Screenwriting : If you can’t take criticism of your work, don’t ask for it. by Alex Bloom

The manners (politeness, subtexts..., intentions) in which the feedback is delivered, are as important as the content itself. Obviously, most of the time, it informs you about the CHARACTER who was paid to criticize in the first place. May I add, ScriptPipeline are good at this: precise, informational and encouraging...

Alicia, I am a "reader". I am also a writer and producer. I have found that most readers are very creative. Sorry to hear your experiences are so different than mine. But as in any profession there are people who are good at their job and people who are not good at it. With script coverage it's very subjective and writers are very close to their own work so any criticism can feel like a put down. Even readers who are good at their job can seem to be simply destroying the project.

So true. A writer that can't take criticism is like a boxer that can't take a punch.

Alicia, I have to really disagree with your comment. Most readers, consultants and executives are incredibly creative - that's why they work in this field. They like to help people create. But you're half right - Hollywood is a script guillotine. That's why you need professionals to help you get the project to a place where it won't need to be decapitated. But there's also a BIG difference between a READER and an EXECUTIVE and a CONSULTANT/ANALYST. But for all those writers out there who think execs aren't creative, here's a fun fact - More Development Executives have sold their OWN scripts in the last 5 years than Nicholl Fellowship Winners. So, there's that.

I'm fortunate enough to have earned my fulltime living as a writer since the mid-eighties, and one thing I'm truly grateful for is "editing." It (editing) is the difference between "just writing" and "becoming a pro." The concept alone (of editing) means we have the chance to turn blah into something. I've worked hard to learn how to self-edit, but still it's critical to learn to listen objectively to other people. They're not criticizing us; they're suggesting how to improve our work. Not everyone who gives us notes will be "right." Some people may not be able to clearly express what they think needs to be changed. But we can thank anyone who takes the time to give us "free advice" and then learn to develop a discerning eye and ear. But if someone has taken time out of his or her life to help us, the only legitimate response is, "Thank you." Best, Melody

As writers we have have a bad habit of generalising readers as if they are all cloned in some Hollywood lab. Often demonising them into bitter knee-jerk-reacting pedants which a panache for revelling in self masturbatory obnoxious diatribes about other writer's gallant artistic endeavours. But the truth is good readers are one of the most valuable, hard to find, and under-appreciated commodities the industry has. It's a woefully underpaid role for many, requiring the tolerance of a saint, and often motivated by nothing more than a desire to see good writers get a break. Sadly though, we don't have to out reach far to find a zombie army of low rate readers who fit the profile above. Particularly if we are cheap, don't do our due diligence, or fall into the trap of seemingly charitable offers from people who are only self serving.

Alle that's simply not the case. And again, theres a big difference between Readers working in the industry and people outside the industry trying to charge people to read. Huge difference. And big diff between studio readers and script consultants. You're lumping everyone together and painting them with a biased brush.

Aren't development executives selling their own scripts a little like congress voting on its own pay increases?

Generally I agree with what most have already said (except Alicia.) But one of the points I’d like to make is that a truly professional script reader’s comments are directed toward the script (story, plot, characterization, format…) only. They are in no way to be taken as a personal attack on the writer. If I read a script and tell the writer “it sucks”, I’ll tell him/her why I think it sucks and make a few suggestions on how to fix it – but remember, I’m not the almighty screenwriting God – it’s just my opinion. It is not an assault on your person or ego. To be a successful writer you must leave your ego at the door, listen and learn as your career develops – forever. You’ll learn much more by listening than by talking.

Development execs are sometimes suits, sometimes writers. I prefer the writer type to the suit type. In the golden age of Hollywood they usually promoted writers to producers because they understood story. So guys like Jerry Wald who began as a writer became a producer/development exec and knew how to groom a good story for the screen. A development exec who is a writer know how stories work. A development exec who's a suit just wants to add more explosions. So a development exec who sells a script is just like anyone else with a day job who sells a script... they just have a day job that is in the same business.

This would be an interesting post: when your feedback says this, what does it actually mean?

Regardless what the various screenwriting books tell you; professional level screenwriting is one of the (if not the) most difficult writing form there is. The vast numbers of newbie screenwriters seem to lack the even the basic understanding of the lifelong commitment and education that’s required to achieve professional status. It takes an awful lot of dedication, education and persistence to become an overnight success and when it comes to critiquing your work – leave your ego at the door. A few critiquing your work know what they are talking about – most do not.

Adam, I actually taught a class about that at Screenwriters World a couple weeks ago - what the note behind the bote is.

A critique of your work is a critique of your work. Period. Some of our less than professionals tend to get a little more personal, it’s true; and it’s also true that some of our less than professional writers find it difficult to accept a critique as something less than a personal assault. The key phrase here being “less than professional”. There is always something good to say to any writer who asks for a critical look at their work. Simply having the chutzpa to ask is a good thing.

