When I did this interview, I had no idea it had anything to do with writing a screenplay or a novel or a poem or whatever. I don't claim to teach structure or plot, there's many books on that, The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogel, based on Campbell's 12 stages of the Hero's Journey, etc. The assumptions everyone seems to be making is that because I am stressing the actual WRITING, the dialogue in a screenplay or the WRITING in a novel, that somehow I am saying there's no use for plot or character arc, etc. That would be ridiculous. But there's not one idea on plot or structure that automatically insures you will be a good WRITER, it just means your structure and plot and "ideas" and "themes" and "story" will conform to ALL those other movies and books, when what made those movies and books memorable was the WRITING. And I never intended in the interview to "teach" the writing because anything you SAY about writing is bullshit, it's only in the actual process of the step by step teaching that one can understand the concepts and practice the concepts. There's no time to do that in the interview because I don't lecture in my classes, we actually WRITE and from the writing we deal with voice and character and tonal dynamics and language and what makes a sentence of a line of dialogue compelling and how a scene in a screenplay or novel works because of the WRITING. So many of the comments had to do with story and structure, and that's not what I was trying to comment on when questioned by the interviewer. I wasn't "teaching," I was answering questions in a general way. If that was all I did in my classes, no one would learn a thing, you're all right for criticizing my metaphors, they useless, except as a way of explaining why WRITING functions the way it does, in a way that plot or structure does not. Sorkin and King and all the other writers mentioned could write about painting a wall and it would be interesting, because how they write sentences and dialogue, not just because they write good plots. But I'm not dismissing that. I'm merely saying that I'm trying to teach people WRITING, not PLOTTING, and all your criticisms have to do with story factors, but story is not the words, not the WRITING. Writing is words, sentences, lines of dialogue. And well defined movement/action/narrative. The last scene in THE BIG NIGHT is nothing but action. Not a car chase, not a fist fight, not a Alfred Hitchcock suspense. It's a guy making plain eggs in the kitchen of the restaurant, a wordless scene that lasts 5 minutes. No dialogue. Where's the plot? Where's all the stages of the hero's journey. That's filmmaking, which is a kind of WRITING in itself. I can't teach writing in an interview. Sorry. All I can do is TALK about WRITING, and so we end up generalizing about specifics, but at some point we're going to have to take the engine apart and put it back together and I can't do that in an interview. It's frustrating to hear some of the comments because they all seem to apply to either my stupid metaphors, which I admit are meaningless, or to issues that involve story or plot, and that is not what I am talking about. Not because I don't value them, but because I just don't teach that part. I teach WRITING. And for better or worse, I believe in what I teach. I am sincere about it. You want someone to teach you something who doesn't believe in what she's teaching? So fault me for believing in what I teach. If it works for you, great. And if it doesn't, you can find another mentor. No one has all the answers for everybody. But I believe the specifics I teach, none of which could be dealt with in the interview, actually work and will make you a better writer. Better. As Bob Fosse (Roy Scheider) said in the movie ALL THAT JAZZ: "I can't make you great, but I can make you better." That's all I'm trying to do. And I'm not claiming I can teach you to be a better plotter or storymaker or structurer. I'm claiming I can make you a better WRITER. How to put words in a sentences, how to make dialogue that's compelling and revealing and memorable. If I didn't solve all the problems of screenwriting, I apologize. I wasn't trying to do that. I was just answering questions in a general way. But I was not teaching. You can TALK all you want about how to body build and increase aerobic capacity, but unless you're in the gym working out in a specific way, all the talk does nothing. Nothing I said will actually DO anything. it's just a lot of generalizations. We're not in the gym. We're talking about WRITING, but we're not doing it. In a class, we DO the writing based on specific techniques, and the techniques are not metaphors. So I feel bad that what I said and how I said it didn't convey my beliefs on creating works of art. But I'm sincere about what I believe. Well, that's enough for now. Excuse typos.
I thought this interview was great and totally understood what you were saying about emotional truth in particular - a bit like that quote: "No tears for the writer, no tears for the reader." Thanks for the great insights Jack! :)
Nothing, the problem is giving a basic answer wrapped in 5 layers of vague metaphor to make it sound smart. Anyone who's not a hack can tell you a story needs emotional weight, or at least something that the audience can get hooked in on, but this guy can't even plainly define what he means by emotional truth. And the other guy ranting about fascists is off his meds.
To some people sincerity refers to the will to express a potentially unpopular opinion, not to the emotion that motivates that will. Those folks think this advice is just telling them to write balder stories, which would be superficial advice. Other people may be grappling with expressing themselves honestly. It's not always the way we're trained.
@@ThisGreyWorld Oh. 😅 I really didn't read it as inserting a political agenda at all, I don't think that's what he was saying. So I think you're right.
Notice how the man cites books and writers? Well, like him, the best way to train your literary muscle is to read good works. Sure, bad or cheap work is good to know what not to do, but trying to avoid doing something bad is also a good way to accidentaly do the thing you're trying to avoid. Sort of like "don't veer too much to the right or you'll drive yourself off the road and may have an accident", so in response, you veer to the left and end up the exact same way. So of course good writers use metaphor and analogy to try and explain why something good is good, because you just know it when you read it. You need to read good books, or screenplay. Then one day, you'll write something, and you'll know it's good, because it will make you feel the way good works make you feel. The literary muscle.
I think this is going to depend on the reader. Not everyone engages in fiction the same way. For example, I myself am a fan of stories with exceptionally strong world-building. I want great characters as well of course, but I find when reading stories, its the world-building that really draws me in. The immersion is important.
Your comnent here may well be one of the most meaningful soul food you have ever shared. Thank you 🙏 The writing ( lack of writing) I've been struggling with for so long, is relentless in its biting wind, heat and cold. Literally, my soul is lost for word and My Shell eroding. 😱
If you approach this kind of insight with the mindset of 'Ok, how do I build it then?' you're missing the point. It's an invitation to write about what's important in your heart, and not just about making the story work. Many artists just never do it because there's no instruction manual so they feel scared and disoriented.
Want to really thank you for this comment. I’m half way I’m the video and was expecting some kind of broken down mechanism based on the approach of the Russians and his own car analogy. Thanks again
This guy just put in words in the first three minutes what I've been struggling to describe for the last 35 years. I would give just about anything to take this guy's classes.
Here is my approach... From a surface-level broad stroke description: STORY = Show what happended. ( and it better not be boring ) conflict & surprise is the DNA of a good story. TRUTH = Show what is really going on emotionally all the time. ( Like in real life ) Every thought, action or want has an emotion behind it. ( Like in real life. ) Even when we hide emotions, they are still there, the job is to write it up. CHARACTER = Real people in situations putting themselves forward with all their human traits on the table that make up who they are at the very moment they are speaking and interacting with other people ( characters ) DIALOGUE = People talking. We only speak ( to get what we want ) at that given moment and every moment of speaking has that same objective behind it How we sound is based on who we are and how we want to sound to get what we want. The job is to write it up... Then rewrite it... That's my surface-level broad stroke of description two cents.
I like to think of what is the external goal of someone and their internal goal. Characters come alive, becoming more relatable. Example : External - John wants to become a doctor. He is studying hard. Even his friends joke about his obsession around studying. He is not good with girls. Normally the one to break it off. Internal - His father was everything in his life. At 11 years old, his father was with him in garage, working on car. Father slipped on oil and stabbed himself in lung and bled out. John tried to help but couldnt. Noboy else was around. His mother had a mental breakdown, and ended killing herself. If only he could help. He has deep guilt. He couldve done more. His mother would still be alive. He cant keep a relationship. He doesnt want to get attached, because he might lose them. He then finds a girl that finally convinces him to forgive himself. He was trying to fix his guilt by becoming a doctor, but learned that a losing yourself in someone that cares, can help you heal those invisible wounds. So external goals are driven by deep emotional goals. Most of the time the character is not aware of that real internal emotional drive, or wont admit it.
The way I always explained it is that if the audience does not care about the characters, then nothing else is going to work. Characters if we care what happens to them, then we are cheering for and cheering against them. If the traits of the characters partially drive the plot, then the story will work.
