Write Here, Write Now

I am deeply into philosophy (I should think so, being a philosophy A Level teacher "on the side"!) and believe it has a real part to play in screenwriting. Understanding where others come from with reference to their versions of truth and reality in particular can, I think, pay dividends in communicating with the reader and indeed, potential audiences, producers, etc.

The French Philosopher Roland Barthes expounded his theory of structuralism when it came to narratives; working on the basis that linguistics had "building blocks" of sounds, words and sentences, Barthes said that narratives had those same "building blocks", since they were made up of those sounds, words and sentences. He said that narratives were universal and were in every single action a human makes, since life is one long narrative: a beginning (birth), middle (everything you do!) and end (death). He was of the belief that human beings needed stories to survive and that no one on the planet had not invested in one, whether they were folk tales, myths and legends, books or movies. Everyone relied on stories for something other than mere entertainment - be it personal satisfaction, information (like warnings) or education.

Barthes also talked about the notion of "Writerly" and "Readerly" texts. This particularly interests me as a script reader. Writerly texts (be they books, films, etc) are those texts that are inaccessible to others. In other words, the Writer has written more for themselves than a potential audience. These texts' meanings are obscure and hard to fathom; they mean little to anyone other than whom wrote them. Ultimately, others will reject them as incomprehensible, therefore "meaningless". In direct contrast then, a Readerly text has the audience in mind too much; a sense of feeling on the writer's behalf has been missed out as they try and appeal to the audience on a commercial, more superficial level. Conversely, the end result is the same as a Writerly text - others will reject them as meaningless again, though for a different reason.

I am pleased to say I do not read many Readerly texts; I think most people appreciate that one's heart must be in speculative material to make the communication possible. That's not to say that none of us will write Readerly texts in our lifetime. As working writers, all of us have bills to pay and families to raise; when work can be so thin on the ground, who can say "No" to a producer who offers money on the basis that one does not believe in the storyline? As my philosophy lecturerer at university was fond of declaring, "We're all prols"!

However, Writers are often suprised when I say to them I do not understand their stories. It's in their head so much, they cannot believe it is not on the page. This is because they are thinking from a Writerly standpoint. Remembering that others can see things another way, remembering that interpretation can be key in taking part in a narrative (and don't you ask readers and the audience to do just that, take part, when you present it to them?) will help the construction of the narrative and hopefully avoid the barrage of questions like "Why is this happening? What is the character really? Why did s/he does this....?" Don't get me wrong. It's desirable for a narrative to raise questions - but it shouldn't raise more than it answers, else it is Writerly!

So, like a lot of things in life (except maybe chocolate), I believe balance is key when it comes to the notion of Writerly and Readerly: present notions that an audience will like, sure, but make sure your heart and maybe some of you, too, is in it....Yes, even the blood, sweat and tears!

And whilst we're on the subject, can somebody give me some feedback on Near To Darkness?? (Scroll down) I promise I won't cry or get offended...I'm not like that, honest!!!

Unless of course you think it's too Writerly?! Gulp...

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

• #1 Comment from anotherscribbler 
  16/05/06 22:31 | Permalink

  Hi, Bang2write
  
  I am brand new to this blog thing, so please forgive me if I do not observe the the correct protocol. I would be mortified if you considered me rude.
  
  I wanted to respond to your plea about Near to Darkness. The problem with a script to someone who is not a scriptwriter/reader editor or producer is that it is one-dimensional. We lack the imagination to visualise. It is like someone trying to describe, in words, the nuances of the the Mona Lisa. Words fail us...
  
  I came across you because I was trying to identify the origins of the word "writerly". It seemed odd that a portmanteau word is created by adding a suffix, more usually associated with an adverb, to a noun, to create a new adjective. However I think I can trace it back to Malcolm Bradbury at the UEA. He has a lot to answer for....
  
  Never lose faith in yourself.
  
  Anotherscribbler