My late mother was a Pathologist. Possibly the first women in her line of work in New Zealand (Specialist medical registration for NZ back in those days was based London and we can’t get the records to prove it).
After she retired she volunteered to work at a big inner city high school assisting with the literacy program.
She was greatly amused she could never get the kids to believe that she didn’t wear a gun and solve murders during her working life.
Simply because its the SDMB and I need to provide my cites, here’s JMS’s rants against SFWA.
TV moms. (It’s sort of a profession.) With notable exceptions (Roseanne), they are slim, glammed up, sharp women, on top of every situation, dealing with dumb husbands/friends/in-laws with rapier wit. The kids are trotted in for a minute at a time and conveniently disappear for vast stretches “playing in their room”. The baby is as silent as a cabbage patch doll. They scamper through their neat upper-middle-class kitchens in skinny jeans and cute tight sweaters - messy? A toy scattered here and there, a coat draped over the arm of the sofa. Comical slices of life, their lives are one mad wacky whirl, and at night they sit down and count their blessings. You never see a depressed TV mom crying/yelling/wrangling her special needs kid/downing a few glasses of wine. Life for a TV mom is - not a breeze, but idealized.
Ummm…no.
No on several levels.
SFWA did not say that I was not a real writer in terms of writing short stories and fiction. Second, I was a member of SFWA for some time, so I met their technical requirements.
But that did not, and does not, mitigate against the inherent prejudice against TV and film writers that was rampant at that time, the late 80s.
Specifically: Harlan Ellison, DC Fontana, Michael Cassutt, David Gerrold and I and many others were lobbying for the restoration of the Nebula for Best Dramatic Presentation, which had been eliminated back in 77. It was in requesting this that many SFWA members went berserk, declaring in the monthly SFWA publication that TV and film writers were not real writers, that we were all hacks, and that a screen story wasn’t a story. They said that it was impossible to tell what was the writer and what was the director in a finished movie (even though scripts would have been made available), and that reading a script was incomprehensible to outsiders (which is sheerest nonsense). The amount of vitriol and outright hate mail aimed at media writers was breathtaking in the extreme.
Time and time again it was hammered home in those pages and at SFWA gatherings: writing for TV and film was not real writing. Period.
That is not opinion, that is cold fact: anyone with a collection of SFWA publications from that time can freaking look it up. It was this prejudice that led me to finally resign from SFWA. Loudly. (SFWA refused to publish my letter of resignation, saying it was “too long,” despite the fact that there were regularly published letters of much greater length. You can find a follow-up to that resignation at
http://www.jmsnews.net/msg.aspx?id=1-2596&topic=Marvel%20Comics
Another piece about this, also from a few years later:
http://www.jmsnews.net/msg.aspx?id=1-2597&topic=Spiderman
And before anyone starts yelliing about vested interest: as noted in the links above, all of us who were pushing for the creation/restoration of the Dramatic Nebula stated that we would disqualify ourselves from ever receiving the thing. We were interested in getting the form the recognition it deserved, not getting it for ourselves.
As for the difference between film/tv writers and prose writers: one is no more a hack for writing for lots of money than one is noble for taking less…that simply doesn’t enter into the equation on a day-to-day basis. I know many prose writers who churn out books at a few grand a throw as fast as they can to make the bucks and don’t really care about the quality; I know lots of film/tv writers who have walked off shows and away from projects, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars, when they felt the integrity of the script was being compromised.
You have sellouts and saints, whores and madonnas, madmen and geniuses on both sides of the prose/script line, and any attempt to lump all of those on one side or the other into a specific category of professionalism is the worst kind of bigotry.
Eventually, the Dramatic Nebula was reinstated – I think it was 98 or 99 – but it still raised enough of a sense of resentment that it was eventually withdrawn again in, I think, 2008. The “TV/film writing isn’t real writing and thus isn’t eligible for a Nebula” won again and designated a second-class-citizen award (despite being named after a first-class writer), the Ray Bradbury Award, which went first to Jim Cameron, then, ironically enough, to me.
So to the first poster on this: no, it wasn’t that I was rejected by SFWA because I wasn’t a real writer for prose based on my tv/film rep; I was a SFWA member. It was the prejudice toward my script work that caused that to be stated, not just to me but to other SFWA members and outside the group as well.
