# Great Ideas vs. Great Execution



## Philip Overby (Dec 11, 2012)

I recently stumbled across Brandon Sanderson's online class that's been circulating around for a while and there was an interesting story he tells about Jim Butcher and how his Codex Alera series was created.  Here's video of Butcher discussing it below (question starts at about 1:23):  






So that begs the question:  which is better, a great idea or great execution?

I personally think a good writer can even take the most terrible idea (as Butcher did) and make it into their own story worth telling.  

Do you think you could write an awesome story based off really terrible or cliched ideas?  Or do you think writing has to be birthed from inspiration that strikes you with an awesome idea or concept that then propels you to greatness?

Are there any ideas that are so terrible or cliche' that not even the most genius writer could make them good?


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 11, 2012)

I think that great writers can take a terrible idea and make it a great story.

For me, there are things that I appreciate about a story being told which makes reading the book an experience.

I love Patrick Rothfuss' Name of the Wind series because he does an amazing job of constructing sentences and writing prose. I recall reading his book at 4 in the morning and just wanting to finish a chapter so I could sleep, then NEEDING to start the next chapter because I wanted to know what was going to happen.

If he wrote 500 pages about a dog taking a crap in the bushes with the same style and flair he wrote Name of the Wind, I would probably read it and genuinely enjoy it.

Chuck Palahniuk is another author I find capable of taking something that I wouldn't consider a "great idea" and turning it into something amazing (his last 3 books were "meh", though). There are books of his that I didn't particularly enjoy the STORY but loved the STORYTELLING.

Look at his short story "Guts" - It's a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE IDEA, but I just loved the hell out of it. In fact, it's one of my favorites of all time, and is what got me into reading him.

China Mieville is the opposite for me, his writing is beautiful, but just don't love his storytelling.


----------



## tlbodine (Dec 11, 2012)

It depends, I suppose, on where you draw the line as to what makes something terrible or cliche.  Like, for example, there's a big difference between an author taking a cliche concept and turning it on its head, allowing us to question tired tropes, and the author just re-using all the same cliches but with style and flair.  Both can be accomplished competently, I think, but they're in a different class from each other.  

For example.  Take Cabin in the Woods.  Joss Whedon took what is arguably the most over-done horror movie storyline imaginable and twists it around and plays with all of the tropes.  The end result is this weird, quirky, occasionally hilarious deconstruction.  

Other movies that play those tropes straight -- Cabin Fever comes to mind immediately, but there's countless others -- aren't nearly as successful, but at least some are quite competent and enjoyable. 

So, anyway, that's the first question to suss out -- are the tropes being used straight/as-is, or is it a deconstruction?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Dec 11, 2012)

I embrace cliches, so I'm rootin' for execution!



			
				Phil the Drill said:
			
		

> Are there any ideas that are so terrible or cliche' that not even the most genius writer could make them good?


My gut says no, and since satire exists, even the worst ideas can be humorous, so I'm sticking with 'no.'

I'm certain about the inverse: no idea is so great that it can't be botched up by a hack writer.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 11, 2012)

tlbodine said:


> So, anyway, that's the first question to suss out -- are the tropes being used straight/as-is, or is it a deconstruction?



I'd imagine either way.  I don't think Butcher took the idea of Pokemon and the Lost Roman Legion and actually used them as-is.  From what he said in the video, he deconstructed the idea of Pokemon down to a literalization of the Shinto belief system.  Then he used that concept to create the magic system in his world.  

I think all these threads about cliches exist on Mythic Scribes because people want to make sure their ideas are original.  I think what Butcher argues is that ideas don't need to be original as long as the execution is right.  Meaning a combination of character, setting, and plot that works. 

I realize that what is terrible is subjective, but if someone was to say "Write a fantasy story about an octopus that falls in love with a table" then some people may have a hard time making something interesting out of that.  Others may rise to the challenge and think "I could make a great story about that!"


----------



## Devora (Dec 11, 2012)

I think a great story is a combination of both. 

