Morgan le Fay and the Green Knight

I have received favourable feedback from my tutor regarding my creative response to the romantic text of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight:

I do think this has worked out exactly along the lines you described to me. While the first paragraph, perhaps in taking off, read to me like the story was geering up to pour in all the fantasy clichés (flaxen hair, eddies of the stream, thundering torrent, rugged slope, tinkling bells), it then strikes out on its own and becomes quite irresistible. Really enjoyed it and found the take on the romance imaginative, enthusiastically realized, and coherent in terms of both the ‘logic’ of the narrative and the consistency of your writing style. You are convincing me of the approach you’re taking.

I guess then, it is time to revisit the textual elements I have used but not yet covered...

You will remember from my blogs posts in November, Part 1 and Part 2, how I broke down my decision making regarding descriptions, choice of subject matter and the use (or perception of use) of magic. You also know that I chose to base my creative response on Morgan le Fay - arch nemesis of Camelot - and opted, as I discuss in my analysis document of the piece (a requirement of the course), to consider my subject matter thusly:

The romance of Gawain exists as a quest, but through my response I am subverting the genre. Bertilack is a Lord and therefore superior to other men, but as Morgana proves, he isn’t superior to his environment. Therefore my response falls in the mode of high mimetic. Northrop Frye states that “romance divides into two main forms: a secular form dealing with chivalry and knight-errantry, and a religious form devoted to legends of saints.[1]” I see the Gawain romance as treading both paths. Its focus is on knight-errantry but at its heart is a call of faith. While my response covers similar ground, much of the conflict regards the faith argument and I use it not only to highlight Morgana’s standpoint and the theme of the piece, but to create symmetry between the original text and my response, and between Gawain and Bertilack [2].

---

[1] Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism p33-4 ISBN 0-691-01298-9

[2] “…he recited his Paternoster and Ave Maria and Creed with a promise to thenceforth serve none other than God.” – Richard Howse, Morgan le Fay and the Green Knight

Opening

The original opening isn't much different from the one I have written. Though, thanks to the workshop session, several things had to change. And here is where the workshops are essential in spotting those elements that will trip up the reader (as Solvejg once found with Tethered Light and our assumptions of Binky). First and foremost were the characters - the girl and the Green Knight. One wasn't properly depicted as a child and later when I talked about her being an infant, my readers struggled with the concept change (how old is she?). Next was the headlessness of the Green Knight: if he's headless, why isn't this put to the front of his description (it would be the first thing the girl notices)? And to stop the reader worrying... where is the head?

She waitied; the child, sitting naked but for the green girdle at her waist and the shroud of flaxen hair covering her shoulders and chest. High up in the linden tree she dangled her legs playfully amongst the heart-shaped leaves, as if she were dabbling her feet in the eddies of the stream that frothed and foamed far below the boughs. Over that thundering torrent, which twisted down the rugged slope, she heard the tinkling of bells from beyond the glade. A visitor, they intoned through the jutting crags and black jagged outcroppings that led into the valley. That was long before she saw him at the knarled rocks. Long before he’d guided the horse down the ravine.

He arrived headless; the Green Knight, built the size of a half-giant. Despite the mutilation he carried himself with both poise and grace, swaying with the rhythm of the horse’s lollop. He brushed a coat of snow from his charger’s green mane with the looped reins and nudged his golden spurs into its flanks.

The girl watched, fascinated, and the knight shook white clumps from his green shoulders and the bloody stump of his decapitation, which spat flecks of crimson upon his tunic and mantle as he rode.

But where was his head?

She fingered the leaves apart to better see him from bleeding-shank to unshod feet – every inch of him glorious, every stitch, green – and she grinned when she spied his flowing tresses. The knight was carrying his head beneath one arm, as a soldier might carry a stock of weapons, his piercing stare surveying the burial mound that rose up beyond the tree.

Knowing your Audience

In a submission, the opening is everything. Now the reader is intrigued by both the naked girl and the headless knight. For those who know the Gawain text, it will be just the girl, but then, they will understand the meaning of the green girdle. I was distinctly aware as I wrote the piece that it plays to two separate audiences in different ways, and I had to make sure that as the piece played out, those who don't know the Gawain text required as much backstory to the situation as possible - enough for them to let go of any concerns that there is a headless knight wandering around and, of course, a naked (and rather fearless) girl:

‘Was I not right,’ she said, ‘when I told you the game couldn’t be refused? That Camelot cannot resist a challenge to its valour? Come, for there is a tale to tell and I am an ear to hear it.’

