Craft Chat TV Brain Prose and Writers Who Don’t Read

[Aethalope]

Here is a really interesting post about writing that reads like a camera or TV show, and how this is increasingly prevalent among writers who don't read.

What Not Reading Does to Your Writing

More thoughts on "TV brain prose" and why reading is, yes, useful for your writing.

open.substack.com

 

[Rich.]

Interesting, indeed! Reminds me of Ursula Le Guin saying that screenplays are written in present imperative, which just adds weight to the dangers of writing novels using the TV brain -- you end up asking the reader (now standing in for both audience and production crew) to enact the world, instead of author and reader enacting it together (telepathically, as Stephen King would have it).

 

[Sedayne]

I watch far less TV now than I used to, and I read far more than I used to.
My writing is improving.
It's not the reason, but it might be a small, contributory factor.

The converse is also true: the more I write, the less I want to watch TV and the more I want to read.

And the more I read, the more critical I am of TV drama. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

It's funny how there are good TV and film adaptations of novels, but I've never read a good novelisation of a TV show or film.

Anyway, just some musings prompted by your post. Are you a regular Substacker @Aethalope ? I'm on there, but I don't post much. I can't get into the swing of it, and it feels like tiny voices can't be heard. But there's some really interesting stuff to read if you can find it amongst the clamouring-to-be-read self-promotion hot air.

 

[Aethalope]

Yesh, substack is interesting @Sedayne. Lots of excellent writing, but also lots of ReadMe! spam.

Anyway, have followed you

 

[JohnBertel]

“TV brain” prose tends to lack interiority and perspective. This is a big problem since those are arguably the greatest strengths of prose over film.

Very aguably. I don't think movies would be very popular if they lacked 'interiority and perspective.'

His argument seems to be that because the camera shows us everything, 'TV-brain' has led this writer to describe everything. But just because a camera technically records everything in its field of view doesn't mean that a film can't emphasise certain scene elements and put them in perspective to let us know what is going on internally in the characters. If they couldn't, they would be extremely boring.

The example in the post is bad writing, and would also be a bad movie scene. Is it bad because the writer has watched too much TV? Maybe ... who knows?

 

[Sedayne]

Anyway, have followed you

I'll have to start posting stuff now.
I've followed back of course x

 

[Aethalope]

I'll have to start posting stuff now.

Yes! Please do

 

[LJ Beck]

Very aguably. I don't think movies would be very popular if they lacked 'interiority and perspective.'

His argument seems to be that because the camera shows us everything, 'TV-brain' has led this writer to describe everything. But just because a camera technically records everything in its field of view doesn't mean that a film can't emphasise certain scene elements and put them in perspective to let us know what is going on internally in the characters. If they couldn't, they would be extremely boring.

The example in the post is bad writing, and would also be a bad movie scene. Is it bad because the writer has watched too much TV? Maybe ... who knows?

Yeah, I agree. If this was formatted as a screenplay, it would also be bad writing. Screenwriting seems to get a bit of a bad rap in terms of showing what characters are thinking and feeling. Done well, it's awesome and can be very personal and emotional. Same as a book, I think. There's different formats, and different ways to go about it, but good writing is good writing in any medium.

I do agree that reading is really important to writing. As a screenwriter, you read a lot of great screenplays to learn. Same for novelists, or short story writers, etc. No? It also helps to be well read in your own genre. If all you read are crime novels, and you write a romance, it might prove challenging.

I'm wandering and think I'm missing the point of the article. Sorry! eek.

 

[Rich.]

Yeah, I agree. If this was formatted as a screenplay, it would also be bad writing. Screenwriting seems to get a bit of a bad rap in terms of showing what characters are thinking and feeling. Done well, it's awesome and can be very personal and emotional. Same as a book, I think. There's different formats, and different ways to go about it, but good writing is good writing in any medium.

Agreed, very much.