Sure you can make a terrible idea into a great story, or turn a great idea into a terrible story, but I always like to come up with a great idea (even if i explain it in a boring way) and, with careful precision, work it into a superb story.

It's all a matter of how well you hone in on the Craft.


----------



## tlbodine (Dec 11, 2012)

And it's not just a skill with language that does it.  I think this ties in with the purple vs beige argument, in a weird way.  But I think good writing is marked (for me at least) with insight.  If the way a person is handling an idea makes me see it in a new way or think about it from a new angle, then it's suddenly engaging.  If I feel that author's heart and soul in it -- if I feel that he's poured some part of himself onto the page -- that's when I get engaged. 

I think that's why cliches don't work, because they're not grounded in an author's experience.  They're just used, tossed around, not really thought about.  If you really look into them, think about them, develop them through your own experiences, then you're doing something interesting.  

And I concur with Sidekick -- I've seen plenty of super interesting ideas be destroyed by sub-par writing.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 12, 2012)

While I wouldn't say you can build a decent story off good ideas and bad writing, I think you can build one off of good authorial vision and minimal technical skill. That is to say, if you know exactly what and who you want to write about, and if you really get into how your characters think, you can probably create something readable even if you have trouble with word choice and sentence structure. (This is also how a good story can survive an abysmal translation, as with the official English translation of _Battle Royale_ and the first English translation of _Solaris_.)


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

My personal thoughts: an extremely talented writer can indeed polish a turd. A complete hack could muck up even Lord of the Rings. Those of us who fall somewhere in the middle of those extremes ought to rely on a combination of inspiration and execution.


----------



## Wanara009 (Dec 12, 2012)

I've always said that there is no such thing as a Bad Idea, only Bad Execution. You can bring any formulaic and tired (or even bad) concept and then invigorate life back into it with Great Execution.

Let's pick an example: the 2012 The Avengers movie. The plot is really basic: a group of people coming together to deal with a problem, they quarrel and split off, then somehow put aside their difference to deal with the big problem at the third act (basically every team-up themed movie ever made). Yet the execution is just so... great that I can't fault its basic plot.

On the other end of the scale: The Star Wars prequel. Great setting and interesting plot concept (finding out what made Vader into what he is now) yet the end result made me want to vomit.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 12, 2012)

I've got to agree that the execution is what really matters in the end. A great idea will never live without a great execution.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Dec 12, 2012)

I think you writer people worry too much about ideas. A sizeable proportion of the books I read are based on ideas that have been around since prehistoric times, but they can still be good. Conversely, a book can be brimming over with originality and be unreadable (to me, that is - these things are always personal). You might think it would be impossible to take the tired old prophecy/farmboy/secret heir to kingdom/unsuspected magical ability trope and produce anything halfway decent, but you'd be wrong. I'm reading exactly that at the moment, and it's a cracking read, absolutely terrific. It's all in the execution.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 12, 2012)

Execution, all the way. The idea can be anything.


----------



## Twook00 (Dec 12, 2012)

This is great, but... why wouldn't you strive for both?  

Also, couldn't one argue that the Codex Alera series was actually a brilliant and original concept?  What exactly makes a single idea good or bad?  It's subjective, right?

Either way, good execution is going to win out every time because it results in strong characters, plots, motivations, suspense, and so on.  Whether its a good idea or a bad one, a well written story is a good story.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2012)

Twook00 said:


> This is great, but... why wouldn't you strive for both?



Two takeaways, for me at least:

1. Don't obsess over your idea.
2. Any time spent trying futilely to come up with an original idea is time that you aren't spending either executing or improving your ability to execute.

BTW, am I the only one that didn't think the Codex Alera series was all that great?


----------



## Devor (Dec 12, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> So that begs the question:  which is better, a great idea or great execution?



Great Execution.  It's too easy to ruin a good idea or make a lame idea look good.

However, I don't think good ideas are a dime a dozen; or rather, maybe it's like a Booster Pack for those card games, where you have to buy a dozen packs to get that one great card.  Even if any single card is good enough to fit into the right deck, and you still need the sense to put together a good deck, it's the special, hard-to-find ones that make the deck unique.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

Well, i think we are missing out on a few levels here that are valid.

