Why the Writer's Strike pisses me off

Cafe Society
281

"Sure I can: because people are taking his boasts personally for some strange reason. All the more peculiar because many of the folks taking umbrage at his remarks aren’t even professional TV writers themselves!"

Yes, I guess peculiar is a reasonable word; but in my experience, the fact that there would be people who aren’t pro tv writers themselves makes it easier, not harder, to understand. It seems the people who take the most and loudest umbrage at something are frequently those that are compensating or insecure.

Quote:
People feel threatened if it’s implied that their expertise isn’t as special as some may have thought. It suggests the applied skill may be smoke and mirrors.
Sure they do. Doesn’t mean it isn’t all smoke and mirrors, though.

Right, I wasn’t disagreeing. Either way, that’s why they’re upset; it’s not that hard to imagine. In fact, it’s predictable.

"I also suspect that writing in itself is not as hard as people are claiming. Sure, there are a lot of abominable scripts submitted by Joe TV-Watcher. The state of our school system is such that the average high-school (and in some cases, even college) graduate can’t even write a decent essay, much less a TV script. But that speaks more to Joe TV-Watcher being a poor writer period, rather than TV-writing in general being particularly difficult. What I suspect is difficult, though, is as you say: the pressures of meeting deadlines, of making everyone happy, and of being consistently creative given the many constraints one might face. And if people had admitted as such early on, this thread likely wouldn’t have devolved to the state it has."

Ditto :wink:

282

It might certainly be reasonably understood to be insulting, but he’s not saying it’s not hard. He’s saying it’s not **as **hard as it’s made out to be that’s all.

Speaking of effectively invisible professions, I’m an editor and I can tell you it’s so assumed that the work is not creative and hard that royalties aren’t even paid at all so I know where you’re coming from in terms of something being undervalued; but while I understand that it’s reasonable to suspect that someone that’s stated his views might be one of these loudmouths who undervalues everything, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case either. There’s enough hyperbole to go around.

283

Well, at this point, I’m not sure what Diogenes’ script stunt will “prove” except that perhaps **Diogenes **should (or should not) be a scriptwriter. So what? What’s that got to do with striking writers?

I mean, if the claim was “*Anyone *can do this - the people who claim they’re so skilled are just overstating their own specialness and shouldn’t think they’re irreplaceable 'cause there’s tens of thousands of people who could churn out better scripts than they’re making into TV shows these days!”, then there might be a point in proceeding with “put up or shut up.”

If the claim is, “Well, no, not everyone can do it, ‘cause it actually takes, if not experience, then quite a bit of intelligence and research and even some learnin’ to understand the mechanics of how a final script should be written, and I can do that 'cause I’m super duper smart,” then so what? All you’re “proving” is that you could change careers and become one of the elite people so intelligent and skilled in screenwriting that you can strike with them. What’s the point?

284

Yeah, but it’s closed from that point on. Reminds me of Borg. LOL You’re required to be a unique talented individual first – then you’re assimilated.

285

I guess that it’s not **as **hard as it’s made out to be, but still hard.

You’ve got a good point though in questioning the point, which is a point I made earlier about the point. Wait…did I just miss the point? :smiley:

286

The people who benefit from “right to work” laws are managers - they know that the weaker the unions are and the less organized their employees are, the easier it will be for them.

The unions will still do what they can for their members. And part of protecting their members is also working for non-members. An intelligent union will realize that the presense of poorly-paid non-union workers in their industry will be used to drive down the wages and benefits of union workers. So the union will still try to work for these non-union workers even though they’re getting no direct payment for helping them.

And then down at the bottom are the non-union workers. They enjoy all of the short-term advantages of not belonging to a union - they don’t have to pay any dues and they can take advantage of any temporary situations where management wants to use them to weaken union power. But they also know that the unions are out there, being supported by other people, and are working to protect their long-term interests.

I have no respect for free riders. People who enjoy the benefits of a system’s existence should contribute to the support of that system.

287

And here we have the fallacy of the excluded middle. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s this impossible skill that almost no one can master. In fact, if it was, there would be no need for the guild because the people who possessed it would be so desperately in demand they wouldn’t need the power of collective bargaining.

However, what I (and I think most people in this thread) are saying is that it does require a significant amount of training and skill to do and the writers who are on strike cannot be trivially replaced.

The same is true for most professions. Go knock on NASA’s door and tell them you have some ideas for how to improve the space shuttle and they’ll laugh in your face.

Yes, big-name producers don’t accept unsolicited scripts, but this town is crawling with all sorts of low-end opportunities. You start small, prove yourself, make some connections, and work your way up the ladder the same as you do in any job.