I used to teach college creative writing. On the first or second day, talking about how to write a poem, I'd say, "you'll be surprised how mechanical it can be. " Chopping, rearranging, cramming disparate elements together, finding or inserting a common thread and then pulling it--these are mechanical acts. It's a let's-see-what- happens-if approach and can take the work into unexpected directions. As for being lost in the woods, John Keats referred to negative capability, meaning that the writer must be willing to suspend control, to not know where it's going, and allow the poem to work it's way into spaces you never would have thought of. No agendas. No preconceived ideas. Allow yourself to be capable of not knowing where it's going.
Every creation has mechanical/physical and spiritual aspects to it. When you create a piece of art you are realizing physicality of what has been within you nonphysically/ spiritually. All that is physical was a thought first.
Listening to Jack Grapes has put my writer's head in a wine... press... Here I go again! I try to be funny when my world is coming down around me... Seriously, what a great interview and what a fascinating teacher. I can't wait to put some of the things Jack Grapes has said into words...
They are both equally important. Establish your characters. Give them a basic character persona, show it through exposition, flashbacks, interpersonal interaction, narration, alone time, whatever. Create a plot. Protagonist vs Antagonist, Society, Supernatural, Technology, or Protagonist vs Themselves, whatever. The plot should break/change the original persona you created. Otherwise you have no story (Unless youre writing Tragedy). This is basic stuff. It's not a car or some esoteric vehicle that runs on emotional oil. It's just what a story is. The order is not important. You might have an idea for a story that may focus on the plot first, and then you fill in the characters and their arcs after. Or it may be the other way around. It doesn't matter which comes first. As long as you respect both.
My Language Arts/Literature teacher back in 9th grade taught me early on _to not_ prioritize writing interesting stories( _though the story arc IS important_ ), but rather to focus on writing interesting CHARACTERS instead, and the world will essentially build itself up around them. I tried several times, with five distinct characters, holding radically different ideals from one another. Then, as practice, I tossed them all into different but popular scenarios; A Reality Television Show, Police/Detective Crime Drama, Spanish Opera (recommended from Ma), Murder Mystery, Victorian Era Drama, Science Fiction, Haunted House/Horror, Romantic Drama, Post Apocalyptic Drama.... most important, Comedy! *EDIT* : I failed to mention, _how_ We accomplished this back in the day! Towards the end of Spring Break, a small group of friends and I convinced our Teacher to begin an Hour n' half long, after-school Drama/Literature Club that She called, the _DEAD POET's SOCIETY,_ after the acclaimed film . This *DPS* was true life form of "DDLC," attracting some of the school's most talented Playwrights, Thespians, _and_ Artisans! ( _Writers, Artists, & Actors_ ) 🤤 Though, _upon entry_ We _were ALL required_ to write *Thirteen to Sixteen* page scripts, *At a Minimum.* Once finished, We each took our turn at the podium, placed in the center of the room, encircled all Nine Members, reading aloud excerpts the author of said Script ( Member of DPS ) had chosen. Ah, yeah! We also read each other's poetry! Now _that_ was Fun! I'll remember those days until the day I die, yo~ Though, the Dead Poet's Society wasn't _all_ Sunshine, but it wasn't so bad an experience either.... unless, o' course, We'd gotten that *prick* who'd _not only_ couldn't write, but everyone _was forced_ to read this kid's trashy lyrics for *equality* & "Sake of Art"! Hell, _even_ the Teacher winced at his cringey writing in places. "Separate Art from Artist," She said, the First day I asked of Her for this kid's Membership to be Rescinded- _and I was the Vice President,_ for cryin' out loud! His *Very First Day* in our Club, this Kid was putting edge/violence in every one of his stories, simply for sake of edge/violence- and I'm talkin' about the *EXTREMELY* graphic, shiz that I *can't* and _won't_ repeat here. *Fortunately* for the DPS, though, its Popularity & Memberships grew, and it needed to move to a much larger space. Thanks to our _gorgeously brilliant_ Treasurer, We were able to use the School Library after hours! ( Fyi, Treasurer _was_ andre _still is_ My GF ) _Another_ small surprise that arose from The Dead Poet's Society transition is that We implemented a Conservative Voting system, to "Make Space" for Members that never showed up after School.... n' Oh boy, You can bet Your sweet ass, first thing We did was vote that guy "Off the Island" faster than a lazy, lecherous, glutton! Ain't _No One_ Got Time For That! Also, Hell Yes, I'M using improper Spellin', Grammar, n' Language!! If I went n' Graduated 2nd in My Class Literature/Language Arts & 3rd in My Class in Latin II, I have the _right_ to abuse the English Language anyway I see fit~
That's a good point. I think prioritizing both character AND world building can be harmful, though. If the world is not commonsensical to the reader, prioritize world building over characters. If it is commonsensical, prioritize character building. You can also balance the two like Lord of the Rings. It does so by crafting a world similar to Medieval Europe and the lore that existed at the time.
@@sleepingninjaquiettime I personally _adore_ the "Horror" Genre, and love exploring different places and eras where it would take place! Right now, I'm working on a- I suppose You would call it a "Science Fiction-Fantasy/Horror" Novel, and, this may sound a bit crazy.... but wouldja believe it's somethin' I've been steadily working on and evolving since I was Twelve Years of age!? Hehe, chyea! I have Four other Novels in the works, and I bounce between them whenever I get the dreaded "WRITER'S BLOCK," only.... it's a funny way in that I write certain SCENES as they come to me, and not canonically. Then, I edit the scenes together in an extremely rough draft, and call that my "Sloppy Copy" before starting over completely. I cannot recall exactly which one of the famous Renaissance Artists said this, and I may be horribly paraphrasing this; _"A True Artist Can Discard The Greatest of His Works, As He Knows He Make It Once More"_ Or..... something like that! lol
@@theshizl4400 unfortunately I don't have writers block I have typers block. I write by writing down notes, and long voice messages. But then hate sitting down and actually putting it into a readable form. I almost desire to hire and guide a personal typist.
*I hope I understand what he means.* Every story development is like the fuel combustion inside a motor, it moves the entire motor, not just one single part. Any moment inside a script influences a character on so many levels. Your character is more than just 'lines' to be spoken, and actions to be performed, your character has intelligence, emotions and awareness. Also, like a motor, every development inside your script affects all character, perhaps not all at the same intensity.
I’m not sure every development necessarily affects all the characters In fact, sometimes not being affected is just as powerful. Think of somebody sacrificing themselves for another person who doesn’t even know or care about them; I feel like that’d be heavy Or to make an even broader analogy, imagine “slices of life” from different people inside the same city or country. Even if they never interact directly, they still contribute in their own isolated ways to an overall “palette” you’re presenting to the audience, whether it be of an era like Victorian England, a theme like love, an event like World War I, or whatever else
Sort of, imo. I think he just means there's a reason, an emotion, that is motivating you to write this particular story, and that you have to keep that in mind even while you're mapping character reactions, plot consequences, etc. so that you don't meander and squander the story. Moving chesspieces on a board isn't a story. You can narrate it like one though. That narration's the story, not the pieces.
Yep! Kérouac went to France and wrote "Satori in Paris" on his experiences there. JACK GRAPES speaks from the bottom of his heart there is so much to learn.
I write everything I have experienced in my life. Mostly the hard shit. If you write what you have gone thru, it cannot be made up. Experience is the best writing. I am a published author and editing my screenplay LANDLORD 911. Over 1000 reader feedback's for my book and it was all good. I review did not like all the swearing.
Finally! I'm so sick of this "cut and paste', "How too..." assembly guides on Storytelling. You write what you are compelled to, the rest you discover. It's guys like this that make me want to write again. Look at Pip from "great Expectation's". A CHARACTER IN SEARCH OF A PLOT. Made for one helluva' story, didn't it?
I definitely need to check out JG's books - my immediate thought is that getting lost enough to find myself involves a fair amount of "typing" (and scribbling) before I can start writing. Something about the process gets the oil flowing.
Jack's poetry workshops changed my life, and in this interview, like in his workshops, he speaks of the way image and the musicality of language get under the skin. Getting down into the emotional core isn't easy but the most resonant kinds of writing emerge from that place. For anyone interested, here's the last paragraph from Kerouac's "On the Road": "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups and peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty." Thank you, Jack Grapes :-)
Aaron Sorkins said that writing is music. Humans at their core resonate with music. That's the last thing that remains when dementia takes a life. Music.
The way I see it is that the oil is the motivation. The truth inside of you is the gas. The spark that starts the engine comes from above. And, so, you take everyone- the writer, the film team, and the audience on a journey to a beautiful destination.
