obsession to get this story out. And the characters are alive, on one level...because you have to imagine them as being real in order to write them. 22 times a year I crack a window to peer in at them....

jms

Thanks. One of the things about the way events come to a head and finish in ITF is that it's very unnerving...okay, *now* what? The ongoing conflict has become something you could count on, you knew the rough shape of what might be coming along. Now all that's kicked over, and you have to get on with the next aspect: making a new life.

What interests me, what I wanted to do with making this show, was in large measure to examine the issues and emotions and events that precede a war, precipitate a war, the effects of the war itself, the end of the war and the aftermath of the war. The war is hardware; the people are at the center of the story.

jms

[Summary: discusses Wordstar, which he still uses for prose.]

I think a lot of SF writers stayed with it because of familiarity. SF writers, and folks like me (still not entirely sure if I belong in that category), were invariably the first ones on our block to have personal computers...back when that meant a Kaypro II with 64K ram and 128K floppies and NO internal hard drive, and an 8" green monitor. (I still have mine, incidentally, I'm too sentimental to throw it away.)

Back then, Wordstar was pretty much the way to go. That's what I learned on, and that's why I use it. I like the WYSIWYG approach, and it does feel like a typewriter.

The WS for Windows was a nightmare, and I deleted it instantly. Is there any indication that they're going to be trying again any time soon? I'd like to use the capability that comes with windows, but I'm too short on time to afford the learning curve for another software system.

jms

Thanks. RE: the regent...well, if you want to do something really nasty, you want to do it to somebody everybody kinda likes, so you feel for the situation.

Ah likes doing that sorta thing...dropping anvils on characters to see what pattern splat they make....

jms

"As you seem to be very quiet about the possible futures, here is my question: What do you *want*? :-)"

To tell stories.

It's all I've ever wanted.

As for the future of B5, whatever happens...I proved that it could be done, when the Industry said it couldn't. What I set out to achieve, I've achieved...now it's just surviving the last stages of it all.

jms

[ Summary: "Thanks for exposing the truth about how the major mass media "manufactures" the "news" that we read, hear, and watch. FWIW, that was your most courageous episode yet, IMHO." ]

"FWIW, that was your most courageous episode yet, IMHO."

I appreciate the sentiment, so don't take this as lack of gratitude on my part; I'm happy you perceive it that way.

But courageous? No.

Courageous as an apellation belongs to the South American writers who insist on telling the truth about their governments, who risk death on a daily basis for doing so...and to other writers doing similar work in other countries.

Yeah, it was kind of a shot to the midsection for some groups, with a certain element of biting the hand that feeds you, but the truth is, ain't nobody gonna come to my door in the middle of the night with death squads, take me away, and torture me. If you want to hear about real courage, join PEN International, or Amnesty International. They can always use the help.

jms

Fm: DOUGLAS PILIGIAN

Joe,

Over the past 3+ years my routine has always been to tape every episode, then later I rewatch it at least a couple of times. I find this necessary as you layer so much content into 43 minutes that it is sometimes difficult to really absorb it all in one viewing. (sometimes it takes several).

Anyway, I find that I just can't bring myself to watch this episode again. It's just too painful. I of course studied the whole McCarthy era as part of US history, black listing, communists, etc., the propaganda machines, even seeing how today the press can slant news to support their views, but didn't fully understand just how much hurt there can be until I saw it happening to people I actually care about. Just how painful was this for you as a writer to write about? Have you or someone you cared about been treated this way?

Doug

It was most definitely difficult and painful for me to write. I am as much involved with these characters as anyone else, and doing this kind of thing to them is hard. And you have to put yourself in the minds of those doing this, and that's a dark place to be.

And yeah, I know people who were harmed in the blacklist, and I've seen others, and myself, sometimes harmed by those who like to twist things around to their own benefit.

jms

[Asks about Joe's compressing the end of the Shadow War to make room for the series ending, should there not be a season five.]

Truth: I go back and forth. The "Into the Fire" thing, for instance...it would've likely been a two-part episode, but it still would've ended up exactly where it ended up. A few more big explosions, but I wonder also if that really adds anything past a certain point.

From a production standpoing, since "Fire" darn near killed us in the CGI department, it's probably a darned good thing it DIDN'T go for 2 eps. That puppy had something around 120 or 140 EFX shots.

Overall, I'm actually quite happy with how this season is going, in terms of the intensity of the arc and the emotions and incidents. Parts would've been a bit more laid-back if I had decided not to cover my bets on renewal, and maybe the situation has worked out to the best (again the ABA principle, Art By Accident).

