Playing out

[desperance]

Philip Hensher, writing in the Guardian, wonders why so many brilliant fiction writers turn out atrocious dramas. "It's a curious fact that very few writers have ever been able to write both good novels and good plays. Almost invariably, even the most acclaimed and technically skilled novelist turns into a rank amateur when writing for the theatre."

Guess what I'm doing next, soon as this novel goes away...?

Anyone wants to read the rest of this assassination, it's here.

Thanks, Phil.

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

It's because it's a *completely* different style of writing. It's sort of like asking why Michael Jordan only made it to the minors in baseball when he was the world's greatest basketball player. It's not that the minors are at all shameful (rather the opposite), it's just that it's a totally different game.

[samarcand.livejournal.com]

And don't worry Chaz. We'll be completely honest about it when we see it...

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Alternatively, you could regard it less as assassination, more as some handy hints - and take heart from the fact that the only author he acknowledges as straddling both genres is a master of the short story...

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Poor dear Chaz: he has no enemies, and none of his friends like him...

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Whoo - do we think it's that different, baseball against basketball? As against, for instance, baseball against cricket: very different rules, very different techniques, but still the same idea at heart, hit and run...?

They're all ways of telling stories, in the end. And it is conspicuous that while he is right, few novelists make good playwrights, a lot of novelists turn to screenwriting as back-up, and some of those do that extremely well.

[At which point, anxious author is entirely distracted by cat playing ridiculously cute, between keyboard and screen, and any hope of being serious flies out the window...]

[samarcand.livejournal.com]

We love you, Chaz and we know you don't want us to sugarcoat our criticisms.

And anyway, have you ever known me to be anything other than utterly effusive in my praise of your work??? And indeed your cooking. (Well, with the exception of that pepperade (?) thing.)

And it's not as if you won't get the chance to rip into me when I finally finish Ylahyem and - hand shuddering - I give to you to get your opinion.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

I wish I'd said that, Jimmy...

[desperance.livejournal.com]

(Well, with the exception of that pepperade (?) thing.)

Piperade, or possibly peperonata. The former, if it had eggs in.

And it's not as if you won't get the chance to rip into me when I finally finish Ylahyem and - hand shuddering - I give to you to get your opinion.

Indeed. I am soooo looking forward to this. I shall begin by murmuring sweetly, "And why exactly did you give them a name that no one will know how to pronounce? Imagine asking for that in a bookshop..." and go on from there. Chortle. I'd be sharpening my knives as we speak, only actually they are quite sharp already.

[samarcand.livejournal.com]

Has anyone ever told you that you are evil?

[gauroth.livejournal.com]

What strikes me very forcibly is that the novelists he mentions are Great Authors - or, at least, mainstream. He doesn't mention filum or tv, which is interesting. There are probably HUGE differences between the three media, but what I know about production values could be written in Large Print on a small postage stamp. Blame an Eng Lit degree that concentrated on words, words, words, rather than acting, acting, acting.

Anyway, while reading the article I was muttering 'Raymond Chandler' and 'Anthony Horowitz.'

My instinct is that a writer of genre fiction could make the transition much more easily than a mainstream author, because genre fiction tends to be much tighter. I'm not surprised Henry James failed dismally as a playwright, because he is, to be frank, much too long-winded. Genre fiction seems to me to convey so much more in dialogue and action than mainstream, usually because - especially in SF and Fantasy where the milieu is not 'normal' - several things (character, technology, history, magic, religion...) have to be explained all at once, if only to avoid infodumps.

Oops, I rant. What I mean to say is, though drama is so different from the novel, I think you've a much better chance of doing something successful than any mainstream author.

*Exit, pursued by an alien*

[devonellington.livejournal.com]

I think it's because of the immense difference in the needs of each type of writing.

A novelist needs to add sensory details, description, etc.

When you're writing for the theatre, you've got a three dimensional human being and can cut the unnecessary words.

As a tech person, I've worked with playwrights who won't cut in production and it's a nightmare.

As a playwright, I cut AT LEAST 30% of the script in rehearsal. Usually I want to cut more, but the director and the actors don't want me to.

I'm certainly not a brillant fiction writer (I wish I was, but I'm not); however, I'm a decent playwright, and I've found that the willingness to let go of the love of the words on the page and the ability to fall in love with the words as spoken by the actors goes a long way.