I'm right in the middle of rewrites at the moment. My main script project is going into draft five -- and as such is reallly starting to shape up.
One thing I've really noticed on this rewrite is that a simple change to how I write, is making massive differences to the final outcome.
In the past I'd sit with my notes, look at what the next sequences was to go to paper and then write the scene the way I visualised it. [nothing unusual there]. That scene done, I'd move on.
The only problem with this is that although the scene may "work" or even work well, that doesn't mean that it's the BEST way to write the sequence.
So, now I write the sequence and then ask myself -- How could I tell this part of the story in another way? I force myself to write a completely different version of the sequence, tackled in a completely new way.
For instance -- Could I move this scene to a new, more interesting, location? Could I alter my use of time, so that the sequence is less linear? Who else could be in the scene to change the dynamic? Or, conversely who could I remove and put somewhere else, intercut with this sequence.
Of all of these, I think the shifting the location is the most useful in reframing the action.
So, two characters need to have a conversation about a body in a suitcase -- I write the scene set in thier apartment -- then I go back and try writing the scene again -- only this time they're on the subway -- the dynamic changes because now they have to worry about being overheard. Already the scene runs better -- now I add in the factor that they are being followed by the detective -- they still have to talk, but now the stakes are even higher.
My experience of doing this is it radically transfoms the writing process, partly because it means each scene has had twice as much work, but more importantly it makes me ask of every single sequence "is this the best way to write this?" whilst at the same time also re-enforcing the idea that every single sequence can be written in hundreds of different ways.
One thing I've really noticed on this rewrite is that a simple change to how I write, is making massive differences to the final outcome.
In the past I'd sit with my notes, look at what the next sequences was to go to paper and then write the scene the way I visualised it. [nothing unusual there]. That scene done, I'd move on.
The only problem with this is that although the scene may "work" or even work well, that doesn't mean that it's the BEST way to write the sequence.
So, now I write the sequence and then ask myself -- How could I tell this part of the story in another way? I force myself to write a completely different version of the sequence, tackled in a completely new way.
For instance -- Could I move this scene to a new, more interesting, location? Could I alter my use of time, so that the sequence is less linear? Who else could be in the scene to change the dynamic? Or, conversely who could I remove and put somewhere else, intercut with this sequence.
Of all of these, I think the shifting the location is the most useful in reframing the action.
So, two characters need to have a conversation about a body in a suitcase -- I write the scene set in thier apartment -- then I go back and try writing the scene again -- only this time they're on the subway -- the dynamic changes because now they have to worry about being overheard. Already the scene runs better -- now I add in the factor that they are being followed by the detective -- they still have to talk, but now the stakes are even higher.
My experience of doing this is it radically transfoms the writing process, partly because it means each scene has had twice as much work, but more importantly it makes me ask of every single sequence "is this the best way to write this?" whilst at the same time also re-enforcing the idea that every single sequence can be written in hundreds of different ways.
Last edited: