When is a guru not a guru?

[texvanwinkle]

McKee has his controlling idea, Egri has his premise, Seger and others have the central question. None of whom, except Egri, some, has written anything at all, as I recall. But wait, there's more:

The first job is "to find a 'center' or 'core' for the work...." "The more integrated this center is, the more integrated will be" the story. More specifically, as you plan your script, it "should result in a simple formulation that sums up the play in one phrase, a phrase that will be a guide for everything [the writer] does. [It begins] 'For me, this [story] is about....' The phrase should delineate the essence of the action ... it should reflect what is happening, what the characters are doing. It must imply effort, progression, transition, MOVEMENT. The concept must suggest not only the events, but the [story's] mood and color, its emotional landscape and form. It is to serve as the key to the [story], what will give it unity."

You know the tune. It gets tiring hearing the same thing from all those nonwriters who've never written anything. Well, this guy did write a couple of his own things: America, America and The Arrangement. Other than that he's just directed a few things--A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, A Face in the Crowd, Death of a Salesman, among others.

That would be Elia Kazan, one of the greatest directors of both stage and screen. It's from an excerpt of a lecture he gave back in 1938. So seventy-four years ago, one of our greatest directors (and a fine writer in his own right, turns out) gave advice on how to approach a story, a script, from a directorial point of view (I changed "play" to "story" and "director" to "writer") that matches closely the advice that certainly Egri and McKee both offer in terms of having a central idea around which your story should be centered, and others call theme. This shouldn't be controversial. A story should be about something.

So why is it such types as McKee especially, simply because they haven't written, continue to be given such a hard time about not having written something themselves? Some things are true whether the person telling you about them can execute them well himself or not.

As it happens, the whole book from which this came--Kazan on Directing (I found it at my local community college library)--is a goldmine of information for directors and writers alike, as well as actors. It's his personal notes on and analysis of each of his plays and films, as well as several standalone pieces on directing that he planned to include in a book on the subject but, to our detriment, never did. I can't recommend it highly enough, if only for being in his head as he breaks down a story.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Not quite sure what your theme is, but it sounds interesting so I hope my response is 'on topic'. Are you asking whether academics have any value when standing next to do-ers?

I honestly wasn't aware that everyone is bagging McKee and others. At least no more than anyone with a bit of success draws small minded haters. Either what they say has value or it doesn't. Their background doesn't make a bit of difference to the validity of the advice or insight. I would point out that not being a writer and not being published aren't the same thing. And also that the most important part of writing is reading, which the academics do in spades. So I see no reason why someone who doesn't write commercially themselves would be unable to be a leader in the analysis of any particular field. What did Einstein actually make? Yet his insights touch the lives of almost every person on the planet in ways they don't even know.

 

[paulears]

I'm really sorry - but even after reading it more than once, this seems to be a statement rather than a question - so I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make? Could you post a simpler version as maybe I'm thick, but I've lost the plot completely.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

McKee has his controlling idea, Egri has his premise, Seger and others have the central question. None of whom, except Egri, some, has written anything at all, as I recall. But wait, there's more:

The first job is "to find a 'center' or 'core' for the work...." "The more integrated this center is, the more integrated will be" the story. More specifically, as you plan your script, it "should result in a simple formulation that sums up the play in one phrase, a phrase that will be a guide for everything [the writer] does. [It begins] 'For me, this [story] is about....' The phrase should delineate the essence of the action ... it should reflect what is happening, what the characters are doing. It must imply effort, progression, transition, MOVEMENT. The concept must suggest not only the events, but the [story's] mood and color, its emotional landscape and form. It is to serve as the key to the [story], what will give it unity."

You know the tune. It gets tiring hearing the same thing from all those nonwriters who've never written anything. Well, this guy did write a couple of his own things: America, America and The Arrangement. Other than that he's just directed a few things--A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, A Face in the Crowd, Death of a Salesman, among others.