‘Well, my lady,’ he said when he’d calmed his consternation, his throat belching and spitting, ‘I arrived at Camelot during the festivities of their Christmas feast, and there, as you instructed, I called them to action, setting down both the game of exchanging blows and the rules by which the players would abide. King Arthur was to strike at me, and I, so saying at your request, stated that he was to seek out the Green Chapel in one year and one day’s time, where he would receive a stroke in return.’

Point of View

This has been a large stumbling block for me up until this year. Not only would I sweep back and forth between the points of view of different characters, but I would switch povs mid-paragraph (sometimes mid-sentence), and then there were the times where I would accidentally change the subject of a sentence or paragraph, leaving the reader desperately confused about who meant what to whose which and why?

Confused?

With this piece, I believe I have solved these errors and specifically chosen to use multiple points of view to relate as much of both sides of the argument as I can - third person omniscient. In a short stories, point of view changes are not recommended because the reader needs to identify with a character quickly and empathise with them - otherwise in the majority of cases the writer is wasting their time because there are no hooks for the reader's interest to hang on. With my use of third person omniscent I am specifically choosing who the reader learns from and witnesses the scene, not as a means of identification, but so as to best understand at any given time, the important aspects of the story and what it means to each of the characters.

We start off with the girl, watching the Green Knight's arrival. We stay with her in a semi-distanced state, never once entering her head, but regarding what she does , what she observes and the questions she is wondering about. Then, towards the last half of page 2, we switch into the Green Knight's pov:

He hesitated. His horse drew back towards the river’s roar and both regarded the girl as if seeing her for the first time. She was barely tall enough to reach up to the horse’s flank, too fragile to bring harm to any but the tiniest of rodents, and yet surprise and suspicion furrowed the knight’s brow. This was no mere child.

And we stay with the Green Knight, because it is always more interesting for the reader to be on the back foot. The Green Knight doesn't fully understand the situation and by identifying with him the reader can be a part of his investigation and anxiety about what is unfolding. Along with him we observe the child:

The girl listened with her head cocked to one side and she made a steeple of her hands as if she might venture into prayer, but instead she let her fingers play and fidget... and the girl balled up her fists and shook from head to foot... The girl swore under her breath and stamped her feet and the golden carpet scrunched and crinkled; a thousand yellow leaves perishing to black... The girl halted, her hands at her sides, not balled but playfully stroking thumbs across fingers as if she were enjoying the texture of an oily substance. She spoke then with a malevolence that he’d have felt even in full armour for it pricked at his hackles.

Whereas we have the knight's concerns, questions and feelings:

The Green Knight turned his eyes down to the leaves and bowed his headless torso to hide his shock at her bloodlust. Morgan le Fay had said nothing of her intentions when they’d made their compact. She’d spoken only of the game... He had survived Gawain’s beheading blow, just as le Fay had said he would; snakes could do him no harm, though her wrath may yet... The knight watched, in awe that the girl’s desire yielded fruit from a fruitless tree... He saw no sign in that angelic face that she was deceiving him and yet he pondered her words about his faith and his God. Where had either been when he’d needed them in his quarrel against the Bastard Lords? Where had either been when those lords had intended to usurp his lands?

The Green Knight is our protagonist, we need to identify with him most of all (whether or not it will end well).

I will be posting my entry for the module over on my website as soon as it is ready for submission.

My Assessment Piece from the Screenplay Module

I now have my pre-liminary result (before external verification) and I must admit... I'm not that pleased.

Of course I'm happy with the outcome, but I'm just not pleased with my current ability. Ultimately it's swings and roundabouts - having read the feedback, I should be able to rectify the faults (but not for the screenplay module itself - SIGH). I guess I want to be better than I currently am, and am reminded of A-Level results day. One of the girls didn't just decry her results (I can't remember for which course) but she complained and tried to get them changed.

Yes, she was a very good student, and yes, she was one of those that worked hard... but, her complaints weren't just about what she thought she'd earned. She was upset that other "lesser" students had got better marks... something had to have been awry.

I'm interested in what the other students have got, but only to work out where I place. Sure I'd be upset if others got better results, but I'd be missing the point - I'm not that good and I need to open my eyes and review where I stand.

Of course, it would have been nice to get a better result... seeing as this will all end up in my portfolio at the end of the course, for review by publishers (SIGH). Anyhoo:

Pre-liminary Grade: 65%
(Middle ground between 2:1 and 1st boundaries. A slow push skyward, I was just hoping that this would have been an easy module to ace).

Production of a marketable working script
Dark Machine is an interesting TV pilot with a lot of potential. Richard took on board many comments by myself in response to various drafts as well as from the class as a whole when presenting this story on our Writer’s Room Day. He has a strong concept and premise and some good characters.