288

I’m actually kind of pulling for Dio; taking him at his word, he’s actually stepping up to the challenge instead of backing off when called on a bluff. I can respect that.

The dime a dozen thing isn’t from him, but from the OP:

That’s what started all the protestation, which Dio then responded to in turn.

289

Things got too pointy there for a bit, so I skimmed this last page. Sorry if I was repetitive and/or redundant. :wink:

290

But how many years went by and how many unpublishable manuscripts did those writers produce before they got into stores? Most people, because they’re literate, think all you have to do is write the story and it’s publishable. It’s not. In fact, very, very few first novels are ever publishable.

I’ve been told (by published writers even) from my very first book that my writing was good and I would be published one day. That was almost a decade ago, and I still don’t have a novel published. It took four novels and two D&D adventures (that are published) to even land an agent. And I still would never presume I could write a television or movie script the first time out.

It’s not an impossible skill that only the elite can master, but it takes a lot of hard work, dedication, an incredibly thick skin, and a stubbornness that almost defies explanation. It’s an insult to assume just anyone can do it without a similar amount of work.

291

The first novel I wrote was published. However, before actually finishing that one I had started a couple of others that fizzled out on about page 50, and I had written something like 150 short stories, some of which weren’t bad, but I couldn’t sell them even to literary magazines that paid in copies. I guess I did learn something while writing them, though.
Because of this I tend to think the short story market is really tough, and novels are easy.

292

That’s why I said “very, very few” and not “none.” I’ve known a handful of others whose first novels were published. But for most people it takes a lot longer to get there.

293

The guy who created Mr. Magoo, just wrote his first novel at age 90!

The guy who wrote A River Runs Through It had a unique opportunity after that book became a huge success. One of the editors who’d originally rejected his book, tried to get options for his next books. Rather than jumping at the offers, or simply saying, “Sorry, no.” he literally wrote the guy one of the greatest “Fuck you” letters ever written! :smiley: (It was later published in Harper’s, copies of it are probably circulating on the web.)

Just because a book get’s rejected doesn’t mean it’s a bad book.

294

Maybe I’m misreading things, but it seems to me like you’re not disagreeing with the core of other side’s POV.

By your own admission, your writing was noted as being good right from the start.

Everything else and the time it took, etc. doesn’t speak to the quality of writing.

It certainly would be insulting to think anyone could land the job without all of the traits you mentioned; but I thought what was being debated was quality writing not the efforts, persistence, and politics it takes to succeed commercially.

295

Good maybe, but not good enough. That just meant my book was in the top 20% of slushpile manuscripts*. It’s only the top 5% that’s actually publishable. It was only because I spent the time and effort that I improved to where at least one person in the industry considers my writing now good enough to be published.

But quality writing rarely comes without effort and persistence, and that’s why I disagree with Justin_Bailey’s assertion that writers are easily replaced.

(For the record, I don’t consider myself to be a great writer. I write pulp, and I’m never going to change anybody’s worldview with my stuff, but I do work hard to be the best writer I can be.)

*Go read fanfiction.net if you want to see what the other 80% looks like. (Not an indictment of all fanfiction.net writers, some of whom are undoubtedly very good.)

296

I will admit that my OP was written with a little more bile than necessary after I heard three of my favorite shows (Heroes, Lost, 24) would be among the first casualties of the strike.

I had also just read a few articles with writer’s being quoted about how no one could do what they can so the suits should pay up and it angered me. Because I’ll admit that the reason I like Heroes and Lost and many other shows is because of the great writing. But to put forth the argument that all TV writers (including the ones that write for Til Death, CSI and Saturday morning cartoons) are better than all non-writers is absurd.

I respectfully retract the “dime a dozen” comment, but I still believe the 12,000 next best writers are just as good as the currently striking members of the WGA.

297

I wonder, though, if a scab writer for, say, Lost would have access to the current writers’ notes and storyboarding for the show. That is, the Lost writers clearly have a direction they want the plot to move in, with the ending and certain midway milestones laid out. Without that, hiring scab writers would be worse than having no episodes, because they could take the series in a direction it wasn’t meant to go.

When you’ve got writing teams for, like, sitcoms or The Daily Show and the like, you might be able to get away with temping the next best writers. But when the writers have had a strong hand in creating the show to begin with, I have to imagine it would be harder to find replacements. Lost wouldn’t be Lost without JJ Abrams and crew, Heroes wouldn’t be Heroes without Tim Kring, Buffy wouldn’t have been Buffy without Joss Whedon, and so on.