So I dunno...all I know is what's in the episodes this season, and it's pretty cool overall....

jms

"The ultimate irony is that *you,* our resident atheist, promised to regale us with a plethora of censorable biblical quotations!"

Who better?

Y'gotta understand, I've read the thing *twice*, cover to cover. (And ANYone with the patience to get through Deuteronomy, Numbers and Leviticus has my enduring respect.) It's actually a pretty good book, all things considered, and despite some misuse by some of its readers. There's good drama, lots of melodrama, an overall arc (and an ark), some good writing and some utterly *awful* writing, blood and thunder and some racy material, the perfect ingredients for a potboiler...except that it's often redeemed by such terrific parts as Psalms, and parts of the Song of Solomon, and Proverbs, and the story of Job, which is probably one of the best stories ever written.

A good editor would've helped *enormously*, but one can't expect god to be all things at once....

jms

[ Summary: One of the CIS WizOps asks Joe how much of one of his scripts he thinks is "fair usage." ]

As it happens, I have an answer to this. First, it's Warner Bros. that would be at issue here, since they own the copyright to B5. That issue aside for the moment...

This actually came up not long ago, when a person doing synopses of the episodes didn't just synopsize it...it included every line of dialogue in the episode, and extensive narrative descriptions. WB saw that and said, "Tell 'em to stop it." Which they did.

On several occasions, whole pages at a time have been excerpted for articles, or reprinted...a heck of a lot more than what was posted here...and neither WB nor I have a problem with that. As it is, many of the current synopses contain *massive* verbatim quotes of dialogue, just not as much as the one main offender. Nobody blinks an eye.

I'm not saying this across the board, but you asked what would apply in my situation, and that's it. (Which, btw, is a kind of evasion...rather than dealing with the problem That Is, people create what they hope are similar situations and say, "Well, what would you do if THIS happened?" Well, this HASN'T happened, and it isn't a direct corrolary to this current situation in ANY event. Its' just a way of skidding the discussion off in another direction and muddying the waters.)

jms

"How do you balance the twin needs of story advancement and plot-point repetition?"

It ain't easy, lemme tell you.

Basically, I sit back and say, "If I came into the story at this point, would I be able to follow the action and make even a rough sense of it, even if I might miss a few of the subtleties?" If not, then I backtrack and layer in whatever I think is necessary. Sometimes I think I err slightly in the direction of too much recap, but I'd rather do that than totally confuse people.

I know it makes our regulars nutsoid, but there isn't any way around it since we can't do a "last week on B5" segment.

jms

Good points. Speaking of visual puns, someone pointed out that in "Epiphanies," you've got Zack leaving customs, saying of whoever comes through next, "it might be the Second Coming and I'm five sins behind on penance," and who walks in...but the Three Kings....

jms

(The following material -- which will be posted to other forums -- is submitted on the theory that I apparently haven't gotten in *nearly* enough trouble lately. So I may as well go for broke.

jms

John J. Miller
SFWA Secretary
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
(address deleted for privacy)

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am in receipt of your recent letter inviting me to rejoing SFWA. While others who have either resigned from SFWA or let their memberships lapse have received similar letters, I note that you added, in handwriting, the following: "Michael - We're particularly interested in encouraging writers of your stature and experience to rejoin."

I'm posting this, my reply, both online as well as in standard mail to you, because the issues at hand affect others in the industry; because it is a good subject for public debate; and because SFWA has to this date refused to publish my letter of resignation from SFWA in its membership publication; even now, years after the fact, SFWA does not choose to recognize the boorishness of its behavior toward those of us who work in television, film and other media.

To recap, for the benefit of those looking on, and for the purpose of historical accuracy: a number of us were troubled by the fact that SFWA allowed TV and film scripts in the SF genre to count for membership, so that our dues could be accepted, but that these very same scripts were not considered "real" science fiction...and thus ineligible for consideration for a Nebula Award.

An attempt was made to restore the Dramatic Nebula, given in years past, in order to achieve equity with other forms of SF. Those involved in the attempt included myself, Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, Michael Cassutt and others. We believed, foolishly in retrospect, that SF writers -- presumably forward thinking and progressive -- would understand that stories can take new and different forms, that SF for television and film was a perfectly valid form. It's still SF; it simply uses a new kind of technology to facilitate that storytelling. Since SF is often about the foolishness of small-minded people when faced with changing technologies, and generally the impact of technology on people and art forms, we felt they would agree that the time was right for the reinstatement of the Dramatic Nebula.