That would be Elia Kazan, one of the greatest directors of both stage and screen. It's from an excerpt of a lecture he gave back in 1938. So seventy-four years ago, one of our greatest directors (and a fine writer in his own right, turns out) gave advice on how to approach a story, a script, from a directorial point of view (I changed "play" to "story" and "director" to "writer") that matches closely the advice that certainly Egri and McKee both offer in terms of having a central idea around which your story should be centered, and others call theme. This shouldn't be controversial. A story should be about something.

So why is it such types as McKee especially, simply because they haven't written, continue to be given such a hard time about not having written something themselves? Some things are true whether the person telling you about them can execute them well himself or not.

As it happens, the whole book from which this came--Kazan on Directing (I found it at my local community college library)--is a goldmine of information for directors and writers alike, as well as actors. It's his personal notes on and analysis of each of his plays and films, as well as several standalone pieces on directing that he planned to include in a book on the subject but, to our detriment, never did. I can't recommend it highly enough, if only for being in his head as he breaks down a story.

Let me simplify... The McKees, Egris, and Segers exist because very few people can attend a 'real(tm)' film school. Never mind that at a 'real(tm)' film school quite a bit of the reason to go is in the connections/contacts one makes at film school, and if one comes out with a mild amount of competence, one can move forward in a film career.

I'm pretty sure that McKee in his seminars to the masses, does not require that the attendees buy/borrow/steal 20 or 30 books that have been written on the topic of film making, film theory. Maybe the 'greats' like Eisenstein get a mention in passing... but I suspect the main focus is to 'sell' the seminar giver's personal 'vision' of things, the method.

The method that will turn ordinary people in to winning Hollywood scriptwriters... name in lights just around the corner.

Most working writers that I've ever had the opportunity to communicate with, suggest that one read Aristotle's Poetics, as it is still a 'valid' work for edification... that work is perhaps 50 pages... and was written 2400 years ago... There may be some more recent text suggested... but that one is a popular suggestion... (there may also be a implicit 'suggestion' of get a college level competency in Literature... that is reading a zillion works of major and minor writers of fiction...).

How much do you think McKee would bring into his income by suggesting the attendees not buy 'his' book, but get a free online copy of the Poetics... That doesn't work for any 'business' model I'm aware of...

Another suggestion that I've gotten is to read books on 'directing'... since in some way the scriptwriter is ultimately writing to the director. It may take some amount of cotton batting called 'readers' or 'producers' to get the script to a director, but that is the person who will make the movie from the blue print called The Script.

The fact that you mention Kazan, a director, suggests that perhaps director's ideas on what a script should 'have' is more important than someone's theory.

I personally, given I only write short films, have found that 'making the film' has more valuable feedback on 'writing' than reading and thinking about writing...

But putting on seminars were one actually makes a film take longer than a Saturday seminar... at least a week seminar... and then going home and making more films... more weeks...

As for certain specifics... Story has been the subject of study for some time. For example in the late 19th Century Gorges Polti publish his '36 Dramatic Situations'... that's it... 36... others have come up with 7, or the like... analyzing Story down to some set of 'rules' has been done before. Same is true for the "Hero" rendition of story architecture... Joseph Campbell may have had a theory that 'all' folk tales and more complex tales could be reduced to some primitive set of 'rules'...

This is akin to lingustics where all human languages as well as human made machine languages can be reduced to some primitive set of rules...

But I suggest that someone giving seminars in linguistics, selling books filled with linguistics rules, will not make one a better writer in any given language...

Same is true for the Sacred Joseph Campbell... knowing the Hero's Story is a world wide phenomenon does not make one a better story writer... and paying money for instruction on The Hero's Story, is adding insult to injury.

 

[texvanwinkle]

I'm really sorry - but even after reading it more than once, this seems to be a statement rather than a question - so I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make? Could you post a simpler version as maybe I'm thick, but I've lost the plot completely.

I was posting at 1:30 in the morning, so maybe that mattered more than I thought in how clear I was.