298

The Teamsters represent a huge proportion of the associated workforce that is being directly impacted by this strike, and, generally speaking, they are supporting the writers. A number of truck drivers, for example, are refusing to cross the picket lines with their deliveries, and instead have been stopping their vehicles in the street outside the studios and forcing non-union studio employees to come out of the gates, unload the trucks, and carry the materials back into the studios. One guy actually stopped his semi in the turn lane into the studio gate, set the brake, turned off the engine, and walked away.

Teamsters do not, individually, earn residuals. They are paid their hourly wage for doing their job, and that’s it. However, the formula that governs employer contributions into the Teamsters’ retirement fund does take residuals into account. So whatever pain these workers may feel in the short term, they know that in the long term it’s in their best interest to help the writers take a stand on behalf of everybody.

And just to emphasize that point, and to reiterate, it’s merely a luck of timing that the writers’ contract went up first, and that it’s the writers who had the choice of taking a bad deal or going on strike. If the dates lined up differently, we could be seeing the actors on strike instead of the writers. (We wouldn’t see the DGA on strike. They’re pussies at the bargaining table.) What’s at stake in this action is a basic calculation of earnings, and of distribution of profit. That affects everybody. If by going on strike, the writers (and, before long, the actors) are able to wedge open the arcane fiction of the studios’ ledgers, even if slightly, then everybody wins. It is no secret that Hollywood accounting is a system of smoke and mirrors designed to inflate costs and hide earnings; if the truth were suddenly revealed it’s likely that many people would go to jail. It’s been hard getting anything on the record, so everybody has been winking at each other, as long as the studios haven’t been too miserly about holding onto their pennies. But now that things have escalated into open, if still limited warfare, it’s important to keep in mind that the artists still have a thermonuclear trump card, in the form of a thorough independent audit. I said on another board that if the studios have a choice between granting the writers their extra four cents per DVD and a cut of iTunes et al, versus watching as their books are taken apart in open court, they will suck it up, hand over the pennies, and be grateful.

The writers are taking a major stand on this issue, on behalf of basically everybody who depends on entertainment money for their livelihoods. This is a really, really big deal, and it could become a lot bigger in the next couple of weeks.

299

Alleluia and Amen to that. This is why SAG, AFTRA, Equity and the AFM are standing behind the WGA on this. People have asked me repeatedly, over the last week, why actors were coming out and supporting writers. Wasn’t this strike threatening their livelihood? It seems that I can try to explain it until I’m a bonnet short of being a smurf – people fail to see that this strike and its issues affect everyone who depends on this industry to make a living.

Right now, we’re being told this could last into 2008. Considering the interesting posturing we’ve seen from AMPTP last week*, I wouldn’t be surprised. That said, Cervaise, you are right. The trump cards we hold could make a difference. We’ll all have to wait and see. The threat of the SAG/AFTRA strike could also shake things up. Of course, the possibility of an actual SAG/AFTRA divorce, after so many years of partnership, could make the original threat less of one… so who knows.
Elly, unionized 'til the cows come home.
*See the suspensions of production company staffs and the shutting down of various companies on day 2 and the cancellation of ‘24’ for 2008.

300

"But quality writing rarely comes without effort and persistence, and that’s why I disagree with Justin_Bailey’s assertion that writers are easily replaced. "

Ah, okay. Yes, I’d concede that it seems to me that quality writing would rarely develop without effort and persistence.

I’d just distinguish the effort and persistence at quality writing from the effort and persistence at other aspects of getting published that are not about quality writing.

As an example, there are acting schools where you can learn to act but then there are also majors you can take that are pretty much the same thing.

I took acting classes and asked a friend of mine that was enrolled in a degree for acting (theatre) about what he felt the difference was and what he was learning there; and he said that you learn more about technical terminology, how to work for the camera, etc.

All of which is very valuable in the career of getting a job as an actor.

But in terms of quality acting, per se as an art as opposed to a vocation, I don’t think there’s much difference.

All of which is just to say that I’d separate out the parts of getting good at something commercially that have to do with logistics, terminology, etc. that don’t relate to the art itself. Of course there’s terminology, for example, that’s helpful or even essential to developing quality writing but all of it?

Is there no difference between what it takes to become a quality writer and what it takes to land a job doing that?

The actors I studied with were very vocational-minded. But they weren’t great. And yet when it comes to landing gigs, the pool is going to be based on them because they’re the ones that do all the technical stuff right. That’s cool, good for them; anyone trying to be serious about it as a career should do just that. But it doesn’t mean that the quality of their acting, per se, is necessarily better because of that.

I think this probably applies to lots of things.