The problem is in meeting the demands of the TV format, which eats up plot at an alarming rate. His opening Teaser is excellent, he totally had me at the top of page 2, but then wandered aimlessly for ten pages only to present me with the same plot point again.

It wasn’t until page 31 that I felt things really started to happen with the revelation of Petersen’s secret weapon. This should have been the end of Act 1.

The main problem throughout the script is dialogue as exposition. Characters spend way too much time filling in backstory for the benefit of the audience. And when they’re not telling each other about backstory, he’s giving it to us in flashback. He’s much more effective when he delivers visually (the reveals of Claire’s OCD, for instance).

Instead of splitting the story over two episodes, he needs to radically cut this script down and tell the complete story.

This script tries to set up way too many characters and situations. Those backstories can be explored in other episodes.

Production of work that is laid out as appropriate to form and industry standards
It is well laid out and totally professional. There is a tendency to use too many parentheticals, though, which is a symptom of Richard’s desire to control every aspect of the script, including how each line is said.

Understanding of how work might be situated in relation to contemporary film-making or TV , and an awareness of how the work would need to be pitched for production
Richard knows instinctively the kind of show he is trying to create. The only thing that lets him down is sticking to scenes and characters that aren’t pulling their weight.

This could be improved if he sold more of the sizzle instead of the steak. Pitching is about conveying the emotion behind a story, not the logic.

Commentary shows an awareness of strengths and weaknesses of work, and its dramatic structure
The commentary reveals an heroic attempt to apply every one of the paradigms we went through in the class (and then some) to the script. This was way beyond the call of duty, but it’s interesting to see how the different ones have helped. I think overall it might have been a case of way too much left brain activity to the detriment of the story.

My response to the assessment
I hate that it's right! Erm, no... focus: This goes right back to my novel writing, in that I need to stop worrying about what I want the reader to know and give them story, story, story. I'm too busy getting stuck in back stories and not spending enough time in giving the characters things to deal with, problems to work at, situations to rail against.

Which means I'm primarily dealing with a problem of the narrative's structure. I need to focus my attention on fewer, more detailed, characters and develop less strands but through a greater pace.

... on the synopsis front... let's not go there for a bit.

Bitchin' Pitchin'

So, there I am with my screenplay all dust-jacketed, the episodes plotted and the analysis jiggled into something that might make sense to others. I've tagged the pitch to the end and sent in that analysis document to my tutor. Thankfully he has this to say:

You’ve gone way beyond the call of duty in actually applying ALL the paradigms and then some on top to your work. It’s really interesting to see how each one added something new to the story, and you discuss them brilliantly.

Well thank Gawd for that! However, my pitch:

When Edward Baker, an IT Consultant with a guilty conscience and an impulse for taking responsibility, starts predicting the future, he agrees to help Hakim Sahir, a dead Islamic Mystic, save an illusive Russian girl with a secret from being kidnapped. But, Hakim isn’t being wholly honest with Edward, and Edward must come to terms with the fact that whilst no one can change the future, in order to save the ones he loves, he must try.

Dark Machine is an 8 episode series that takes the mythologies of shows like X Files, Lost and Heroes and matches them against the mind-bending situation of Life on Mars with a dash of Cronenberg. Like Heroes, Dark Machine establishes an audience-friendly system of regular plot questions and pay offs, whilst the cliff-hanger ending provides sufficient answers and a hook for the second season.

... and breathe! It's a little bit stiff, like a runaway train that takes you on the journey but won't let you stop for photos. My tutor says:

The industry pitch is perhaps a little too dry, which is understandable coming out of an academic essay. For instance you could use simpler language (i.e. rather than say ‘an impulse for taking responsibility’ I’d say ‘an impulse for taking on too much’).

And then he directed me to this absolutely amazing example, which couldn't have come out at a better time. The examples really signify the difference between a good and a bad pitch... Robin Kelly.

Screenplay Queries

Having completed the 45 pages of the screenplay and having spent the last couple of days analysing it based upon the paradigms discussed in class - Field, Hauge, Vogler, Campbell, Dramatica, and television - I came up against a set of worrying questions. I thought it best to simply e-mail my tutor and then present them here as advisorys notes that might be useful to others.

Firstly, for my particular assessment I've got to bring it back by 5 pages to 40. Otherwise I get marked down - argh!

Anyhoo:

1. My teaser is just under 2 minutes long. Other shows have 5 to 7 minute teasers, so should mine cover a longer period or does it not matter?
   
   This doesn’t matter. Many shows have very short teasers, and I think the Life On Mars teaser I showed you was 2.5 minutes.
   
2. On page 1 of my analysis document I look at the episode from a 5 Act structure pov and Syd Field's 3 Act Structure. Is it important to stick the Midpoint and the Pinch Points (if we look at the 3 Act Structure in particular) at exactly the Midpoint etc?
   