Great execution + great idea = mythical texts in our dreams
Great execution + good idea = standard epic level books
Great execution + average idea = standard books (scale moving depending on era)
Great execution + bad idea = cult status/"unknown genius"

I'd go through and do the bad execution, but then it just leads to a bad novel/story.

The real nugget here is to find out what is the "sliding scale". Granted, all this is based off perspective and experience, but in the end you can always average out the thoughts and get your scale down pat.

And yes, great execution will make clipping toenails exciting. Writing about the process of toenail clipping is not a great idea.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 12, 2012)

In my humble opinion, ideas are cheap. Execution, on the other hand, is hard work.

The skill of the author is honed over time. An author can draw you into a story you've heard a hundred times, yet it feels fresh & new. The characters are different & engaging. Maybe something about the setting or struggle resonates with you. There are loads of reasons why the authors execution may pull you deep into a tale. I wouldn't consider an "idea" powerful enough on its own to do that.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> BTW, am I the only one that didn't think the Codex Alera series was all that great?



Yes. Yes you are.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Yes. Yes you are.



No, you aren't... Trust me, it's not all that great.

EDIT: Never read it before, but the first three paragraphs of the first book disinterest me, which invalidates the entire series. Thus, it is not all that great. No hooks.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> No, you aren't... Trust me, it's not all that great.



Good to know I wasn't the only one.  They weren't bad books; I just felt they got repetitive.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> BTW, am I the only one that didn't think the Codex Alera series was all that great?



Haven't read them. I do like The Dresden Files, however. Those are fun.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 12, 2012)

The Dresden files were a good romp. "The other wizard named Harry." I like that.


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Two takeaways, for me at least:
> 
> 1. Don't obsess over your idea.
> 2. Any time spent trying futilely to come up with an original idea is time that you aren't spending either executing or improving your ability to execute.
> ...



While the "magic system" was something new (to me), I felt the story was bland and I found none of the characters compelling.


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Haven't read them. I do like The Dresden Files, however. Those are fun.



I felt that the Dresden Files was a fun, fast read, but there was a similar formula to most of the books which got repetitive.

If you enjoyed the Dresden Files, read Kevin Hearne's "Iron Druid Chronicles".

Take the fun, fast read of Dresden Files, but make the main character much funnier and weave in (and some times goof on) some great pop culture references and you've got this series.

I very much enjoyed it for what it was.

Also, if you want to check out a series with what I found to be "an original magic systems", check out Peter V. Brett's "Warded Man" and "Desert Spear". Overall I thought they were both kind of a 7/10 on storytelling, but 9/10 in originality and freshness.

They are worth a read.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Good to know I wasn't the only one.  They weren't bad books; I just felt they got repetitive.



Repetitive how? The plot was interesting, the characters were very clever, especially Tavi. And the power levels go through the roof at some points. As fantasy books go, it's fairly flawless. Tons of epic moments sprinkled throughout. It's my barometer for what modern fantasy should be.



Xaysai said:


> While the "magic system" was something new (to me), I felt the story was bland and I found none of the characters compelling.



... I have no words. Not compelling? Tavi alters the course of wars and takes down people far more powerful than him using nothing but his wits- and then he gets superpowers! What about that isn't compelling? He negotiated with implacable barbarians. He defeated a numberless horde. He broke into an unbreachable prison. *Twice.* This guy is Theseus and Percy Jackson and Batman all rolled into one. How is that not compelling? The secondary characters are interesting too. Gaius Octavian, Warmaster Varg, Fidelias, plus the villains of the piece, the calculating Invidia Aquitaine, the ruthless Lord Kalarus, the cold, inhuman Vord Queen. My only complaint is that Butcher may have given a little too much time to Tavi's romantic relationship with Kitai. But other than that, flawless.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Repetitive how?



I read the series from start to finish in a short time period.  To me, it seemed like each book was an exact repeat of the previous one.  Tavi has just enough resources to defeat the forces arrayed against him.  In the next book, the forces against him increase in power, and he once again has just enough resources to defeat them.  And so on.

I have no problem with the characters, magic system, or anything else.  Again, it just felt like the plot for each book repeated the previous one.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Haven't read them. I do like The Dresden Files, however. Those are fun.



The Dresden Files are some kind of detective novels with a supernatural/fantasy twist, right?  I just never could get into detective novels; don't know why.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Repetitive how? The plot was interesting, the characters were very clever, especially Tavi. And the power levels go through the roof at some points. As fantasy books go, it's fairly flawless. Tons of epic moments sprinkled throughout. It's my barometer for what modern fantasy should be.



Except it is from what I have read on plot synopsis alone. It suffers the same way Drake's Greek inspired series does. Every character finds themselves in an almost copy/paste situation where they go through almost the same scenario and achieve a modicum sliver of growth with very little denouement. 

Prompt writing is fine, and if it were interesting enough to keep my attention through a random slave riding on a bull for no reason, I'd give it a go. However, prompt writing can only go so far if you have nothing interesting to it or structure for a good story. This is why I say EXECUTION of the process is far more important than the idea.

Sadly, he doesn't have it. He can try it, but he doesn't have it. Needs more prompts or schooling on outlining and story structure/hooking from the start of the novel.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> Except it is from what I have read on plot synopsis alone. It suffers the same way Drake's Greek inspired series does. Every character finds themselves in an almost copy/paste situation where they go through almost the same scenario and achieve a modicum sliver of growth with very little denouement.
> 
> Prompt writing is fine, and if it were interesting enough to keep my attention through a random slave riding on a bull for no reason, I'd give it a go. However, prompt writing can only go so far if you have nothing interesting to it or structure for a good story. This is why I say EXECUTION of the process is far more important than the idea.
> 
> Sadly, he doesn't have it. He can try it, but he doesn't have it. Needs more prompts or schooling on outlining and story structure/hooking from the start of the novel.



The structure for a good story? ...Did you read any of my posts? The plot is thoroughly engrossing. And if you had bothered to turn the page, you would have found out that the woman riding the bull in the opening was an Imperial spy. Maybe, just this once, you should read the books before judging them so harshly. Each book is hardly "the same scenario" and there's more than a "modicum" of character growth throughout the novel. Tavi's development, Invidia's descent into inhumanity, Tavi's friend Ehren transforming from a quiet bookish kid into the perfect spy and assassin. The list continues. How much _did_ you read exactly? And denouement? Really? Now you sound like my English teacher. -_-


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Repetitive how? The plot was interesting, the characters were very clever, especially Tavi. And the power levels go through the roof at some points. As fantasy books go, it's fairly flawless. Tons of epic moments sprinkled throughout. It's my barometer for what modern fantasy should be.
> 
> ... I have no words. Not compelling? Tavi alters the course of wars and takes down people far more powerful than him using nothing but his wits- and then he gets superpowers! What about that isn't compelling? He negotiated with implacable barbarians. He defeated a numberless horde. He broke into an unbreachable prison. *Twice.* This guy is Theseus and Percy Jackson and Batman all rolled into one. How is that not compelling? The secondary characters are interesting too. Gaius Octavian, Warmaster Varg, Fidelias, plus the villains of the piece, the calculating Invidia Aquitaine, the ruthless Lord Kalarus, the cold, inhuman Vord Queen. My only complaint is that Butcher may have given a little too much time to Tavi's romantic relationship with Kitai. But other than that, flawless.



I'm not going to say the plot wasn't good, I just didn't like (or dislike) the characters.

There are some books where there are several POV's and some POV's I enjoy, and some POV's I just plow through to get back to the POV's I liked. This series made me feel like I was just plowing through POV's without really caring who was up next because I wasn't really enjoying any of them.

Now, keep in mind, I finished the series - which is more than I can say for some (Yes, I'm looking at you, Terry Goodkind).


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

Xaysai said:


> I'm not going to say the plot wasn't good, I just didn't like (or dislike) the characters.
> 
> There are some books where there are several POV's and some POV's I enjoy, and some POV's I just plow through to get back to the POV's I liked. This series made me feel like I was just plowing through POV's without really caring who was up next because I wasn't really enjoying any of them.
> 
> Now, keep in mind, I finished the series - which is more than I can say for some (Yes, I'm looking at you, Terry Goodkind).



What did you not like about them exactly? I'll grant you this is not an "emotional" series, but I'm not sure that's grounds to dislike the characters.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 12, 2012)

I haven't read the series either, but I think you should probably read more than a handful of pages before invalidating the whole series.  In any case, I think a good idea can hook a reader, but it's great execution that keeps a reader.  There are tons of novels I've read that weren't "hooky" enough, but I stuck with them either because:

a.  people kept telling me "No, stick with it!"
b.  I felt like the execution was good enough to keep with it
c.  I thought the idea was good enough to see where it went

Codex Alera has been recommended to me many times.  Each reader is their own judge of what they think is good or bad execution.  At the end of the day, as a reader and a writer, you have to make your own decisions and not worry what others say.  Which has inspired me to start a new thread.  Coming soon...


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The Dresden Files are some kind of detective novels with a supernatural/fantasy twist, right?  I just never could get into detective novels; don't know why.



I don't think they are a detective novel like you would find in the Mystery section of B&N, the lead character just happens to be a detective. Admittedly, the first 3-4 books use the same formula, but once you start to learn the backstory of Harry, the White Council, etc, there starts to be more of a persistent story arc carrying over from book to book.


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What did you not like about them exactly? I'll grant you this is not an "emotional" series, but I'm not sure that's grounds to dislike the characters.



To be quite honest, I very much enjoy characters which aren't perfect, which make the wrong decision, or sometimes make the right decision and it goes horribly wrong. I always felt that Tavi and his Uncle were just too perfect and were always going to end up doing the noble thing. This is why I don't like Richard Rahl, or Drizzt, or many others.

Some of my favorite characters are Durzo Blint (Night Angel Trilogy), Logen Ninefingers (First Law Trilogy), Kvothe (Name of the Wind) or most any of the characters from Glen Cook's Black Company series. They are all fundamentally flawed and sometimes just don't do the right thing.

To be clear, I am not here crapping on a series you like; just voicing my opinion on why I didn't enjoy it.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

Xaysai said:


> To be quite honest, I very much enjoy characters which aren't perfect, which make the wrong decision, or sometimes make the right decision and it goes horribly wrong. I always felt that Tavi and his Uncle were just too perfect and were always going to end up doing the noble thing. This is why I don't like Richard Rahl, or Drizzt, or many others.
> 
> Some of my favorite characters are Durzo Blint (Night Angel Trilogy), Logen Ninefingers (First Law Trilogy), Kvothe (Name of the Wind) or most any of the characters from Glen Cook's Black Company series. They are all fundamentally flawed and sometimes just don't do the right thing.
> 
> To be clear, I am not here crapping on a series you like; just voicing my opinion on why I didn't enjoy it.



The reason I like Tavi so much is that characters like him, who usually "end up doing the noble thing" and do it _with style_, those kind of characters are very rare nowadays. Anti-heroes are cool, don't get me wrong. But sometimes I just want to see a clever, noble hero outsmart all the villains.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 12, 2012)

I've read both 'Codex Aleria' and most of the 'Dresden' books.

Codex Aleria is...good, though not great.  The clip at the start of the thread clears up a few things I'd been wondering about.

Dresden is not so much a detective who practices magic, but a wizard (who, for the first few books anyhow) engaged in a bit of detective work on the side.  In the later books, the wizard end of things take over completely.  Its fun and fast, but does have serious phausibility issues - several times supernatural bad guys destroy significant parts of Chicago (where the books are usually set) without serious 'normal' reprecussion or even investigation.  I kept waiting for for about two hundred FBI / Homeland Security types to swoop in and start picking people up enmass (good and bad both).  But then, this is an issue I have with most urban fantasy.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I haven't read the series either, but I think you should probably read more than a handful of pages before invalidating the whole series.  In any case, I think a good idea can hook a reader, but it's great execution that keeps a reader.  There are tons of novels I've read that weren't "hooky" enough, but I stuck with them either because:
> 
> a.  people kept telling me "No, stick with it!"
> b.  I felt like the execution was good enough to keep with it
> ...



I will reply over at the other thread for most of this, but if a writer cannot understand the basics of opening a story or executing it within reason, either they need to look at how screenwriters do it or they co-write with someone who can.

And it is my right to invalidate anything. I've invalidated Sanderson's career for the three sentences I read in The Way of Kings.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> I will reply over at the other thread for most of this, but if a writer cannot understand the basics of opening a story or executing it within reason, either they need to look at how screenwriters do it or they co-write with someone who can.
> 
> And it is my right to invalidate anything. I've invalidated Sanderson's career for the three sentences I read in The Way of Kings.



That's a tad self-righteous isn't it?


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> That's a tad self-righteous isn't it?



If you feel so, then that is a problem you have. I'm stating my opinion and my knowledge on writing.

If you have more of a bone to pick with me, then I'll be happy to discuss it in a civil manner in private message.

Now, can we return to the topic of execution vs. idea?


----------



## FatCat (Dec 12, 2012)

This is a forum derived from opinion of knowledge on writing. To post something and then reply with the 'moral high-ground' of asking for a personal message discussion seems a bit dishonest. While I may not agree with Mindfire's statement, I do think that it fits within the discussion here. From what I've gained from your post, you would say that if a writer has the inability to create a great execution of the story, then they should look at screenwriters(?) for inspiration, or give up and find someone who can utilize their ideas in a more substantial manner. Keeping in mind that this is a forum for aspiring writers, I think that this advice goes against the entire nature of the forum itself. Should this not be a place to develop the skills it takes to execute an author's story?


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

FatCat said:


> This is a forum derived from opinion of knowledge on writing. To post something and then reply with the 'moral high-ground' of asking for a personal message discussion seems a bit dishonest. While I may not agree with Mindfire's statement, I do think that it fits within the discussion here. From what I've gained from your post, you would say that if a writer has the inability to create a great execution of the story, then they should look at screenwriters(?) for inspiration, or give up and find someone who can utilize their ideas in a more substantial manner. Keeping in mind that this is a forum for aspiring writers, I think that this advice goes against the entire nature of the forum itself. Should this not be a place to develop the skills it takes to execute an author's story?



I believe the self-righteous statement was aimed more for the Sanderson remark, but I will accept this as incorrect it if were not.

No, it does not violate the rules of this forum. In fact, it is by being honest and telling them either they can learn everything about the craft or they can do what they like best and give something else over to someone who is good at it. Why labor over something you might hate and get discouraged when you can find someone who loves doing what you hate and you two can work together to release something amazing? This way, you are learning from a partner and you might even do it on your own after a certain time.

There is part of an old adage many people use when they are struggling. "Novelists should turn to scriptwriting to learn structure." It is basic. You build a story out of minimalist parts and then mold your story around it. 

Would you rather have me say nothing at all, let someone go out, get discouraged and never write again because they didn't know there were other ways to write?


----------



## FatCat (Dec 12, 2012)

This may just be my own opinion, but hating something that you've wrote is part of developing as a writer. As far as the thread is concerned, I can see no reason why ideas would trump execution. At the same time, to say that if someone has difficulty developing their ideas into a story that is well written by suggesting that they should partner up with someone else is very strange, in my opinion. It may just be me, but I believe writing to be a very intimate process, and to say, so authoritatively, that if you have difficulties to refer to an outside source to develop those skills is against my own understanding of development as a writer. It is very easy to say truisms, but much more difficult to live by them. As to the discussion itself, I believe execution trumps any idea worth thinking. Ideas are cheap, they are easy to come by, even if they are fantastic. Translating a great idea into a great story is a completely different matter. Though, as I see it, being able to weave a great story within a great idea comes from years of trial and error, not differing to a screenwriter's outlook or any other second party.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

How else will you learn proper execution, my friend? Even professional writers had people they could turn to, or they went through schooling to learn it. This isn't a sacred, holy quest to find your inner writer and let the magic bubble out. Training is necessary at times. 

You must want to improve your execution to find the people who can help you improve your execution, as it were.


----------



## FatCat (Dec 12, 2012)

It's a process of trial and error. But to say that if you don't have a great execution of a story idea you've been developing for months should only result in two choices (adapting to a screenwriters perspective or finding a co-author who can organize your ideas into a tangible plot) is crazy. It's very easy to say what should be, a logically sound statement that should suffice, and another matter entirely to developing your own skills at executing an idea. My point is this; why should those who suffer from the inability to execute an idea refer to these outside resources to complete their idea, rather than learn from them? 

As far as a sacred and holy quest to find your inner writer, although that is a trumped statement, who would disagree that that is something to strive for?


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 12, 2012)

And how will they learn from them if they don't have an external source to refer to? 

Trial and error is fantastic. If that's your only gig, great. More power to you, I love you, hugs all around.

If you want, REALLY want, to learn writing execution: You look outside as well as within.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 12, 2012)

What exactly makes screenwriters the holy grail? Didn't someone mention in another thread that movies are starting to get stale and formulaic?


----------



## FatCat (Dec 12, 2012)

Reference to external sources is the very definition of creativity, and with that you accept that there are people who can better your own understanding of your story. But to dismiss development as 'your only gig' is far from helpful. If you really, REALLY want to learn execution, don't rely on quotes from forums, but opinions from beta readers and your own understanding of the story.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 13, 2012)

Movies are stale and formulaic because there is nothing creative about remaking a remake. You aren't looking at the other movies out there that can express themselves in a well structured manner. These are the ones every writer should look at, as well as the ones they enjoy, and see what they did to bring the structure out.

With that, I'll excuse myself from this thread and we'll air out our differences in private messages. 

To everyone else, I do apologize for this derailment and hostage crisis I created.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 13, 2012)

Opinions differing is not only constructive but is an essential element of this forum if we are going to grow & learn from one another. (At least in my opinion).

I learn far more from viewpoints expressed that are different than mine or that help me see things in a new light.

There's nothing wrong with argumentative discourse as long as its handled in a civil manner.


----------



## Devor (Dec 18, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What exactly makes screenwriters the holy grail?



Because the storytelling with screenwriters is, in a word, _tight_.

In film, there's no room for the fluff so common in writing, so every last moment contributes to the story in a way that isn't necessarily as true with a book.  Combined with the comparatively small time investment it takes to watch a movie, screenwriting makes great case studies for understanding story structure and for keeping scenes on target.

That said, looking cross-medium can only go so far.  But if you want to focus on improving plot structure and character arcs - something which, I think, people should be discussing a lot more - then there's plenty in film which can be extremely helpful.


----------



## FatCat (Dec 18, 2012)

Devor said:


> Because the storytelling with screenwriters is, in a word, _tight_.
> 
> In film, there's no room for the fluff so common in writing, so every last moment contributes to the story in a way that isn't necessarily as true with a book.  Combined with the comparatively small time investment it takes to watch a movie, screenwriting makes great case studies for understanding story structure and for keeping scenes on target.
> 
> That said, looking cross-medium can only go so far.  But if you want to focus on improving plot structure and character arcs - something which, I think, people should be discussing a lot more - then there's plenty in film which can be extremely helpful.



The problem, I see, with this outlook is that screenwriting relies on another medium of storytelling, you have actors to relay information for you, so that fluff is just brought out in another form. I can see the benefits of looking at screenwriting to develop a tight story arc, as you say, but then that leaves the execution of that plot in the wind. Maybe as a tool to develop your own abilities in creating a fast-paced plot and character-arc I can see this working, but at the same time without the tools to develop these characters through writing and not relying on actors for subtle character definition then the point is so specific, I can't see how it could be helpful when it comes to implementing the things learned from doing this into a novel. As someone who wishes to be a writer, how does studying great screenwriters have any more impact than studying great novelists?


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 19, 2012)

I wouldn't say screenwriting is "tight" so much as formulaic.


----------