Could it be that a script or screenplay isn't supposed to be the finished product? They can be extremely well written, but ultimately they exist to be interpreted by actors, directors, etc. Whereas a novel or short story is the finished product. And so, perhaps what the article is driving at is that watching film or TV and then trying to reverse engineer good writing from it can be a tricky task. You see an actor emote powerfully, but the screenwriter (in a brilliantly written screenplay) wrote only frustrated in parentheses above a line of dialogue. And then the I-don't-read writer comes along and starts writing eyebrow raises and shoulder twitches and nostril flares.

Might that be the problem?

 

[Aethalope]

@Rich. I think that is indeed the problem. Film uses fine actors to convey emotion and character depth. Can you imagine trying to write Captain Jack Sparrow?

Maybe also what's happening on a screen is like when someone sits in a park and watches drama unfold around them. They don't consciously note every beat or element of body language because it's just happening.

A book might be more like if that person later tells someone what happened at the park, perhaps revealing their innermost thoughts about these events. They wouldn’t show the physical beats unless relevant (he had huge nostrils... couldn't believe my eyes), and that isn't the primary mechanism for showing emotion. And a different observer might have a different spin or take, or different things they noticed or fixated on, which is where the voice might start emerging.

Hey, I feel a writing exercise coming on...

 

[LJ Beck]

Ah… I just re-read that Substack article (better this time) and I get what he’s saying now. It’s not about screenplays vs novels at all, it’s about reading vs watching to learn how to write. Sorry, I got confused. Yeah, it seems kind of crazy that this is even a debate. In fact, I’d also say that anyone who only watches film/TV would also never know how to write a good screenplay… same end medium, but very different skills utilised to write one and produce one (acting, cinematography, directing, on and on.)

@Aethalope I was tempted for a second to do a writing exercise! Taking that scene that was written in prose and writing it into a screenplay scene, to make it emotive and interesting. More than the prose was anyway. (Although as covered by the Substack article, the whole scene is pretty lame.) Personally, I think the writer of that sample has more issues than not reading, although reading would be a good place to start.

@Rich. You’re right, the screenplay isn’t the final product, but as a written piece of work it should be. And it (generally) needs to be so good to go anywhere. And sometimes, the script is way better than the final product. Haha. Fun fact, writing things like “her nostrils flared” is a real no-no in screenwriting. You’re not supposed to “direct the actor” ever. So you have to find ways to show emotions other ways. Adding (Frustrated) under dialogue is one way, although arguably, not the best way, and you can’t do that too often. Anyway… this isn’t about screenwriting. Haha. Sorry for the tangent!! It’s about bad writing.

Just for fun, I've attached the screenplay for the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" which was written by the masters, Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio. Jack Sparrow is introduced on page 11. From this site.

 

[Rich.]

I've attached the screenplay for the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" which was written by the masters [...]

It's soooo good! The three-hander thing... it blows me away.

Ah… I just re-read that Substack article (better this time) and I get what he’s saying now. It’s not about screenplays vs novels at all, it’s about reading vs watching to learn how to write.

That's what I thought (that it was about reading vs watching to be a writer). But I was starting to doubt myself after your and @JohnBertel's comments, so I'm glad you reread the article and saved me the time. Screenplays can be great. Novels can be great. Any kind of writing can be great. But if one doesn't read, one might struggle to write anything good. Seems like a plausible argument (and as you say, it really does seem crazy that this is even a debate!).

Moving away from crap writing for a minute, I read thing a while back where the author Jeff Vandermeer was talking about his Southern Reach trilogy of sci-fi/horror novels. He was talking about being influenced by all the weirdness in Kubrick's adaptation of King's The Shining, and how he wanted to create the same disorienting effect in prose that Kubrick had created in vision and sound. I love the idea of a novel becoming a script (written by Kubrick and novelist Diane Johnson, I've just looked up), a movie, and then the inspiration for the tone of another novel. I bet everyone involved read loads.

 

[Aethalope]

Thanks for the script @LJ Beck! That's truly excellent.

I'm curious, would what's written here have been finalized before or after they saw Johnny Depp in action, or even knew he was cast?

 

[LJ Beck]

Thanks for the script @LJ Beck! That's truly excellent.

I'm curious, would what's written here have been finalized before or after they saw Johnny Depp in action, or even knew he was cast?