I write D&D campaigns. The main focus for me is to write an interesting conflict or struggle that threatens the players and motivates them to go do the hero thing. The players are the characters in the story. But writers engage their audience by creating problems or dire situations where they following a relatable character you love go through difficult times and struggle to succeed or discover what’s really going on. I employ ideas from philosophy and psychology and Greek mythos theatre classic art forms of poetry and theatre.
Indeed. Writing for a TTRPG adventure is setting for the most part. It's compiling a snapshot of a place, time, set of characters and conflict. You have a few general ideas of how it might go (especially if the players don't get involved) but it is all setting the stage for the players to get involved in. The fun thing to me is, it's a bit like writing up to the start of a story without knowing (at least in full) what the main characters the audience will follow are like. (which is also why it helps a lot to know what the players are like and will be bringing to the table.) There are skills for that which are absolutely indispensable for writing a full story in another format.
I was arguing with a guy on why The Suicide Squad (2021) was good, and he kept saying that it was bad because it didn't have a plot. I found it odd cause i felt so much through the movie that i really wasn't focused on looking for one single plot. This clarifies a lot. Thank you!
Objectively, it had a plot. Incarcerated super-villains are tasked with destroying "Jotunheim" along with "Project Starfish" as well as all documents that pertain to them. If they succeed their sentences are reduced, if they fail or disobey, they die.
This is the best information on storytelling on the internet. This should be foundational study for all writers. His historical knowledge of the Russian example is like gold. Structure is important yet we get too caught in it and lose substance of the mood moving story.
I love this - couldnt agree more . The underlying subtext is where the grit really is (under the bonnet!) especially if it fights with what you call "the car design" . Acting becomes fascinating when the audience is more intrigued by whats under the bonnet and how it will reveal itself. Things can be intense when different people have different things under the bonnet!
"Does it take a mechanical process to produce a work of art?" My answer is "No" --- rather it takes an emotional process. Yes, there needs to be structure, and understanding the poetics of a genre is an essential stepping stone --- but it is not enough. One has to know where a story is going (otherwise any road will take you there) --- and the process of finding the ending you love can take considerable time and feel mechanical along the way. Just how you get to a good ending can vary (personal experience, observation, imagination, ..) but what doesn't vary, I submit, is that the only way to really know it's a great ending --- is for your emotions to tell you so.
A good writer is thoughtful and beautiful. Mastering a WAY of saying 100 things on 100 post it notes without saying any of it at all. Reducing the complexity of 1000 emotions to a few brilliantly concise sentences. For example "She starred at the picture for two hours. Hands trembling she laid the picture down inside the box. Closed the lid and locked the latch. And she wept." Could be something that says hundreds of things about the character and the complexities of the emotions without directly saying it. No Need for "then she remembered Henry and then she felt terrible but also joy and extreme sadness" blah blah blah all of that directness is unneeded. There's Lil Wayne saying "I'm the greatest rapper alive" and then there's Eminem just performing rap god. "Just do" don't talk about the doing. That's my motto. In writing that would be "just show" save the telling for the interviews and book signings.
Lately I've been watching a lot of this channel. Jack is my favourite so far. In the videos of him, he asks her questions as much as she asks him. Rather than tell her what he thinks, he teaches her to think like him. I'm a fan.
Reminds me of Henry Thoreau, on Walden's Pond. Here's a solitary life, making his way in the wilderness. Yet he had his mom cook Sunday dinner, and do his laundry, lol.
She asks, "Did he go to Paris and people thought he was homeless?" That was George Orwell, and his experience produced the book "Down and Out in Paris and London."
Last paragraph of "On the Road": "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty."
I remember things in avatar that were exciting. To which i wonder, if the character can really do without the plot. Take out the winged beast, Take out the character flaw that he couldn't walk , giving him less incentive to want to do the avatar thing . Take out the conflict of interest, with the necessity to move the company towards the fight. You're left with potential love. The adventure. Small negotiations that allow farming of rocks , and less push comes to shove and then you have a regular economy and a love interest if you take out the otherworldly planet with other worldly creatures . That kills the adventure, the majority of the plot was adventure and allot of everything i can remember wasn't the character themselves,but the adventure. A conflict and a love interest is a little more than a familiar uninteresting story we all know. Good for starters , but quaker meets native American girl to try to create peace and picks a side. Thats the damn plot when you taken it all out. Military quaker with leg problems finds love with native american girl and never needs to express his feelings on his legs because they work (so he has no fatal flaw) when he is with native American girl. Who is simply beautiful and traditional. The characters, the two mains broken down with simpler and simpler plots that fit into the category don't work. The engine simple cannot push all kinds of cars.
I like how he speaks about the internal workings of the story, but how much of that actually gets expressed to the viewer? I'm moreso in the light of props/miniatures/environments & I could detail something for days that will only be glanced over for half a second. It's really all about what is actually on screen & you never know how it's really gonna turn out until they start filming, then especially the editing, the "movie magic" of it all.
Words, drawings, comics, or even motion picture are merely the vessels for the author or creator to share their perspective, their thoughts and their conclusion about the world through the character that being illustrated in whatever form of media in movie or books or whatsoever. While in Hollywood studio nowadays, they just taking them as a business, follow whatever formula or franchise that has been proven to be sucess in the past, then milk on them. They are just copying the words, the motion pictures that are merely the vessels of the original thought. Without those thoughts, no matter how blockbuster, how loud and dumb it go, they are just some hollow words, hollow movies that no one would care about since the studio doesn't seem to care anything important to the stories other than the profit.
I have the opposite problem with my storytelling. I do have all the genuine emotions stemming from personal experience I want to express, and I've put them into scenes, from the beginning to the story to the very end of the story, but I have no idea how to write filler parts. A story writes itself through its characters, that much I realized by myself without ever being told, I know that you can't just take any story and put any character with an arbitrary background in any role. Roles have to fit character backgrounds and motivations, but when all of that has been executed properly, how do yo actually fill your script with content that isn't character/story development but the filler parts in-between? I have a 210,000 letter script with a concluded storyline that needs to be 1.2 million for the medium it should be released for.
Filler isn't something you write, it's something you type. Filler is the part people skip. Filler is the cinder blocks the car sits on. Filler is typing two long paragraphs about a man getting a cup of coffee and how loud it is in the café and the person on their laptop and the two girls laughing over something he didn't hear and the big glass window and words and words of things no one cares about just to fill space and/or time. Writing is putting it into one sentence: "While he waited for his simple café au lait, he noticed an art print that had 'Museo del Prado' on the bottom, a place he had never been or even heard of, but now he wanted to just so he could stand in front of the original." In one sentence, you've described a plain man whose unpretentious drink order hints at a bit of unsophistication or lack of adventurousness but now he wants to change that a bit. You've given both a taste of the character and an inciting moment. Anything else is just filler, and filler is what people hate. It's the junk mail of writing, the stuff people toss straight into the trash in order to get to what they actually care about. "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." is an entire story. Everything else is just filler.
@@larrycoleman5751 That's just juggling terminology. You and I both know what constitutes as a good filler, you just expressed how you think it shouldn't be called a filler. It is a filler. It's something that has substance, worth your attention, but if you would drop it entirely from your script, it would be no loss whatsoever, i.e. it's a filler.
@@dominic.h.3363 That's not what I said at all. There is no such thing as "good filler." If you can drop it with no loss whatsoever, it should be dropped. If it truly is something with substance that's worthy of attention, move it into the file of ideas for a different story, because if it doesn't drive the current story, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is or how much you love it, it's just filler and it doesn't belong in that particular story. It might be wonderful somewhere else, but if you're only adding it to add something, then just don't. Maybe you'll find out that the material you put in the other story file is where the real story is and that's why you were having trouble feeling like the first one was complete. The Grapes of Wrath is 170,000 words because Steinbeck couldn't tell it in 150,000, but the same man only needed 30,000 for Of Mice and Men. He didn't write 30,000 words and then look for another hundred thousand to add as filler, yet both of them were made into excellent movies. The story knows how long it needs to talk to tell itself.