And to the treasurer: sorry, but that prejudice was there, was stated, was recorded and published for posterity, and to varying degrees still exists to this day. Some of it is even on display in this thread, in the characterization of film/tv writers as lazy and never doing their homework. (I spent two *years *researching *Changeling *in the dark halls of LA City Hall, the LAPD archives and elsewhere.)
I’ve always seen, and treated, writers as just writers, regardless of the venue or the genre in which they work. That seems to me common sense. It’s a road I recommend to others as well.
basks
Huh. Don’t see that every day.
I think you cited the wrong post. Most of what you are refuting seems to be misattributions to you in tanstaafl’s post #82. It appears to me as if Reality Chuck was taking tanstaafl’s post at face value and responding on that basis.
Do you dispute any of the claims in Reality Chuck’s post? For instance, was your membership in SWFA based on TV or movie scripts, or on some other wrting that was published in print somewhere? As far as I can see, Reality Chuck’s only claims relate to membership criteria. Yes, he said you were wrong, but he said that in the belief that tanstaafl’s post was accurate.
Sooo… let’s got to the important stuff. Who’s the hottest sluttiest chick in Hollywood? 
::marvels in wonderment::
::wonders if he’s read the “Does Babylon 5 get any better?” thread::
Holy moly! Welcome aboard, Mr. Straczynski! It’s a pleasure to have you here. I’m a big fan of your show, Babyon 5, as well as many other people here (they are the ones who encouraged me to keep on going when I wasn’t sure after the pilot).
Hank Moody, “novelist,” in Californication. Some hack writer is instantly recognized by and popular with most random hot women he meets. Plus, the whole lots of money thing. IIRC he only wrote one novel (two if you count the one stolen by that punch-in-face girl), one biography (or was it an ‘as told to’ credit? not sure). And one screenplay that was neither bought nor produced. That’s it, I believe.
You’d think living through it once would be enough. 
Totally understandable. Thanks to his early intervention in our development, everyone sees J. Michael Straczynski as a sacred figure from his or her homeworld’s own beliefs. Quite a trip, though I’ve always thought there was something a bit sinister to that sort of manipulation.
Londo, what did you see?
You have no idea how much I want a “Like” button right now…
Aw, shucks - thanks.
JMS - can I call you JMS? - do you think that science-fiction television will ever return to the pre-B5 model of almost entirely self-contained episodes with little or no season/series arc? Because, come to think of it, I’d be hard-pressed to think of any shows on right now that fit that model. Some spend less time on the arc than others, but they all have them.
My first post was me trying to remember the original flap when it came up over 10 years ago. I did link to two of JMS’ own emails in a later post. My point was that some non-TV writers (at least) did seem to have a bad opinion of TV writers, though I apparently misremembered some of the details.
I know this is a bit anticlimactic, but to get back to the OP:
I can’t say that physicists are mis-portrayed on screen, but that’s mostly because physicists just aren’t portrayed at all. What you get instead is a character who’s a Scientist. What’s his specialty? Why, Science, of course. Probably the worst example of this was John Crichton from Farscape, whose degree was in “theoretical and applied science”, but any scientist character ever, in almost any TV show ever, is an expert in all branches of science. I mean, as a physicist, I probably know more than the general public about, say, biology, but most of that consists in knowing when I need to pass the buck to an actual biologist. Even within physics, there are quite a few subfields where I only have a passing knowledge at best
Even the show acknowledges that it is unique, unethical, and illegal. So that’s a bad example.
That’s the “player character” effect. You have to have a PC do the real work on a show. NPC’s are good for doing things off-screen, but actual discoveries and such have to be one of the PCs. So the PC in the Tshirt with a pistol leads in the SWAT team in full assault gear, because that’s the rules of drama.
What, you didn’t receive your “Science Expert” card with your diploma? I thought that a PhD allows the recipient to be an expert on everything? That didn’t happen for you? 
I never understood why that Dr. Reed guy from Criminal Minds didn’t get on Jeopardy and retire at 25.
SFC Schwartz
In TVs and movies if there’s some sort of political scandal or the authorities are trying to cover something up there will be a press conference and some hero journalist of the people will stand up and ask devastating questions that cut past the web of lies and forces the person at the podium to either blatantly lie or break down and tell the truth.
In real life the journalists usually just go along with whatever the guy says and asks for more details.