I’m not sure, but articles say that Jonny Depp wasn’t the first choice. Hugh Jackman was? And then other people like Jim Carey, and Christopher Watkins, I think. Disney had to be talked into Depp. Haha. But the script also went through a lot of changes too, apparently. As they do. So I don’t know when this draft came into being, if it was before or after Depp was onboard. Ah… Hollywood is a messy place! Haha.

 

[Josephine]

So I’ve been wondering what’s going on with this whole debate, since it’s obviously not the substanceless thing it presents as, and I really think it’s just bullshit whipped up by the algorithm and/or errors of the sharing-too-early kind. Not something that needs our contribution (this being mine, obvs).

Hear me out: If a person who (perhaps) struggles to read (concentration? Dyslexia? Smartphone-trained neurons? Any reason really) still finds themselves moved to express themselves in writing – fine. Good. Write as much as you want, as crap as you want. And this is a good thing! Learning to let myself write badly* has been the biggest and hardest lesson I’ve had to learn as a writer so far. If you don’t have the crippling perfectionism (a massive flaw, by the way, not a humblebrag) born of a compulsive reader’s taste, then you’ve got a headstart frankly – as long as you don’t then seek plaudits on social media. This is learning to scribble, which is essential for learning to write, as any toddler kno. You show it to your mum, and she praises you, which is all well and good and exactly as it should be. Where you get into trouble is when you take it to, I dunno, the tate gallery, and the people there don’t have the good sense to see you’re just unaware of where you are in the grand scheme of things, and instead of gentle encouragement to keep going you get publicly castigated for daring to think your scribbles might be anything worthwhile.

Well, in good time, left to your own devices, you might well have got into this scribbling business and decided to venture out slightly from your own shores, and you might start looking at other people’s scribbles and maybe copying to see how they did it.

This here shitshow feels like an interrupted process gone to the bad, and hardened into a Position by untimely and strident opposition. It’s really bloody humiliating to realise in such a brutal fashion that you’re not where you thought you were, or the process isn’t what you thought it was, and unless you have an uncommonly healthy sense of self your options are either to let yourself be knocked down by it and never touch a pen again, or knuckle down on your right to write – and have it praised – without requiring any growth. Neither’s useful for the world.

I suspect what’s happening here is minor errors of (metaphorical) age and stage magnified by The Machine. Let’s not all pile on.


--
*do I need to clarify? We’re all writers here. Clearly I don’t mean I just, sigh, naturally write well <hair toss>. Obviously. Sometimes stuff that feels crap when I write it is just fine when I return to it; sometimes the stuff that felt like gold pouring out reads back like a pub toilet cokehead monologue. As we all know. (As this might, to be fair, I'm in a bit of a rage today, otherwise I wouldn't have posted. Ha! Social-media-outrage hypocrite)

 

[JohnBertel]

I still think the reasoning in the Substack article is flawed, but I def agree with (what I think is) the conclusion: to get to know how to write you need to read, not only watch movies.

I just think he gets to this rather obvious insight in a very roundabout way and with some very dubious ideas about how storytelling in movies works.

 

[Rich.]

I suspect what’s happening here is minor errors of (metaphorical) age and stage magnified by The Machine. Let’s not all pile on.

Well said (and I liked the bit about "cokehead monologue" as well – good name for a band).

 

[LJ Beck]

@Josephine. haha. Thanks! I enjoyed reading that. At risk of continuing to contribute to something not needing more contribution....

The article says "And since this now viral post was shared as the “novel opening from a non-reader” that was “EVIDENCE” that writers don’t need to read it seems fair game to discuss." There's screengrabs of the post. This is the unrelenting joy of social media with a culture of poster beware.

I agree that a writer learning their craft, struggling to read, but wanting to express themselves in words, should be encouraged. But I'm not sure the writer in question in the article is like the one you're describing? (Although age and stage are almost certainly a factor!) This writer posted this example to prove that you don't need to read to write something that is "better than most." Which turned out to be better than none. And she posted that on the massive manic highway that is social media, always a breath away from a 20-car pile up. So she didn't ask her mom, she TOLD social media. Is it an interrupted process? (which is a real thing... people asking for feedback too soon.) Or is it indeed bullshit whipped up for the ultimate click prize? <sigh> Who knows.

