Are There Rules to Writing? - The Writer's Mind Podcast 003 

Get Practical Tools to Write Your Great Screenplay: www.practicalscreenwriting.com

I think the analogy of home cooks versus chefs works really well alongside some of the ideas you were discussing. Home cooks follow recipes because they trust all the different ingredients combined together in a certain way will get them a tasty product. They don't necessarily understand the point of each ingredient (the deeper level meaning), but they use it anyways. Chefs understand what each ingredient's job is as well as potential workarounds/substitutes if you don't have that ingredient or don't want to use it. They understand cooking processes perfectly and can therefore change them to fit the vision of what they are trying to create. As storytellers, we want to become chefs. The only way to get there is to learn the foundational principles and processes so well that we understand the effect different elements have on the story. We can then riff on those elements to bring our vision/story to life in a way that hits hard and leaves the audience impacted.

Guys like Tyler give me hope for the future!

Listening to you while being stoned af literally feels like Jesus giving me a class on philosophy bro, not gonna lie.

Thanks for breaking down the core of storytelling of physiological point of view, tyler

20:01 Whenever people say that to me, I always tell them they have to first know the rules before they attempt to break them. #knowyourcraft

Where's the 2nd episode?

I kinda had this thing with my screenplay were I thought it was about something (loneliness), but finishing the first draft I organically discovered what it was really about (morality of killing). So now, with that in mind, I'm trying to focus on that aspect as an ultimate guideline for my characters and story beats. I think you have to work alongside your instinct.

I'm always a bit wary about the word objective. Likewise, I hate referring to them as rules. John Truby argues we should call them techniques which might be a more accurate description. I think in general it's a good idea to use the techniques that have been shown to be the most effective (and having a strong intended meaning is one of the more important ones,) but I don't think that, philosophically speaking, there can be OBJECTIVELY good or bad art. If you watch a movie I've made and have a profound, life-changing experience then who am I to invalidate that simply because it was a result of (what I would consider to be) an incorrect interpretation of my work? I can do everything in my power to imbue the film with a certain meaning, but the audience will ultimately do as it will. It might not be practical knowledge for writing a screenplay, but it's an undeniable reality that all writers will deal with eventually. The final experience of a piece of art is always interpretive and therefore subjective.

I agree. I also think intent is big too. For me, as someone who likes to write multiple genres, it's like you say, I write an action, or a horror or a thriller, I might just want to entertain. On the other hand, there's some things I've written that have a point and a subtle opinion behind them. So breaking rules just to break the rules, no. But if you have a great idea and or feeling and the only way to do it might not be conventional, then go for it.

Great video! When discussing art as a mode of communication, I think that there is art that makes a philosophical statement, art that begs a moral/ethical/philosophical question, and art that exists for the sake of the art itself. Regarding how that art is consumed and whether the audience understands what is being conveyed, it comes down to both their understanding of the intricacies of the art form and the artist’s technical ability. I agree that “accidental masterpieces” do not occur organically in structured conveyances (film, novels etc.), however, I do believe that questions of a moral/ethical/philosophical nature are inherently organic. So while a writer may not necessarily seek to pose a question initially, they may find theme through an examination of character, for example. I think that makes sense, it’s late and I’m listening to this while walking. Good job though, keep it going!

I think Hendricks and Van Halen are good examples. They learned how to play guitar, (the rules) How to hold it. The chords, the frets, etc. THEN, they put there own spin on it. (Breaking or bending the rules). They expressed themselves their own way. But they still learned the principles first. Lol.

Hey man I just started watching this and wanted to say how appreciative I am of you, this is very helpful.

I like your content in general. This came across as more of a rant.

I think that, if there is such a thing as objective truth, then there is such a thing as objective excellence in art. And there are structures of storytelling that seem to work really well over the centuries, although the structure is just the frame, it's not the story itself. There is a subjective aspect to excellence as well, since everyone likes different things. Whenever people tell me I shouldn't have a message when going into writing a story, it doesn't make sense to me. It feels like telling someone to blindfold themselves when trying to get through a maze. The meaning of a story will inform the structure, the characters, the character arcs, character dialogue, etc. Dostoyevsky wrote so many brilliant philosophical conflict novels. When it comes to outlining a story, I notice I tend to try to figure out what kind of structure I want to use for the story--finding out how long the story is and if it's a standalone or a series, etc. and then that helps me find out how to fill everything in in an effective way. I'll see if it actually works for me or not.