We also have a responsibility to withhold that critique unless is it is requested. Unsolicited advice is tempting but not helpful. A thick skin is a must and a good critique can elevate our work considerably. There is another factor: the skill of the critic. If a critic can offer solid observations that might be painful to hear but really make a piece better, viva la critic! There are those that lurk and simply want to tear a piece apart. Those do immeasurable damage. Evolving to a place as a writer where you can glean the really good, really useful comments and suggestions, and chuck the useless bits is in itself a worthy goal.

We all start somewhere. No matter what vocation to which we aspire; we start as a wannabie, become a newbie, then an intern, then an amateur, an assistant, on and on until we acquire enough learning and skill to become “professional”. There is a learning curve. We don’t scale our progress along a linier path from 1 to 10 but if we did, I’d rate someone with a score of 8 to be “somewhat less than professional.” So I think the phrase remains valid – an’ I’m sticking to it. There is a point somewhere along that path where you can both give and receive valuable criticism of your work.

Wow, Dan, you might be the first writer I've ever heard say hat. Writing in a vacuum is just not a good idea. Until you're at the place where you are demanding big money for your specs, but even then - those writers still have agents and managers and lawyers and respected colleagues that they run their material by. Sorry, but I just don't really get the upside of writing or working that way. But hey, to each his own..

As a writer, I generally work alone (except for Fiona, my dog.) When we enter our small studio to begin the day’s writing, I turn out some truly fascinating stories in faultless script format. They’re wonderful gems – I know because I wrote ‘em. Then I let my wife read them. She finds all the typos and lets me know if she likes/understands the story. Then it’s back to the studio where Fiona and I rewrite, then go through the process once again. Once I’m past my wife’s scrutiny, I ask some of my writer acquaintances to critique my work (I do the same for them) and they almost always raise issues I never thought of. It’s back to rewriting and then we go through the process again. Once I’ve successfully run that gauntlet, I enter it in a few contests – I’ve won a few and I’m in the top ten at most of the others. I bask in the accolades but in reality I owe it to Fiona, my wife and probability a dozen or so others. Working in a vacuum will suck your brains out.

I think each writing situation is unique. When I began my career (started as a journalist/magazine article writer for six yeas, then switched to books, and now it's teleplays). I always had a contract and an editor in those earlier situations, so I didn't need to ask others for their opinion (anyone outside each professional situation). But -- and this is a big but -- in those early years, I needed support and encouragement to get the courage to write the first page or word, keep writing, turn in articles, etc. I attended formal writer support groups frequently not so much to hear "this is how you can do it" but to hear "you can do it." But writing scripts (whether TV or feature) is an entirely different playing field concerning the disciplines of that extremely demanding craft. I never "passed around my book manuscripts" for comments from people but I would talk to other working pros (in the writing world) about a lead, a paragraph or two -- to see if I was on track. In fact, I was about to throw away a manuscript, thinking it was pure garbage, when a writer friend called. I told her what I was about to do; she asked me to read something to her from the manuscript. I didn't throw it away and after 20 rejections, the book went on to ride the NY Times Bestseller list for over three years and remains a backlist bestseller, even now. Again, screenwriting? Different game (at least at this point for me). But if I'm asking for someone's opinion, I'll ask someone qualified to give feedback -- not Aunt Sadie or the delivery guy (unless Aunt Sadie works on the staff of The Blacklist). I love disciplines (the disciplines of the craft and the disciplines of life). I hate rules (except for the most basic -- love one another and no hitting allowed). Unless editing or notes are a mandatory part of the job and we get these notes whether we asked for them or not, I think we each need to trust ourselves about what we need in terms of both support and feedback and in each situation, decide who we want to ask for "notes."

Wise words, Melody. Thanks.

Okay, as a writer, you've got me hanging on the edge. What do you "need to do with your girlfriend" or does that involve invoking the Fifth Amendment?

Also, I want to add that when I began writing (too many years ago to say the date), one of the first things I learned is that our "process" (re writing or anything) is unique. Some write in coffee shops; others in their bedroom. Some with pencil, others with computer. Some pass their work around to anyone (that's usually to get the assurance we need that we can become a writer). Some don't share their work with anyone. What's important is to honor other people's and most importantly, our own process for writing and editing on the way to becoming pros (and then maintaining that status as a pro once we arrive). I appreciate the author sharing his process. If that's different than ours, doesn't mean we're wrong, or he's wrong. Every writer is different (thank God) because if we were all the same, the world would only need one (writer) which it doesn't; it needs all of us and our visions. Keep writing and respecting other writers. And thanks again to Scott for sharing the details of his process with us.

Melody, you have summed it up beautifully.