The background is this: I've seen more than one professional screenwriter with multiple, recognized credits state outright that the so-called "gurus"—the term being used disparagingly to describe those who've written books on story and screenwriting, but have never written anything of consequence, if anything at all, themselves—not only have nothing to offer, but are essentially vultures preying on the weak. They're all hacks, and you should run, not walk, away from them, is the gist. The common thread between all the criticism is that having written nothing themselves, or at least nothing successful, these folks have no credibility for offering any advice on how to write. And there is little to no distinction given between them. McKee is Egri is Vogler is Truby is Seger is Field.

I've always found that view ignorant at best. The Poetics seem to get a pass 'cause, well, that was Aristotle, one of those famous dead Greeks; it must be legit. And yet I don't recall Aristotle having written any plays himself. So my point here was to show Kazan, an acknowledged master of both forms, plays and film, making the exact same point about theme and how central it is to structuring a story that a number of the so-called gurus do. He was in fact an actual guru. So how is it the same point made by those who've never written anything themselves less wise and useful?

I agree with the criticism that a number of those dispensing writing advice have turned into champions of a formula—at the least, rules of thumb—that may or may not apply to an author's particular story. I've argued with Vogler himself, on this forum, that depending on how specific it is, there has to be a point where a particular theory doesn't apply. If it can be used to describe everything, or even almost everything, there must not be anything definitive about it. A paper clip that's been straightened is only still a paper clip in name only. So I'm open to that line of criticism.

But I'm not to the idea, which IS common among pros, that you shouldn't teach if you haven't done. There are plenty of examples from sports and academia that prove otherwise, and in film as well.

Hopefully that's clearer.

 

[craigbowman]

It doesn't bother me that people who write about screenwriting want to wrap specific structures etc. around things. Finding patterns and structures is what our brains do naturally. I only started writing for the screen long after I got involved with actually making stuff. Therefore, I don't have a giant library of screenwriting books and the references I do have are very practical and have worked successfully for me. A lot of the analysis that finds its way into screenwriting books makes sense to me when I've experienced it from the results of actual projects. For me the most powerful feedback loop has been seeing how what you write works or does not work in a project.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I've always found that view ignorant at best. The Poetics seem to get a pass 'cause, well, that was Aristotle, one of those famous dead Greeks; it must be legit. And yet I don't recall Aristotle having written any plays himself. So my point here was to show Kazan, an acknowledged master of both forms, plays and film, making the exact same point about theme and how central it is to structuring a story that a number of the so-called gurus do. He was in fact an actual guru. So how is it the same point made by those who've never written anything themselves less wise and useful?

Socrates gave his 'method' out for free... the Sophists required payment... Aristotle got a tutoring gig... and so was not dependent on his 'writing'... for income...

Perhaps not quite apples to oranges... but the thread there is that the Sophists, who were successful in 'teaching' oritory/rhetoric/art of persuasion... were not in the business of imparting 'knowledge' which Socrates and Co. though they were doing (is knowlege knowable... and if no how do we know that... but I digress...).

I think one does have to ask: cui bono when money is transferred. What is the implication of the 'gurus' in their marketing... to make better writers who put their scripts on the mantle piece at home, showing to their friends and neighbors what 'good' writers' they are?

Or, that the attendee will somehow write a script that will be better fitted to navigate the vagaries of Hollywood, and that the writer will find fame and fortune. If the implication is that the attendee will be better able to deal with Hollywood, it would suggest the 'guru' would be very familiar with Hollywood as a writer. For how else can one become an expert on the process of page to screen, unless one has 'done it'...

Sort of like I can say, for ski instruction... 'bend the knees, five dollars please'... would that make someone a Olympic Champion... Many coaches for the Olympics are former contestants, if not winners. Many have spent many years mentoring Olympic contestants and champions...

In the case of McKee, given that he has presented to thousands... and only a handful have made it to 'career', and even then some pros who have attended, indicate that his seminars were not particularly useful to them. On the other hand some pros do credit McKee with some inspiration...

The question is... out of the thousands who attended, with a handful of successes... what does that say about The Method...