@@larrycoleman5751 This whole exchange seems to be a definition disconnect between the two of you. Dominic means 'filler' as in 'what lies between and fleshes out' akin to flesh on a skeleton. Your defining filler as 'material that exists for no other reason than to avoid an empty space'. Dominic, what you appear to be having a hard time with is the roads from one scene to the next, from one point in time you've fleshed out to the next. Connective tissue, or paths. IT's not always easy to do. The best advice I can give you from my own struggles with the same is this: Start at the beginning. What is the first scene you've fleshed out that absolutely needs to be there in your view of the story? Then move forward in time from there to the next scene in order, but if you find the path didn't logically lead you to that exact scene you pictured? The one you tried to reach? It might be better to write a new scene instead. There isn't always a path worth following between fixed points. Sometimes we find we need to change things because following the characters means they don't end up where we originally pictured or intended. But if it logically and emotionally follows that way? Then set that scene aside for a different story. Larrycoleman, you are giving reasonable advice worth following, it just doesn't address the issue Dominic is facing here fully, as Dominic sees it.
I found myself lost in the dark woods of this metaphor. His argument seems to be, "You need to have all the ingredients, the right stove, and the right recipe to make the dish. But none of it is useful without the secret sauce." Yet fails to give concrete details on any of the ingredients, recipe, stove or the secret sauce.
This Grapes guy is obnoxious. He's overly pretentious and speaks with authority, as if he knows the answers to the universe's mysteries. He doesn't. I literally hadn't even heard of him before seeing his videos on this channel, so how can he speak about proper writing when he's just 'some guy'? You should at least have some credentials to your name before acting as if you're GRR Martin.
I think its clear when he says emotional truth, it means your story has to have as a basis, as a theme, something that comes from you, something real you can feel traslated to the movie. It doesnt matter how many plot twist you have, how cool the story can be, that’s as he says just “plotting”
One hardest things to do in writing adapt different formats like long form writing in books to movies like for brilliant guy like Stephen King but the man writes tomes
Kerouac writes in the book’s magnificent closing paragraph; “So in America, when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars will be out, and don’t you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what’s going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty.”
I don't know if art needs a "mechanical" process but it does need some semblance of a plan. And talent, and dedication, and even a little madness. My new game: think of a movie that absolutely should _not_ get a sequel and then come up with a sequel for it. E.g. what do the Tenenbaums get up to after Royal died? What did the detective (reporter?) in Citizen Kane do after he figured out "rosebud"? What did those all those blue people get up to after the events of Avatar? You don't write these sequels, mind you, just use the ideas as a starting point. Wait.. _what?_ They're making sequels to that? But it was so, so, so, so, so, so very bad!
The Last Paragraph of Jack Kerouac's On the Road "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty."
Its funny how he compares the writing in On the Road to music as some paragraphs from on the the Road have actually been turned into songs - just look up the beat by the jazzusual suspects
I get all idead must to know about writing for a film script. never use ots just to create your idea. My dad is Right,you got to write you sketch first then type! Gee,thanks Dad!
hahah, "forget plot, forget outline" - sure.....now all the young writers will throw that out of the window after watching this. I would rather have a story with structure, than a story with so much emotional truth that GOES NOWHERE. Hollywood is prime example of a lot of emotional moments strung together via bad plotting and conveniences. The "engine" he's referring to is what sooooo many others have simply called the Spine of the story. You also get character spine which is important to implement.
Agree. The easiest problems to fix and the most frequent are that the story "doesn't work," i.e. the character does something or something happens that doesn't make sense. Most of these are fixed by structuring the story and getting feedback. But if you hear "just write!" often enough you'll think you don't need any of that "crap."
@@JoelAdamson you can fix your structure all you want, if you lack that emotional hook you'll never sell a script, cause anyone can learn the craft and execute it perfectly, but not anyone can win an Oscar or at least make it into Hollywood.
The emotional truth is certainly true, but I would add that the gasoline for the engine is conflict. Because without conflict there’s no reason for the story. There’s nothing to be resolved.
"How do you find yourself by getting lost?" Reminds me of when Jesus says "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever desires to (save his life) will (lose it), and whoever (loses his life) for my sake will (find it)."
Jack Kerouac's last page of On the Road reminds me of the end of Good Will Hunting, nuff said. I didn't say I didn't care about the syrup of feelings as regards "those I have known". Buke has spoiled everybody for me. (Bukowski) now who's pretentious.
By definition. You can imagine all the impossible you like, but it does not become art until you make it real. That is a mechanical process. Maybe that is not what you mean. Maybe you are asking can a proscriptive process produce a work of art? I don't know. Can an entirely proscriptive process produce art? Maybe one entirely proscriptive process can produce one entirely unique work of art. Can an entirely proscriptive process provide inspiration for many works of art? Yes. No question, yes. [This response was computer generated]
I am so lost right now. Is there a different approach or way to simplify (or stupidify) what he's metaphorically saying because I sincerely don't get the car/motor analogy at all.
The anger of the comments is due to the fact that the interviewee prefers not to say anything, since he is a script teacher and does not want to reveal secrets. You can see that, his style of teacher who makes fun of the students, it shows when he crosses his arms, his gestures, his forced laugh. He could have given examples of movies where what he says is true, but no, he did not say anything. What he talks about is that the protagonist has to get excited about something. I give an example: If he is a policeman, it is not enough to want to catch criminals, at least he should have a wife, children, so that he is not only a puppet of the judicial system that only catches drug traffickers.
a good writer would know 3-4 mins of metaphor is more than enough - get on with the specifics. he means well, there are some good tips, but you start to distrust the advice when the mentor himself isn't aware of this.
1 problem: some people start as better plotters, some people start as better "writers" and they can't plot. That was me. I can produce thousands of words a day at will, but my plots were weak. So I have to work on plot. Maybe there's more of one than another, but it's not ALL one or the other. Also certain stories require more plotting than others. A heist story is all plot. A family drama is not.
When I did this interview, I had no idea it had anything to do with writing a screenplay or a novel or a poem or whatever. I don't claim to teach structure or plot, there's many books on that, The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogel, based on Campbell's 12 stages of the Hero's Journey, etc. The assumptions everyone seems to be making is that because I am stressing the actual WRITING, the dialogue in a screenplay or the WRITING in a novel, that somehow I am saying there's no use for plot or character arc, etc. That would be ridiculous. But there's not one idea on plot or structure that automatically insures you will be a good WRITER, it just means your structure and plot and "ideas" and "themes" and "story" will conform to ALL those other movies and books, when what made those movies and books memorable was the WRITING. And I never intended in the interview to "teach" the writing because anything you SAY about writing is bullshit, it's only in the actual process of the step by step teaching that one can understand the concepts and practice the concepts. There's no time to do that in the interview because I don't lecture in my classes, we actually WRITE and from the writing we deal with voice and character and tonal dynamics and language and what makes a sentence of a line of dialogue compelling and how a scene in a screenplay or novel works because of the WRITING. So many of the comments had to do with story and structure, and that's not what I was trying to comment on when questioned by the interviewer. I wasn't "teaching," I was answering questions in a general way. If that was all I did in my classes, no one would learn a thing, you're all right for criticizing my metaphors, they useless, except as a way of explaining why WRITING functions the way it does, in a way that plot or structure does not. Sorkin and King and all the other writers mentioned could write about painting a wall and it would be interesting, because how they write sentences and dialogue, not just because they write good plots. But I'm not dismissing that. I'm merely saying that I'm trying to teach people WRITING, not PLOTTING, and all your criticisms have to do with story factors, but story is not the words, not the WRITING. Writing is words, sentences, lines of dialogue. And well defined movement/action/narrative. The last scene in THE BIG NIGHT is nothing but action. Not a car chase, not a fist fight, not a Alfred Hitchcock suspense. It's a guy making plain eggs in the kitchen of the restaurant, a wordless scene that lasts 5 minutes. No dialogue. Where's the plot? Where's all the stages of the hero's journey. That's filmmaking, which is a kind of WRITING in itself. I can't teach writing in an interview. Sorry. All I can do is TALK about WRITING, and so we end up generalizing about specifics, but at some point we're going to have to take the engine apart and put it back together and I can't do that in an interview. It's frustrating to hear some of the comments because they all seem to apply to either my stupid metaphors, which I admit are meaningless, or to issues that involve story or plot, and that is not what I am talking about. Not because I don't value them, but because I just don't teach that part. I teach WRITING. And for better or worse, I believe in what I teach. I am sincere about it. You want someone to teach you something who doesn't believe in what she's teaching? So fault me for believing in what I teach. If it works for you, great. And if it doesn't, you can find another mentor. No one has all the answers for everybody. But I believe the specifics I teach, none of which could be dealt with in the interview, actually work and will make you a better writer. Better. As Bob Fosse (Roy Scheider) said in the movie ALL THAT JAZZ: "I can't make you great, but I can make you better." That's all I'm trying to do. And I'm not claiming I can teach you to be a better plotter or storymaker or structurer. I'm claiming I can make you a better WRITER. How to put words in a sentences, how to make dialogue that's compelling and revealing and memorable. If I didn't solve all the problems of screenwriting, I apologize. I wasn't trying to do that. I was just answering questions in a general way. But I was not teaching. You can TALK all you want about how to body build and increase aerobic capacity, but unless you're in the gym working out in a specific way, all the talk does nothing. Nothing I said will actually DO anything. it's just a lot of generalizations. We're not in the gym. We're talking about WRITING, but we're not doing it. In a class, we DO the writing based on specific techniques, and the techniques are not metaphors. So I feel bad that what I said and how I said it didn't convey my beliefs on creating works of art. But I'm sincere about what I believe. Well, that's enough for now. Excuse typos.