We were wrong.

We were greeted by an outpouring of such virulent bigotry, such undisguised hostility, and such abuse as to numb the senses. There was hate mail, name-calling and dead-catting; we were called (in person, and in SFWA's publication) "hacks" and "no-talents" and told that scripts aren't stories...obscene and threatening messages were left on my answering machine...hate mail arrived at my home... and the most nakedly straightforward one stated, "I work my ass off for a few pennies a word, while you Hollywood hacks earn big bucks for turning out crap. You'll never see the Dramatic Nebula back as long as I'm alive."

To help defuse some of the tempers, many of us were willing to disqualify ourselves from ever being eligible for the Nebula, should it be reinstated, to remove any suspicion of a vested interest. It was the principle that concerned us.

For an organization claiming forward-thinkers, there was more fuzzy thinking and illogic pouring out of SFWA than at any average meeting of the Flat Earth Society. "Why should SFWA give scriptwriters a Nebula if the WGA won't give awards to prose writers?" some yelled at us, which granted was at least an attempt to put together a comprehensible sentence.

"Because the WGA is *form* oriented, and SFWA is *genre* oriented," we said, "that's why. Any genre script can win a WGA award, as long as it's in the right form. And any form of SF should be able to be considered for a Nebula, as long as it's in the right genre."

Our point, in the final analysis, was simply this: If SFWA will not recognize scripts as SF for the Nebula, then they should not qualify for membership in SFWA. If SFWA *does* recognize them as SF for purposes of membership, then they should be eligible for the Nebula. It was real simple: you can't have it both ways. Pick one.

But that didn't happen...the illogic, the contradiction was allowed to continue, with SF scriptwriters held as second-class citizens within SFWA. In theory, a GOR novel could be considered for a Nebula...but a Babylon 5 script could never even begin to be considered because according to SFWA, it isn't a story, it isn't real writing, it isn't literature, it is absent of quality, and fundamentally, it ain't SF.

It was this issue that finally compelled me to resign from SFWA, as had others before me. That, and the insults, abuse, veiled and not-so-veiled threats and harrassment I received from many in SFWA over this issue.

And now you come to me...and you ask me to rejoin. You say this is because of my "stature and experience"...but what use can that be to SFWA if my work and the work of every SF writer working in television or film is dismissed as lacking in merit by virtue of the form in which we work? Since the bulk of my work is in TV, how can SFWA consider what I have to be "stature" if it does not recognize that there is any quality work in SF being done in TV?

I don't believe in stature, particularly and especially my own. I'm still the same person I was when I resigned, for good or ill. The only thing that matters to me, that has *ever* mattered to me, is the work. The storytelling. This genre. I love SF. I love the community of fandom that has embraced it, and given it life. I love the sense of wonder that is SF.

In order to rejoin SFWA, I would have to accept the tacit implication that my work is NOT SF...and this I will never do.

Last year, I realized a lifelong dream, and we received the Hugo award for an episode of Babylon 5. And I'll tell you a true thing: I'll take the Hugo over the Nebula any day, because it comes based on the quality of the work...it comes based on the understanding that fans have that SF is SF, regardless of the medium. Where the pro community throws up barriers, and tidal waves of snobbery, and play political games by defining SF as whatever is most convenient for them, the fan community is open to the free debate of one singular question: "Is it good SF?"

In light of that, what possible reason could I have for wanting to rejoin SFWA? To associate with writers who disdain the form in which I work? To try and educate them? We tried that...and got our heads handed to us.

It's not just the Nebula that's the concern...as before, I'm willing to permanently disqualify anything I write, now or in the future, from Nebula consideration, to set aside allegations of self-interest; it's the principle of the thing that matters, the desire to make this better for the next guy to come down this road; and it's the attitude behind the current situation that rankles, that worries me; the open hostility and prejudice against those working in the visual media.

So thanks, but no thanks.

SFWA has chosen to ostracize film and television...and in the end, has only hurt itself. By sticking its head, ostrich-like, in the sand, it has failed to come to grips with these new media...has become isolated, so that no one in Hollywood thinks of SFWA members, because SFWA thinks nothing of Hollywood.