It is also never clear in these sorts of things whether those few would have ended up in Hollywood careers anyway, as they had the drive to get there in the first place...

 

[nycineaste]

1.: Artists do not need complex theories that attempt to explain every story ever written, they need SIMPLE, DIRECT TECHNIQUES to guide them.

2. Gurus dont need to write, jutslike coaches in any field dont need to excel in that field.

3. contrary to the get-rich-quick promises of most screenwriting books, there is NO SYSTEM OR APPROACH THAT CAN GUARANTEE A SUCCESSFUL WORK. Art is too organic for that. Theres an elusive "X FACTOR" that goes into every work of art- talent, voice, a hint of luck, and just whether the piece WORKED. Art cannot be MANUFACTURED no matter how hard you try.

4. Egris material is powerful-organic, complete, he teaches you stuff that works and can be used. The heads of Pixar continually point to his work.

5. I find Mckee not useful at all (re-read 1, above).

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

1.: Artists do not need complex theories that attempt to explain every story ever written, they need SIMPLE, DIRECT TECHNIQUES to guide them.

On the one hand, it is true that an 'artist' need not have a deep knowledge of 'theory'... Shake-a-stick wrote a number of plays, set in Italy, for an English audience... (ok, maybe he ripped them off wholesale... back before DRM was available...) but he was no historian or scholar in Ancient Greek and Latin (other than perhaps cursory grammar school levels, if that...).

On the other hand, since about the mid-19th century artists have formed groups/movements, and have attempted to construct theories of their 'art', or set guiding principles of what their art 'is', and 'means'... This is somewhat separate from 'art criticism', which is mostly done by non-artists who want to create a need for them to be employed... typically at colleges and universities...

 

[texvanwinkle]

In the case of McKee, given that he has presented to thousands... and only a handful have made it to 'career', and even then some pros who have attended, indicate that his seminars were not particularly useful to them. On the other hand some pros do credit McKee with some inspiration...

I think the answer to that is found mostly in the very next post:

3. contrary to the get-rich-quick promises of most screenwriting books, there is NO SYSTEM OR APPROACH THAT CAN GUARANTEE A SUCCESSFUL WORK. Art is too organic for that. Theres an elusive "X FACTOR" that goes into every work of art- talent, voice, a hint of luck, and just whether the piece WORKED. Art cannot be MANUFACTURED no matter how hard you try.

That said, while I don't have a very deep shelf when it comes to screenwriting books—maybe a dozen acquired over twenty years, half of them in the first six months I began trying my hand at it—I've never seen any that made get-rich-quick promises. I've only seen lots of different approaches to understanding story, advertised as such, with some having too heavy an emphasis, in my opinion, on specific designs. I've had more than one industry type insist that a particular story of mine should be approached with the hero's journey model in mind, when as the author I know quite well that the story being told has squat to do with a hero's journey. That's the point where I become critical of them, to the degree that they are charging lots of money for their knowledge: teaching a certain set of rules as if every story ought somehow to fit into them.

I'm curious about those who say they've never found anything helpful in McKee's book, as there's little in it, at least as far as major points are concerned, that strikes me as controversial. His discussion of genres and archetypes seems obvious to me and his "controlling idea" is essentially just another way of developing a central idea, an organizing principle, for the work, a la Egri's "premise." McKee gets more into the weeds when it comes to structuring from character types, but even there his basic point—different characters can represent different aspects of the theme—is hardly original to him. All that said, I found his book useful mostly for his description of the controlling idea, but I like Egri's "premise" easier to understand and more organic.

But to get back to the broader point, which everybody seems to be agreeing with, there are patterns in story—as Craig Bowman put it—that don't require a professional writer to spot. Recognizing those patterns and explicating on them, particularly after a study of many different works of different types and finding the commonalities between them, seems to me a subject on which any layman could embark. Indeed, any new screenwriter ought to embark on such an expedition himself. How clear and relatable those explanations are is obviously the key. McKee is dense. Egri and Brian McDonald are not.