I thought ur interview and all the information/examples u gave is very helpful, thank you so much.
I for one learned a lot just from what you had to say in this interview. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk about your beliefs
I think you express yourself in the best possible human way. Thank you so much.
This was a great interview I appreciate your effort and time you put into this!
I thought this interview was great and totally understood what you were saying about emotional truth in particular - a bit like that quote: "No tears for the writer, no tears for the reader." Thanks for the great insights Jack! :)
This guy is gold.
And not just for writing, I feel like I'm listening to a philosophy teacher and life coach at the same time.
I just feel like I'm listening to the Joe Biden of writing
I don't understand the hate comments 😅 What's wrong with saying a story has to have a sincere emotional core and intention behind it all?
Nothing, the problem is giving a basic answer wrapped in 5 layers of vague metaphor to make it sound smart. Anyone who's not a hack can tell you a story needs emotional weight, or at least something that the audience can get hooked in on, but this guy can't even plainly define what he means by emotional truth.
And the other guy ranting about fascists is off his meds.
Right wing grifters and Anti-SJWS. Whenever they hear the word 'theme' they think 'rwar wOkE prOpOgANDer."
@@thereccher8746 whats 'rwar'? LOL. Leave it to you to bring politics into this.
To some people sincerity refers to the will to express a potentially unpopular opinion, not to the emotion that motivates that will. Those folks think this advice is just telling them to write balder stories, which would be superficial advice.
Other people may be grappling with expressing themselves honestly. It's not always the way we're trained.
@@ThisGreyWorld Oh. 😅 I really didn't read it as inserting a political agenda at all, I don't think that's what he was saying. So I think you're right.
I don't know who this man is, but listening to him is inspiring, not just about writing, but about finding one's voice in life.
Notice how the man cites books and writers? Well, like him, the best way to train your literary muscle is to read good works. Sure, bad or cheap work is good to know what not to do, but trying to avoid doing something bad is also a good way to accidentaly do the thing you're trying to avoid. Sort of like "don't veer too much to the right or you'll drive yourself off the road and may have an accident", so in response, you veer to the left and end up the exact same way. So of course good writers use metaphor and analogy to try and explain why something good is good, because you just know it when you read it. You need to read good books, or screenplay. Then one day, you'll write something, and you'll know it's good, because it will make you feel the way good works make you feel. The literary muscle.
I mean, the best way to get better at writing is to write. You don't improve if you don't practice. Having a good instruction manual helps.
I think this is going to depend on the reader. Not everyone engages in fiction the same way.
For example, I myself am a fan of stories with exceptionally strong world-building. I want great characters as well of course, but I find when reading stories, its the world-building that really draws me in. The immersion is important.
I learned more about writing reading bad books.
Your comnent here may well be one of the most meaningful soul food you have ever shared. Thank you 🙏 The writing ( lack of writing) I've been struggling with for so long, is relentless in its biting wind, heat and cold. Literally, my soul is lost for word and My Shell eroding. 😱
Sometimes you hit a wall that you don't even know is there until someone shines a light on it. Thank you for shining that light.
If you approach this kind of insight with the mindset of 'Ok, how do I build it then?' you're missing the point. It's an invitation to write about what's important in your heart, and not just about making the story work. Many artists just never do it because there's no instruction manual so they feel scared and disoriented.
_"feel scared and disoriented"_
Can relate to that as a writer.
Want to really thank you for this comment. I’m half way I’m the video and was expecting some kind of broken down mechanism based on the approach of the Russians and his own car analogy. Thanks again
This guy just put in words in the first three minutes what I've been struggling to describe for the last 35 years.
I would give just about anything to take this guy's classes.
Beautiful conversation between two people in love with their craft. Dante's quote was sublime.
Here is my approach...
From a surface-level broad stroke description:
STORY = Show what happended. ( and it better not be boring ) conflict & surprise is the DNA of a good story.
TRUTH = Show what is really going on emotionally all the time. ( Like in real life ) Every thought, action or want has an emotion behind it. ( Like in real life. )
Even when we hide emotions, they are still there, the job is to write it up.
CHARACTER = Real people in situations putting themselves forward with all their human traits on the table that make up who they are at the very moment they are speaking and interacting with other people ( characters )
DIALOGUE = People talking. We only speak ( to get what we want ) at that given moment and every moment of speaking has that same objective behind it
How we sound is based on who we are and how we want to sound to get what we want.
The job is to write it up...
Then rewrite it...
That's my surface-level broad stroke of description two cents.
I like to think of what is the external goal of someone and their internal goal. Characters come alive, becoming more relatable. Example : External - John wants to become a doctor. He is studying hard. Even his friends joke about his obsession around studying. He is not good with girls. Normally the one to break it off. Internal - His father was everything in his life. At 11 years old, his father was with him in garage, working on car. Father slipped on oil and stabbed himself in lung and bled out. John tried to help but couldnt. Noboy else was around. His mother had a mental breakdown, and ended killing herself. If only he could help. He has deep guilt. He couldve done more. His mother would still be alive. He cant keep a relationship. He doesnt want to get attached, because he might lose them. He then finds a girl that finally convinces him to forgive himself. He was trying to fix his guilt by becoming a doctor, but learned that a losing yourself in someone that cares, can help you heal those invisible wounds. So external goals are driven by deep emotional goals. Most of the time the character is not aware of that real internal emotional drive, or wont admit it.
@@krokodilpil8335 Same explanation can be used for external and internal conflicts. Thanks for sharing.
Love it. He's touching a critical nerve. Who is Jack Grape? I guess i need to find out. Thanks, Jack.
The way I always explained it is that if the audience does not care about the characters, then nothing else is going to work. Characters if we care what happens to them, then we are cheering for and cheering against them. If the traits of the characters partially drive the plot, then the story will work.
Such a great answer; "Your emotional truth is the oil for your story engine!"
I used to teach college creative writing. On the first or second day, talking about how to write a poem, I'd say, "you'll be surprised how mechanical it can be. " Chopping, rearranging, cramming disparate elements together, finding or inserting a common thread and then pulling it--these are mechanical acts. It's a let's-see-what- happens-if approach and can take the work into unexpected directions.
As for being lost in the woods, John Keats referred to negative capability, meaning that the writer must be willing to suspend control, to not know where it's going, and allow the poem to work it's way into spaces you never would have thought of. No agendas. No preconceived ideas. Allow yourself to be capable of not knowing where it's going.
Great. I would love to take his class also.
Takeaway: Imagination + emotional truth. Perfect.
If it lacks imagination, its boring. If it lack emotional authenticity (I like that word better than truth) then its soulless.
Every creation has mechanical/physical and spiritual aspects to it. When you create a piece of art you are realizing physicality of what has been within you nonphysically/ spiritually.
All that is physical was a thought first.
Right on. I put on music that touches my soul to get the emotion of the scene.
I do that, too. I started my novel with Bridge Over Troubled Water.
Listening to Jack Grapes has put my writer's head in a wine... press... Here I go again! I try to be funny when my world is coming down around me... Seriously, what a great interview and what a fascinating teacher. I can't wait to put some of the things Jack Grapes has said into words...
They are both equally important.