In any case, I think they opened themselves up for the pile on. But here's the thing... I find the argument about TV brain vs writing brain is not what's interesting about this discussion. (it's a no-brainer. haha. Get it?)

What's interesting is the vastly different thinking. Maybe it's the usual gen gap, I don't know. I grew up reading. She probably grew up watching. I grew up with "click" meaning a sound. She grew up with it meaning validation. We are worlds apart in so many ways. For me, this is just a very sharp reminder of that, and how fast the gap is widening.

 

[RK Wallis]

I kinda feel sorry for this writer because if they're arrogant enough to believe the writing good (a failing we've all had at some point before someone pointed out something we hadn't learnt yet) and they believe they don't need to put anymore work in, then they're in for a rude shock if they self publish (if they choose that path). Bad reviews = no sales.

On the other hand, if they do choose to grow, then having the world tear a piece of your writing to pieces is utterly brutal and soul destroying, though it'll make you a stronger writer if you can handle the critique.

social media, always a breath away from a 20-car pile up

hysterical, lol!!

 

[RK Wallis]

it'll make you a stronger writer if you can handle the critique.

though, now I ponder those words, isn't that the burden of every published author, self or trad?

 

[LJ Beck]

though, now I ponder those words, isn't that the burden of every published author, self or trad?

Oh yeah, I've been on Threads lately, and the authors who are crying over bad reviews are pretty heartbreaking. But that's the game, right? You pay your ticket and take your chances that you won't get pummeled. Another reason to be sure what you're putting out there is something you're super confident in and really proud of.

 

[Josephine]

they opened themselves up for the pile on

yeah, undeniably. but we are mature enough to show them mercy!

 

[Rich.]

mercy!

That's a kind of cheese, right?

[Joke!]

What's interesting is the vastly different thinking. Maybe it's the usual gen gap [...]

That is interesting. My kids are preteens, and they read (which is indicative of nothing but what happens in my family). But I'm aware that they'll soon be more influenced by things that aren't me, and that I'm only (if I'm honest with myself) in touch with their culture because of them.

How do you all bridge the age gap? How do we share culture in such a siloed world? [OK, that last question is ridiculously broad, sorry (not sorry).]

 

[Pamela Jo]

So I’ve been wondering what’s going on with this whole debate, since it’s obviously not the substanceless thing it presents as, and I really think it’s just bullshit whipped up by the algorithm and/or errors of the sharing-too-early kind. Not something that needs our contribution (this being mine, obvs).

Hear me out: If a person who (perhaps) struggles to read (concentration? Dyslexia? Smartphone-trained neurons? Any reason really) still finds themselves moved to express themselves in writing – fine. Good. Write as much as you want, as crap as you want. And this is a good thing! Learning to let myself write badly* has been the biggest and hardest lesson I’ve had to learn as a writer so far. If you don’t have the crippling perfectionism (a massive flaw, by the way, not a humblebrag) born of a compulsive reader’s taste, then you’ve got a headstart frankly – as long as you don’t then seek plaudits on social media. This is learning to scribble, which is essential for learning to write, as any toddler kno. You show it to your mum, and she praises you, which is all well and good and exactly as it should be. Where you get into trouble is when you take it to, I dunno, the tate gallery, and the people there don’t have the good sense to see you’re just unaware of where you are in the grand scheme of things, and instead of gentle encouragement to keep going you get publicly castigated for daring to think your scribbles might be anything worthwhile.

Well, in good time, left to your own devices, you might well have got into this scribbling business and decided to venture out slightly from your own shores, and you might start looking at other people’s scribbles and maybe copying to see how they did it.

This here shitshow feels like an interrupted process gone to the bad, and hardened into a Position by untimely and strident opposition. It’s really bloody humiliating to realise in such a brutal fashion that you’re not where you thought you were, or the process isn’t what you thought it was, and unless you have an uncommonly healthy sense of self your options are either to let yourself be knocked down by it and never touch a pen again, or knuckle down on your right to write – and have it praised – without requiring any growth. Neither’s useful for the world.