The result? Where once many SF novels were chosen as fodder for movies, now movies and TV shows drive a substantial portion of the novel market through licensing. All too often now, books are based on movies, when it *should* be the other way around, which means that the audience is deprived of visual medium access to some truly excellent work. The publishing industry has become more like Hollywood in many ways now, looking for the blockbuster, losing the midlist, one megacompany swallowing up another. We've been there, done that, and could've helped.

(Now *here's* an irony I hadn't considered before just this moment: while an episode of B5 is not eligible for a Nebula, a novel based on B5 *is* eligible. Where is the logic in that one? And here's another irony: one of the members who most vociferously opposed the Dramatic Nebula on the grounds that everything SF that came out of Hollywood was crap...well, his name showed up recently on a list of writers asking to be considered for an assignment to write one of the Babylon 5 novels.)

Because of SFWA's provincial attitudes toward those of us who work in TV and film, it has lost access to secondary markets and opportunities, costing its members potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If parts of this letter seem angry, or frustrated, you should understand that the two areas of my life which have always meant a great deal to me are my work in television, and SF as a genre. I'm proud, have always been proud, of both. Many producers assigned to SF series deny they're doing SF, as though they were ashamed of it. I've always embraced the idea. I was proud to be a member of SFWA. I was proud to write for television. But finally I had to choose between them, and that was a very difficult, painful thing for me. It still is. It's like having divorced parents; you want desperately for them to get along with each other, somehow put it together again...but it doesn't happen and doesn't look like it will *ever* happen. So you get upset.

I'm not upset with you, John, or even many members of SFWA, a number of whom weren't even members when all this went down a few years ago. It's simple frustration with a system, and a certain loud proportion of the membership, that is provincial and parochial. A great deal of good could come out of a tighter coordination between those of us working in the visual media, and print authors. To see that frittered away is maddenning.

Television and film are as valid a forum for the exploration of science fiction as any short story or novel. As long as SFWA persists in saying otherwise, I will never rejoin that organization.

Let me know when you folks get serious. Let me know when you are willing to consider that what we do in TV and film counts as SF. Then we'll talk.

But not before.

J. Michael Straczynski
Executive Producer/Creator/WRITER
Babylon 5

[ Summary: Points out that print SF authors don't tend to be involved with TV and film thesedays, yet they were involved with the original Star Trek. ]

I agree 100%. One of the things I've been ragging on for years is that you should bring in SF writers to work on SF shows. Real simple logic. But the perception there is that SF print authors can't deal with, or are disdainful of, scripts...something SFWA perpetuated when many of their members said they (as a group) wouldn't be able to make sense of a script.

There are some terrific resources out there who would be invaluable to any SF series. That's why I gave Peter David his first shot at a live action TV series, ditto for Christy Marx and others.

jms

Fm: ANNE L. WARNER

Joe,

I really hope you win this one! I find myself actually attempting to write some SF, (we'll see how that comes out! <rueful grimace> It's one of those put your money... things) and I could no more agree to ignore dramatic SF, than I could exclude any other part of the genre.

SF on screen is actually more of an accomplishment, in my opinion. You have to convince the eyes as well as engage the imagination. Heinlein could describe mechanized armor rather sketchily, and trust his readers to mentally fill in the blanks. It didn't (and doesn't) matter that I visualize mech- suits differently than you do. But a Minbari warship or a floating camera bot has to be quite fully realized, so that one version of it makes sense to all of us, without each adding our own finishing touches.

The SFWA is just plain wrong on this. I suppose they probably resent what non-SF people in Hollywood have done to some of their stories. It doesn't excuse such a foolish, and unproductive, attitude. Good SF deserves recognition, regardless of the medium. You and a few others in TinselTown do really good SF. Please keep it up, and stich to your guns on this.

Anne

PS: I love the Scriptwriting book. It's a great read, even without wanting to try that sort of writing myself. It's Greg's bedtime book at the moment...

The only point of disagreement is that "SF on screen is actually more of an accomplishment." They're equal, in different ways, and certainly a movie or TV show can, in time, start to look dated. But a book, which exists in your head, never grows old.

jms

Fm: SCOTT BAKER

So in films the director provides the thematic vision of the movie, wheras in TV the producer provides that vision?

- --Scott

Correct. In many films, the director is there from the start, working on the vision...in TV, a director comes in 2-3 weeks before you shoot, and walks into a situation where the vision is already set.

jms

"So that's why you became an Executive Producer? To protect the vision of your work and not have a director or producer change it?"

I sure as heck can't think of any OTHER reason to do it, given the grief involved....

jms