Establish your characters. Give them a basic character persona, show it through exposition, flashbacks, interpersonal interaction, narration, alone time, whatever.
Create a plot. Protagonist vs Antagonist, Society, Supernatural, Technology, or Protagonist vs Themselves, whatever.
The plot should break/change the original persona you created. Otherwise you have no story (Unless youre writing Tragedy). This is basic stuff. It's not a car or some esoteric vehicle that runs on emotional oil. It's just what a story is.
The order is not important. You might have an idea for a story that may focus on the plot first, and then you fill in the characters and their arcs after. Or it may be the other way around. It doesn't matter which comes first. As long as you respect both.
Love this guy! They're a dying breed
My Language Arts/Literature teacher back in 9th grade taught me early on _to not_ prioritize writing interesting stories( _though the story arc IS important_ ), but rather to focus on writing interesting CHARACTERS instead, and the world will essentially build itself up around them.
I tried several times, with five distinct characters, holding radically different ideals from one another. Then, as practice, I tossed them all into different but popular scenarios;
A Reality Television Show, Police/Detective Crime Drama, Spanish Opera (recommended from Ma), Murder Mystery, Victorian Era Drama, Science Fiction, Haunted House/Horror, Romantic Drama, Post Apocalyptic Drama.... most important, Comedy!
*EDIT* : I failed to mention, _how_ We accomplished this back in the day! Towards the end of Spring Break, a small group of friends and I convinced our Teacher to begin an Hour n' half long, after-school Drama/Literature Club that She called, the _DEAD POET's SOCIETY,_ after the acclaimed film . This *DPS* was true life form of "DDLC," attracting some of the school's most talented Playwrights, Thespians, _and_ Artisans! ( _Writers, Artists, & Actors_ ) 🤤
Though, _upon entry_ We _were ALL required_ to write *Thirteen to Sixteen* page scripts, *At a Minimum.*
Once finished, We each took our turn at the podium, placed in the center of the room, encircled all Nine Members, reading aloud excerpts the author of said Script ( Member of DPS ) had chosen.
Ah, yeah! We also read each other's poetry! Now _that_ was Fun! I'll remember those days until the day I die, yo~
Though, the Dead Poet's Society wasn't _all_ Sunshine, but it wasn't so bad an experience either.... unless, o' course, We'd gotten that *prick* who'd _not only_ couldn't write, but everyone _was forced_ to read this kid's trashy lyrics for *equality* & "Sake of Art"!
Hell, _even_ the Teacher winced at his cringey writing in places. "Separate Art from Artist," She said, the First day I asked of Her for this kid's Membership to be Rescinded- _and I was the Vice President,_ for cryin' out loud! His *Very First Day* in our Club, this Kid was putting edge/violence in every one of his stories, simply for sake of edge/violence- and I'm talkin' about the *EXTREMELY* graphic, shiz that I *can't* and _won't_ repeat here.
*Fortunately* for the DPS, though, its Popularity & Memberships grew, and it needed to move to a much larger space. Thanks to our _gorgeously brilliant_ Treasurer, We were able to use the School Library after hours! ( Fyi, Treasurer _was_ andre _still is_ My GF )
_Another_ small surprise that arose from The Dead Poet's Society transition is that We implemented a Conservative Voting system, to "Make Space" for Members that never showed up after School.... n' Oh boy, You can bet Your sweet ass, first thing We did was vote that guy "Off the Island" faster than a lazy, lecherous, glutton! Ain't _No One_ Got Time For That!
Also, Hell Yes, I'M using improper Spellin', Grammar, n' Language!! If I went n' Graduated 2nd in My Class Literature/Language Arts & 3rd in My Class in Latin II, I have the _right_ to abuse the English Language anyway I see fit~
That's a good point. I think prioritizing both character AND world building can be harmful, though. If the world is not commonsensical to the reader, prioritize world building over characters. If it is commonsensical, prioritize character building. You can also balance the two like Lord of the Rings. It does so by crafting a world similar to Medieval Europe and the lore that existed at the time.
Don't follow guidelines or rules, just write. If you write fiction.
@@sleepingninjaquiettime
I personally _adore_ the "Horror" Genre, and love exploring different places and eras where it would take place! Right now, I'm working on a- I suppose You would call it a "Science Fiction-Fantasy/Horror" Novel, and, this may sound a bit crazy.... but wouldja believe it's somethin' I've been steadily working on and evolving since I was Twelve Years of age!? Hehe, chyea!
I have Four other Novels in the works, and I bounce between them whenever I get the dreaded "WRITER'S BLOCK," only.... it's a funny way in that I write certain SCENES as they come to me, and not canonically. Then, I edit the scenes together in an extremely rough draft, and call that my "Sloppy Copy" before starting over completely.
I cannot recall exactly which one of the famous Renaissance Artists said this, and I may be horribly paraphrasing this;
_"A True Artist Can Discard The Greatest of His Works, As He Knows He Make It Once More"_
Or..... something like that! lol
I always say grammar is a literary device!
@@theshizl4400 unfortunately I don't have writers block I have typers block. I write by writing down notes, and long voice messages. But then hate sitting down and actually putting it into a readable form. I almost desire to hire and guide a personal typist.
I cried when he says "the emotional truth from the heart"
*I hope I understand what he means.*
Every story development is like the fuel combustion inside a motor, it moves the entire motor, not just one single part.
Any moment inside a script influences a character on so many levels. Your character is more than just 'lines' to be spoken, and actions to be performed, your character has intelligence, emotions and awareness. Also, like a motor, every development inside your script affects all character, perhaps not all at the same intensity.
I’m not sure every development necessarily affects all the characters
In fact, sometimes not being affected is just as powerful. Think of somebody sacrificing themselves for another person who doesn’t even know or care about them; I feel like that’d be heavy
Or to make an even broader analogy, imagine “slices of life” from different people inside the same city or country. Even if they never interact directly, they still contribute in their own isolated ways to an overall “palette” you’re presenting to the audience, whether it be of an era like Victorian England, a theme like love, an event like World War I, or whatever else
Sort of, imo. I think he just means there's a reason, an emotion, that is motivating you to write this particular story, and that you have to keep that in mind even while you're mapping character reactions, plot consequences, etc. so that you don't meander and squander the story. Moving chesspieces on a board isn't a story. You can narrate it like one though. That narration's the story, not the pieces.
Yep! Kérouac went to France and wrote "Satori in Paris" on his experiences there. JACK GRAPES speaks from the bottom of his heart there is so much to learn.
I write everything I have experienced in my life. Mostly the hard shit. If you write what you have gone thru, it cannot be made up. Experience is the best writing. I am a published author and editing my screenplay LANDLORD 911. Over 1000 reader feedback's for my book and it was all good. I review did not like all the swearing.
_This entire channel blows me away. Brilliant._
Jack Grapes is a born teacher❤️❤️❤️
Finally! I'm so sick of this "cut and paste', "How too..." assembly guides on Storytelling.
You write what you are compelled to, the rest you discover. It's guys like this that make me want to write again.
Look at Pip from "great Expectation's". A CHARACTER IN SEARCH OF A PLOT. Made for one helluva' story, didn't it?
"A good story cannot be devised; it has to be distilled." R.C.
Wow! Beautiful analogies. As a poet revisiting my poetry after 33 years away from my craft., all this resonates with me. Thank you!
I definitely need to check out JG's books - my immediate thought is that getting lost enough to find myself involves a fair amount of "typing" (and scribbling) before I can start writing. Something about the process gets the oil flowing.
Jack's poetry workshops changed my life, and in this interview, like in his workshops, he speaks of the way image and the musicality of language get under the skin. Getting down into the emotional core isn't easy but the most resonant kinds of writing emerge from that place. For anyone interested, here's the last paragraph from Kerouac's "On the Road": "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups and peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty." Thank you, Jack Grapes :-)
Aaron Sorkins said that writing is music. Humans at their core resonate with music. That's the last thing that remains when dementia takes a life. Music.
I absolutely love this channel, you have no idea
The way I see it is that the oil is the motivation. The truth inside of you is the gas. The spark that starts the engine comes from above.
And, so, you take everyone- the writer, the film team, and the audience on a journey to a beautiful destination.
Tom Wolfe touches on Kerouac and Dean Moriarty in another great road book, "The Electric Koolaid Acid Test". That's an unheralded classic.
I read that book and it is fantastic!