I suspect what’s happening here is minor errors of (metaphorical) age and stage magnified by The Machine. Let’s not all pile on.


--
*do I need to clarify? We’re all writers here. Clearly I don’t mean I just, sigh, naturally write well <hair toss>. Obviously. Sometimes stuff that feels crap when I write it is just fine when I return to it; sometimes the stuff that felt like gold pouring out reads back like a pub toilet cokehead monologue. As we all know. (As this might, to be fair, I'm in a bit of a rage today, otherwise I wouldn't have posted. Ha! Social-media-outrage hypocrite)

Ah Josephine, this is the first time I've seen you let your hair down, let alone toss it so Elizabeth Bennett like. Your voice is definitely worth sharing more often. More of this PLEASE!
Audiobooks cheap to produce and distribute could create a resurgence of new voices as did pulp fiction and paperbacks.... I wonder where audio falls in this.
I confess I rarely exalt in the beauty of words when I'm listening. Not the way I do when reading. But that is something that could develop as I grow an "oral tradition" ear. My son is dyslexic and he listens to audiobooks all day long. He's out for story, but it's characters that make an audiobook irresistible to him. He went thru the Dungeon Carl series in a fortnight. And there went all my credits... He couldnt get enough of the characters. And that is interior-osity more than world building which in RBG books is admittedly simplistic.
Just as a counter note Sol Stein who was a playwright recommends young writers think cinematically in his book, "on Writing." Because styles have changed. What Dickens went on about at a penny a word is turgid today becasue we grew up on film and TV. However I do think there are caveats.
I worry about young people and the joys of sex every time I see another scene where overcome with passion the two MC's start ripping at each other's clothes and then climax together in the next 15 seconds. That is not how female sexuality works and I'm sure has exacerbated the global problem of bad teenaged first experiences.

My understanding is that Jonny Depp made up his whole costume and went in to audition for Disney. Theytold him to tone down the gold teeth, but thought he'd nailed it. So maybe actor reading script and making the character live?

 

[Pamela Jo]

To me the following excerpt from the article is the important discussion point. Maybe because POV is something I'm aways wrestling with. I'm rereading Wolf Hall and have to go back and reread passages again and again. But they are incredibly intricate and evocative passages. You get a taste of it in the BBC adaptation, but Mantel has it on every page, almost every paragraph. Maybe that is the purpose of the POV she chose? To make you slow down and capture her delicious detail. One that still resonates with me is how Cromwell nad family race the greyhounds in the long hall for fun. No long Dickensian description. Just a few sentences, but I can still see and hear that scene.

"Who is seeing these things? Who is thinking them? To pick an example, the stenographer is “clearly unsettled” when McKinnon makes a rude gesture. Is this McKinnon happily noticing her discomfort? The judge angrily noticing it and thus intuiting what McKinnon did? Is it the stenographer herself thinking “I’m clearly unsettled” before deciding to adjust her skirt? Most likely, it is just the author wanting to make sure the reader understands the TV camera image being presented.

We might technically call this a third-person omniscient perspective, but really it is a camera perspective. Which is to say, there is no perspective. Prose is rooted in perspective. Knowing the POV of a passage changes how we understand it. “Bob was a piece of work, but Sarah could handle him.” That passage’s meaning changes if we read it as Bob’s thoughts or Sarah’s thoughts or the narrator’s statement.

I am currently reading Toni Morrison’s Beloved, which is a masterclass in the use of a floating third-person perspective. Morrison freely dips into the different interiorities of her characters, often in the same scene, but it is always clear whose perspective we are inhabiting at any moment. We know who is thinking or seeing or feeling because their perspective colors and deepens the scene’s meaning."

Thgis guy's voice though is every supercilious creative writing seminar prof's I've ever met.
OK-just me. But despite his sales hype I wouldnt pick up this guy's book, Metallic Realms, if it was left in the last toilet in hell, or Baluchistan- kind of the same place.

 

[Josephine]

How do we share culture in such a siloed world?

also this is totally The Question! way better discussion than who's right or wrong.