The question is... out of the thousands who attended, with a handful of successes... what does that say about The Method...

It is also never clear in these sorts of things whether those few would have ended up in Hollywood careers anyway, as they had the drive to get there in the first place...

I think your second sentence largely answers your question. Success in anything, but I think particularly in screenwriting, has more to do with perseverance than anything else. Perseverance can't create innate talent, but it gets you through the practice that teaches you how best to execute whatever particular method a screenwriter settles on. And it certainly gets you past all the rejection letters. Method is merely the tool. How well someone learns to use it is completely up to him. Most people don't have the perseverance to be successful in this field.

 

[nycineaste]

On the other hand, since about the mid-19th century artists have formed groups/movements, and have attempted to construct theories of their 'art', or set guiding principles of what their art 'is', and 'means'.....

Yes, I studied art at the world famous Art Students League for a short time (strokes chin and raises pinky), and the instructors were all WORKING artists with careers, as they teached (if your asking why they had to teach while they held careers, then you know nothing about what a life in the arts is like). In any case, each one developed a personal theory about what art is and how to create it, and each set of theories was used to INSTRUCT, not just pontificate.

a complex or esoteric theory of art is fine of you want to pontificate and act like you can account for every creative work ever made (which no theory can), but as creative persons, none of us should care about that- what we need are tools and techniques, and it best when these are kept SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE (in a way thats still useful of course), so that they dont get in the way of INSTINCT AND EMOTION AND RISK TAKING which are also vital for creation.

an art students league teacher told me something ill never forget:

"KEEP WHAT YOU KNOW SIMPLE"

 

[Batutta]

"KEEP WHAT YOU KNOW SIMPLE"

One of my teachers said that in an ever simpler way....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID...or K.I.S.S.

 

[wcmartell]

Some things are true whether the person telling you about them can execute them well himself or not.

Everyone learns from observation. We watch until we figure out how something is done, then we try doing it again and again until we get it right. A teacher is someone who has great powers of observation and can guide *our* observations - point out things we may have missed. Just because they have great powers of observation doesn't mean they can do it - lots of sports coaches can see the problem but may not have the physical ability that an athlete has.

But that sports coach may not have the experience to know exactly how to solve the problem. They have the theoretical solution, but not the step-by-step practical solution. And that's why some of those gurus get trashed - they can tell you what's wrong, but not how to fix it.

- Bill

 

[texvanwinkle]

Everyone learns from observation. We watch until we figure out how something is done, then we try doing it again and again until we get it right. A teacher is someone who has great powers of observation and can guide *our* observations - point out things we may have missed. Just because they have great powers of observation doesn't mean they can do it - lots of sports coaches can see the problem but may not have the physical ability that an athlete has.

But that sports coach may not have the experience to know exactly how to solve the problem. They have the theoretical solution, but not the step-by-step practical solution. And that's why some of those gurus get trashed - they can tell you what's wrong, but not how to fix it.

- Bill

Well put, Bill. I've found that the most effective writers on *story* are those who can convey the broad truths about it in relatable, specific ways. The most effective on *screenwriting* understand how to *execute best* the *techniques* that best impart the story information.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I'll throw in a reply-- I have read almost every guru on screenwriting, I have studied all the how-to methods on beating, outlining, sequencing, carefully structuring a story before typing FADE IN. A couple of days ago i read this book which takes an almost opposite approach (not entirely)-- recommending to stop outlining, stop spending so much time listening to guru methods, stop spending weeks and months structuring, stop spending months writing the screenplay. Not saying I necessarily agree with the author's take on this, but I found the read (took less than an hour on my kindle) interesting and thought provoking. Use or lose, just thought this was germaine to the subject of gurus.

 

[wcmartell]

That's another thing about teachers - each may have a different method of teaching and one may work for you and another may not. In the end it is always about results - what method you use to get those results doesn't matter. If you can write without an outline and end up with screenplays that sell or get you assignments - that's what you should do. If what you are doing isn't working - try something else until you find the method that produces results.

- Bill