You two are both brilliant and great to listen to. Will listen to more! This really helps 😁🤙
I write D&D campaigns. The main focus for me is to write an interesting conflict or struggle that threatens the players and motivates them to go do the hero thing. The players are the characters in the story. But writers engage their audience by creating problems or dire situations where they following a relatable character you love go through difficult times and struggle to succeed or discover what’s really going on.
I employ ideas from philosophy and psychology and Greek mythos theatre classic art forms of poetry and theatre.
Indeed. Writing for a TTRPG adventure is setting for the most part. It's compiling a snapshot of a place, time, set of characters and conflict. You have a few general ideas of how it might go (especially if the players don't get involved) but it is all setting the stage for the players to get involved in. The fun thing to me is, it's a bit like writing up to the start of a story without knowing (at least in full) what the main characters the audience will follow are like. (which is also why it helps a lot to know what the players are like and will be bringing to the table.)
There are skills for that which are absolutely indispensable for writing a full story in another format.
I was arguing with a guy on why The Suicide Squad (2021) was good, and he kept saying that it was bad because it didn't have a plot. I found it odd cause i felt so much through the movie that i really wasn't focused on looking for one single plot. This clarifies a lot. Thank you!
Objectively, it had a plot.
Incarcerated super-villains are tasked with destroying "Jotunheim" along with "Project Starfish" as well as all documents that pertain to them. If they succeed their sentences are reduced, if they fail or disobey, they die.
@@solodolosolomon Yes, I just meant that I get why some may felt that the plot was weak or confusing, because it was built up differently
That analogy broke down pretty quickly.
focusing on "the emotional truth"..Could not agree more.
This is the best information on storytelling on the internet. This should be foundational study for all writers. His historical knowledge of the Russian example is like gold. Structure is important yet we get too caught in it and lose substance of the mood moving story.
I love this - couldnt agree more . The underlying subtext is where the grit really is (under the bonnet!) especially if it fights with what you call "the car design" . Acting becomes fascinating when the audience is more intrigued by whats under the bonnet and how it will reveal itself. Things can be intense when different people have different things under the bonnet!
"Does it take a mechanical process to produce a work of art?" My answer is "No" --- rather it takes an emotional process. Yes, there needs to be structure, and understanding the poetics of a genre is an essential stepping stone --- but it is not enough. One has to know where a story is going (otherwise any road will take you there) --- and the process of finding the ending you love can take considerable time and feel mechanical along the way. Just how you get to a good ending can vary (personal experience, observation, imagination, ..) but what doesn't vary, I submit, is that the only way to really know it's a great ending --- is for your emotions to tell you so.
Brilliant!
Thank you very much for this insight.
A good writer is thoughtful and beautiful. Mastering a WAY of saying 100 things on 100 post it notes without saying any of it at all. Reducing the complexity of 1000 emotions to a few brilliantly concise sentences. For example "She starred at the picture for two hours. Hands trembling she laid the picture down inside the box. Closed the lid and locked the latch. And she wept." Could be something that says hundreds of things about the character and the complexities of the emotions without directly saying it. No Need for "then she remembered Henry and then she felt terrible but also joy and extreme sadness" blah blah blah all of that directness is unneeded. There's Lil Wayne saying "I'm the greatest rapper alive" and then there's Eminem just performing rap god. "Just do" don't talk about the doing. That's my motto. In writing that would be "just show" save the telling for the interviews and book signings.
Lately I've been watching a lot of this channel. Jack is my favourite so far. In the videos of him, he asks her questions as much as she asks him. Rather than tell her what he thinks, he teaches her to think like him. I'm a fan.
Reminds me of Henry Thoreau, on Walden's Pond. Here's a solitary life, making his way in the wilderness. Yet he had his mom cook Sunday dinner, and do his laundry, lol.
She asks, "Did he go to Paris and people thought he was homeless?" That was George Orwell, and his experience produced the book "Down and Out in Paris and London."
Wow this really hit home for me thank you for this.
Undefined metaphors are undefined.
Last paragraph of "On the Road": "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty."
I remember things in avatar that were exciting.
To which i wonder, if the character can really do without the plot.
Take out the winged beast,
Take out the character flaw that he couldn't walk , giving him less incentive to want to do the avatar thing .
Take out the conflict of interest, with the necessity to move the company towards the fight.
You're left with potential love.
The adventure.
Small negotiations that allow farming of rocks , and less push comes to shove and then you have a regular economy and a love interest if you take out the otherworldly planet with other worldly creatures .
That kills the adventure, the majority of the plot was adventure and allot of everything i can remember wasn't the character themselves,but the adventure.
A conflict and a love interest is a little more than a familiar uninteresting story we all know.
Good for starters , but quaker meets native American girl to try to create peace and picks a side.
Thats the damn plot when you taken it all out.
Military quaker with leg problems finds love with native american girl and never needs to express his feelings on his legs because they work (so he has no fatal flaw) when he is with native American girl.
Who is simply beautiful and traditional.
The characters, the two mains broken down with simpler and simpler plots that fit into the category don't work.
The engine simple cannot push all kinds of cars.
Hi Film Courage! Thank you for all your informative interviews. Would you be able to connect me with Jack Grapes?
"Emotional Truth"....beautiful wording. When he made the comment about you nodding 4:43, I was nodding myself 😅😂
Fantastic !!!
Love your content. Keep up the good work. Seeing other people upload keeps me motivated to do the same. All the best
I like how he speaks about the internal workings of the story, but how much of that actually gets expressed to the viewer?
I'm moreso in the light of props/miniatures/environments & I could detail something for days that will only be glanced over for half a second.
It's really all about what is actually on screen & you never know how it's really gonna turn out until they start filming, then especially the editing, the "movie magic" of it all.
Words, drawings, comics, or even motion picture are merely the vessels for the author or creator to share their perspective, their thoughts and their conclusion about the world through the character that being illustrated in whatever form of media in movie or books or whatsoever.
While in Hollywood studio nowadays, they just taking them as a business, follow whatever formula or franchise that has been proven to be sucess in the past, then milk on them. They are just copying the words, the motion pictures that are merely the vessels of the original thought. Without those thoughts, no matter how blockbuster, how loud and dumb it go, they are just some hollow words, hollow movies that no one would care about since the studio doesn't seem to care anything important to the stories other than the profit.
I have the opposite problem with my storytelling. I do have all the genuine emotions stemming from personal experience I want to express, and I've put them into scenes, from the beginning to the story to the very end of the story, but I have no idea how to write filler parts.
A story writes itself through its characters, that much I realized by myself without ever being told, I know that you can't just take any story and put any character with an arbitrary background in any role. Roles have to fit character backgrounds and motivations, but when all of that has been executed properly, how do yo actually fill your script with content that isn't character/story development but the filler parts in-between? I have a 210,000 letter script with a concluded storyline that needs to be 1.2 million for the medium it should be released for.
Filler isn't something you write, it's something you type. Filler is the part people skip. Filler is the cinder blocks the car sits on. Filler is typing two long paragraphs about a man getting a cup of coffee and how loud it is in the café and the person on their laptop and the two girls laughing over something he didn't hear and the big glass window and words and words of things no one cares about just to fill space and/or time.
Writing is putting it into one sentence: "While he waited for his simple café au lait, he noticed an art print that had 'Museo del Prado' on the bottom, a place he had never been or even heard of, but now he wanted to just so he could stand in front of the original." In one sentence, you've described a plain man whose unpretentious drink order hints at a bit of unsophistication or lack of adventurousness but now he wants to change that a bit. You've given both a taste of the character and an inciting moment. Anything else is just filler, and filler is what people hate. It's the junk mail of writing, the stuff people toss straight into the trash in order to get to what they actually care about.
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn." is an entire story. Everything else is just filler.
@@larrycoleman5751 That's just juggling terminology. You and I both know what constitutes as a good filler, you just expressed how you think it shouldn't be called a filler. It is a filler. It's something that has substance, worth your attention, but if you would drop it entirely from your script, it would be no loss whatsoever, i.e. it's a filler.
@@dominic.h.3363 That's not what I said at all. There is no such thing as "good filler." If you can drop it with no loss whatsoever, it should be dropped. If it truly is something with substance that's worthy of attention, move it into the file of ideas for a different story, because if it doesn't drive the current story, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is or how much you love it, it's just filler and it doesn't belong in that particular story. It might be wonderful somewhere else, but if you're only adding it to add something, then just don't. Maybe you'll find out that the material you put in the other story file is where the real story is and that's why you were having trouble feeling like the first one was complete.
