How writing a novel differs from writing a screenplay: my last post on STORY

After reading my earlier posts on STORY, you might think I’m 100% sold on the book. I have to admit that I’m a fan, but I do have some quibbles, largely on the adoption of screenwriting techniques for short story or novel writing.

Differences between writing for readers and for viewers that limit the utility of STORY:

1) (The only one I noticed pointed out by McKee) You may get inside the characters heads and explore their thoughts in literature. This creates a greater intimacy between the narrator and the reader. It also means the conflict can be much more subtle and much more interior.

2) Some readers like descriptive, sensory details that can’t be experienced with film — smell and touch can be better evoked, for example (unless you’re viewing in smell-o-rama).

3) The audience must work harder when reading print–in a good way.

4) When contrasted with other useful literary guides, you see some shortfalls. Continue reading

Books–still better than TV?

Liel Liebovitz, on Tablet Magazine this week, argues that TV is for Dummies.

old TV

Photo of Sanyo TV courtesy of Kevin Simpson via Flickr

Like most titles, this one exaggerates Mr. Liebovitz statement: that even if TV has achieved more creative sophistication than ever before, it still fails to reach the majesty of the written word (or something to that effect). In his mind, books are still king. He bases his argument, as I understand it, on the inability of a visual art form to capture the interior life of characters, using a passage written by Henry James as evidence. In the first hour online, Mr. Liebovitz has received 19 comments on his article.

Well, I haven’t had a TV set in my home since 2000, so I can’t really attest to the increase quality of television programming in the last few years. Continue reading