Awesome content Tyler!

these are amazing

I think the most dangerous misconception about art is that the base of creating quality and original art is freedom of neglecting limits. I believe just like you that structure and tools are not meant to limit your style and intention but rather to give it a shape that connects with people the most. Having a plot point happen 2 pages earlier or later than a "perfect practical structure" suggests it is not a flaw, it's this story's unique pace. It's only useful to be able to review your own work through pragmatism and ask for every decision and intricasies the only thing that matters: why. Love your work, Tyler!

Got that Philz Coffee on deck!!

Art is both subjective and objective.

I read save the cat a while ago, before I was really interested in writing at all (it was a gift) but my problem with it, and I think this might be why people reject the idea of formula, is that Synder writes very cynically in it, he comes across as a successful person who doesn't actually like writing, or films very much. If you read that tone it makes you think 'if this is what following a formula means I don't want to because I love films and I don't want to feel this way about them if I do it this way'

Michael Jordan arguably one of the most "expressive" athletes of all time, practiced relentlessly to better his craft. So yeah agree.

It appears that aesthetic and literary relativism had crept up into creative writing. I appreciate your profound rebuttle to the absolute attitude of spontaneity and relativism as paramount to creating great works as, for example, Leonardo never made his great works without meticulous, principled craftsmanship. Of course we are aware of the potential rigidity that accompany rules, yet rigidity may be a small offense in comparison to the sheer insult that relativism/absolute spontaneity may bring to the attempt of creating great works. There are rules folks! Only true masters may venture into the dark and reform them. The rest of us plebs ought to stick to the manual 😎

Tyler, I've always wanted to know your thoughts on the film Black Panther. I know it's Marvel, but it has a lot of aspects you talk about screenwriting in it.

Love these podcasts! One thing I do want to get your opinion about is The Shining by Stanley Kubrick. While it takes on as an adaptation of a King novel, I would like to isolate that as it's own movie for the sake of this comment. I feel like its anonymity of meaning and infinite amount of interpretations (at least from what I read about it online, as it is ALWAYS the movie to interpret subjectively) contributes to the atmosphere and mystery of the story. I do acknowledge though that The Shining does have, at a basic level, some sense of theme. To me, the movie feels similar to a Schoedinger's Cat perspective in that the movie is like a closed box with answers inside, and no one can ever see the answers inside. I wonder if we can bifurcate differences in unfocused stories in that multiple interpretations can be due to (like you say) lack of skill, or because they are multidimensional. Or maybe The Shining was meant to push around people to think but neversomuch as to create solid answers. But then again, I am still snuffed at the point that The Shining has baseline themes. Perhaps the prior statements would make sense if we define "multidimensional" on the precursor that there ARE solid themes present to begin with.

I’m an aspiring comic writer. Is it really that common for novice screenwriters to be so... erm... pretentious? I don’t think we have very many writers aiming for anti-plots in comics.

So every other episode is on patreon, correct?

6:15 But what if the idea was communicated really well and clearly but you still are of the belief that it was an accident. Is it then any less valuable? 6:45 People on all kinds of websites come up with completely butting heads with each other interpretations for things like Monster from Naoki Urasawa or Evangelion from Hideki Anno but they are still revered as incredibly profound and well written. 9:38 I agree with you on the idea of objective critique of art but you gave very refutable example by bringing up horror and saying that this doesn't need to have any thematic value. Because that's associating some genres with "purpose" for themes and leaving out others but you can't really prove which should and which shouldn't. Another person might say that action is there to have cool fights, not to be deep, comedy to make you laugh, drama to make you emotional, adventure to see characters explore etc. Themes shouldn't be reserved for specific genres and even horrors can be made into something with a message.

Where is episode 2?

Is this a good thing to listen too while writing a script or not?

15:44 but what if Lynch's creative process has no intention in communicating ideas, and that his "meaningfull" works of art are just stumbeled upon unintentionally?

As Mike Ehrmantraut once said, “Rules are rules.”

What happened to episode 2?

This guy is clearly a great writer, but goddamn is he a hustler. The way he numbers the bonus episodes on Patreon as if they are part of the main series really irks me. It really fucks with your FOMO when you see the missing episodes on the main channel. And don't even get me started on how he won't shut up about his goddamn 400 dollar "practical screenwriting" course and the manipulative tactics he uses to promote it. I get that we all gotta make money to live, but Jesus Christ, I haven't seen such brazenly infuriating marketing tactics since I played that one EA game. I don't know if I'm madder at the fact that he's trying to be manipulative or the fact that he's being so spectacularly obvious about it.

I think this guy is good looking , total non sequitir

David Lynch is mid

What happened to episode two?