The Grapes of Wrath is 170,000 words because Steinbeck couldn't tell it in 150,000, but the same man only needed 30,000 for Of Mice and Men. He didn't write 30,000 words and then look for another hundred thousand to add as filler, yet both of them were made into excellent movies. The story knows how long it needs to talk to tell itself.
@@larrycoleman5751 This whole exchange seems to be a definition disconnect between the two of you. Dominic means 'filler' as in 'what lies between and fleshes out' akin to flesh on a skeleton. Your defining filler as 'material that exists for no other reason than to avoid an empty space'.
Dominic, what you appear to be having a hard time with is the roads from one scene to the next, from one point in time you've fleshed out to the next. Connective tissue, or paths. IT's not always easy to do. The best advice I can give you from my own struggles with the same is this: Start at the beginning.
What is the first scene you've fleshed out that absolutely needs to be there in your view of the story?
Then move forward in time from there to the next scene in order, but if you find the path didn't logically lead you to that exact scene you pictured? The one you tried to reach? It might be better to write a new scene instead. There isn't always a path worth following between fixed points.
Sometimes we find we need to change things because following the characters means they don't end up where we originally pictured or intended. But if it logically and emotionally follows that way? Then set that scene aside for a different story.
Larrycoleman, you are giving reasonable advice worth following, it just doesn't address the issue Dominic is facing here fully, as Dominic sees it.
Amazing question from you yet the answer he gives makes it worth it
This message is helpful to me.
More of Mr Grape please!!
Powerful.
I like this guy.
He couldn’t be more right, I hope so many more writers see this!
I totally agree. There's mechanics to it.
I relate to how good/bad a movie was based on emotional connection. Can even be horror action. Make me care.
You might be thinking of George Orwell - Down and Out in Paris and London.
Fascinating
See 'The Road' by Jack London with his important works & above all his life.
I found myself lost in the dark woods of this metaphor.
His argument seems to be, "You need to have all the ingredients, the right stove, and the right recipe to make the dish. But none of it is useful without the secret sauce."
Yet fails to give concrete details on any of the ingredients, recipe, stove or the secret sauce.
I think the car analogy was pretty useful, no? Made sense in my noggin anyway.
I was expecting the interviewer to ask questions such as "how/where do you find the oil?"
This Grapes guy is obnoxious. He's overly pretentious and speaks with authority, as if he knows the answers to the universe's mysteries.
He doesn't. I literally hadn't even heard of him before seeing his videos on this channel, so how can he speak about proper writing when he's just 'some guy'? You should at least have some credentials to your name before acting as if you're GRR Martin.
I think its clear when he says emotional truth, it means your story has to have as a basis, as a theme, something that comes from you, something real you can feel traslated to the movie. It doesnt matter how many plot twist you have, how cool the story can be, that’s as he says just “plotting”
Maybe he sells the secret sauce as part of those books at the end of this video lol
Love this guy.
This guy is Danny DeVito. Swear… sounds JUST like him.
One hardest things to do in writing adapt different formats like long form writing in books to movies like for brilliant guy like Stephen King but the man writes tomes
I happen to agree with Capote.
03:09
05:15
07:20
You need a story to have an emotional factor otherwise you can't get invested in the characters or plot
Kerouac writes in the book’s magnificent closing paragraph; “So in America, when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars will be out, and don’t you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what’s going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty.”
Are his book printed versions only?
There is an emotional truth but I haven't kept it at the forefront.
What are the techniques he's speaking of?
Damn that hit hard
I don't know if art needs a "mechanical" process but it does need some semblance of a plan. And talent, and dedication, and even a little madness.
My new game: think of a movie that absolutely should _not_ get a sequel and then come up with a sequel for it. E.g. what do the Tenenbaums get up to after Royal died? What did the detective (reporter?) in Citizen Kane do after he figured out "rosebud"? What did those all those blue people get up to after the events of Avatar? You don't write these sequels, mind you, just use the ideas as a starting point.
Wait.. _what?_ They're making sequels to that? But it was so, so, so, so, so, so very bad!
Well that's great... because plotting is the hard part.
Sometimes. Here's a hint. Get your beginning and, especially, the end.
Then let the characters travel that road the way they want.
Hey Jack, love your videos. How about the phrase, "a literary engineer" ?
The Last Paragraph of Jack Kerouac's On the Road "So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, and in Iowa I know by now the children must be crying in the land where they let the children cry, and tonight the stars'll be out, and don't you know that God is Pooh Bear? the evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty."
Its funny how he compares the writing in On the Road to music as some paragraphs from on the the Road have actually been turned into songs - just look up the beat by the jazzusual suspects
How well does scriptwriting translate to books?
I get all idead must to know about writing for a film script. never use ots just to create your idea. My dad is Right,you got to write you sketch first then type! Gee,thanks Dad!
Is he really your Dad?
hahah, "forget plot, forget outline" - sure.....now all the young writers will throw that out of the window after watching this. I would rather have a story with structure, than a story with so much emotional truth that GOES NOWHERE. Hollywood is prime example of a lot of emotional moments strung together via bad plotting and conveniences. The "engine" he's referring to is what sooooo many others have simply called the Spine of the story. You also get character spine which is important to implement.
Agree. The easiest problems to fix and the most frequent are that the story "doesn't work," i.e. the character does something or something happens that doesn't make sense. Most of these are fixed by structuring the story and getting feedback. But if you hear "just write!" often enough you'll think you don't need any of that "crap."
@@JoelAdamson you can fix your structure all you want, if you lack that emotional hook you'll never sell a script, cause anyone can learn the craft and execute it perfectly, but not anyone can win an Oscar or at least make it into Hollywood.
Henry Miller writes most beautifully for me. Most honestly.
The emotional truth is certainly true, but I would add that the gasoline for the engine is conflict.
Because without conflict there’s no reason for the story. There’s nothing to be resolved.
"How do you find yourself by getting lost?"
Reminds me of when Jesus says "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever desires to (save his life) will (lose it), and whoever (loses his life) for my sake will (find it)."
This seems to be fairly new, but the part about the opening of Dante's Inferno I feel I have seen that before. Am I going crazy?
Jack Kerouac's last page of On the Road reminds me of the end of Good Will Hunting, nuff said. I didn't say I didn't care about the syrup of feelings as regards "those I have known". Buke has spoiled everybody for me. (Bukowski) now who's pretentious.
Does it take a mechanical process to produce a work of art?
I think so. He described it very well in the video.
Yes, but having talent helps a lot.
By definition. You can imagine all the impossible you like, but it does not become art until you make it real. That is a mechanical process.
Maybe that is not what you mean. Maybe you are asking can a proscriptive process produce a work of art? I don't know.
Can an entirely proscriptive process produce art? Maybe one entirely proscriptive process can produce one entirely unique work of art.
Can an entirely proscriptive process provide inspiration for many works of art? Yes. No question, yes.
[This response was computer generated]
See Poe’s philosophy of composition! It’s hard to say...
I am so lost right now. Is there a different approach or way to simplify (or stupidify) what he's metaphorically saying because I sincerely don't get the car/motor analogy at all.
Here is a deeper exploration of his teachings - ruclips.net/video/V7yTb-k1ju4/видео.html
The anger of the comments is due to the fact that the interviewee prefers not to say anything, since he is a script teacher and does not want to reveal secrets. You can see that, his style of teacher who makes fun of the students, it shows when he crosses his arms, his gestures, his forced laugh. He could have given examples of movies where what he says is true, but no, he did not say anything. What he talks about is that the protagonist has to get excited about something. I give an example: If he is a policeman, it is not enough to want to catch criminals, at least he should have a wife, children, so that he is not only a puppet of the judicial system that only catches drug traffickers.
a good writer would know 3-4 mins of metaphor is more than enough - get on with the specifics. he means well, there are some good tips, but you start to distrust the advice when the mentor himself isn't aware of this.
1 problem: some people start as better plotters, some people start as better "writers" and they can't plot. That was me. I can produce thousands of words a day at will, but my plots were weak. So I have to work on plot. Maybe there's more of one than another, but it's not ALL one or the other.
Also certain stories require more plotting than others. A heist story is all plot. A family drama is not.