   Don’t worry about Pinches (although you might point out that your ‘act outs’ occur where Field’s ‘pinches’ might. You might also talk about your own Mid Point and how it differs from Field’s definition (not crucial that it occurs exactly in the middle).
   
3. The same goes for the change of Acts - in 3 Act Structures, should Acts 1 and 3 be exactly a quarter of the length? At the moment both come in at 13 minutes.
   
   No. You have a certain amount of freedom with this. Don’t worry.
   
4. Scene lengths - I've looked and looked, and found only a few examples of scenes that are longer than 3 pages. Most are 1 page or less, but because of the nature of my screenplay I have roughly 7 scenes that are over 3 pages in length. Should I worry about this?
   
   Not unduly. It may indicate that some of your scenes are a bit wordy, but while I’m against excessive wordiness in screenwriting I’m not against lengthy scenes, particularly in TV scripts.
   
5. Further to that, when I break up my scenes with my protagonist's future visions they continue the same scene but just do something different with a jump cut in the middle - this essentially lengthens the scenes further. Should I worry about this?
   
   I would regard the jump cuts as a separate scene anyway. If you set the scene up once and indicate its location with a proper slugline and then afterwards refer back to it within another scene as a ‘Flash Cut’ or jump cut then that’s fine. As long as at one point you’ve properly indicated its location, time of day, etc so that it can be scheduled by a production manager for a shoot and isn’t hidden somewhere in a line that no one is going to notice till they discover too late that they need a whole day of extra filming that they haven’t budgeted for.
   
6. I've used transitions for a specific purpose: a) End of Acts have Cut to Black or Fade to Black b) Moving to a flashback has just Cut To c) Moving in and out of a vision/deja vu uses Jump Cut To. Is using this methodology allowed?
   
   It’s allowed but I personally find it a bit excessive. And it lengthens your script! For Act Breaks you can indicate End of Act 1, etc. I never like Cut To because all film is edited with cuts. I know you’re trying to indicate the speed of those cuts but that will be apparent just by having a long scene interrupted by a sudden short scene. (But if you don’t want to do a new slugline every time you do a Flash Cut then I think it’s fine to start a new para within the scene and begin it with ‘FLASH CUT TO: that scene we saw earlier’, etc.
   
7. Going back to scene length, much of the dialogue is really talking heads stuff. I've tried to give them things to do, places to move between, but that's been difficult. Should I worry too much about this?
   
   I used to worry excessively about that and write every facial tic and bodily movement of the actors (and I still find it difficult not to do this in my own scripts), but more and more I find that just giving the dialogue, with very few directions, is better for the reader. Let them imagine it themselves. Obviously, if there’s a bit of action that’s very important to what’s happening, then fine, include it. It’s okay to write ‘They walk across the car park’ and then just have the dialogue until ‘They stop at the car ‘. Again, this will cut down the length of your script!

Solologue

So, getting somewhere/nowhere (delete as applicable) with my monologues, I posted to my tutor:

I've tried to pull out all the self-referencing statements ofhumiliation and knowing and specifically opened up the opening and the discovering the weapons. I'm still a little fuzzy on it being mono-modal though because I'm not sure if there are still any moments that could be bettered through showing rather than the fictional descriptions of self.

So, I believe these two point might still be outstanding on the current attachment:

1. You still occasionally shove the narrator's mental state down the audience's throat instead of thinking about how it can be shown through words and actions.
2. You need to take the opportunities to evoke place whenever they arise- it's still rather mono-modal, stuck inside this very unusual
   head.

To which he's replied (postively - yay!):

Yes, better, but you diagnose the issues well! Try not to give the gameaway every time you take the story on to the next stage ('That's where I discovered Grandpa's firearms' - 'firearms' makes the narrator soundlike a policeman, and we need the suspense of finding out what he found). Look for other examples of this narrative overloading - there are a few.

Lots still to do in the mental-athletics of my mind. Though, looking back over the weeks of input I've had from my tutor I start to wonder, wouldn't this have been easier without the middle-man? My tutor could have written it better on his own. :)

Monomodal Monologue

I was worried about my rewrite on the monologue - worried I was getting too close to it, but, I'd tried to carry out a cut and shut. My fear was that there is still some fiction-based telling in there, but with the removal of the original opening and ending I thought it had a better developed punch to what's pertinent. I'd added more references to the bullying too, but I wasn't sure that the original flow still held together.

My tutor said the following:

There’s more punch all right. There are still too many knowing references (‘like Macbeth to an actor’; the stuff about decrying Jews and
Muslims) and you still occasionally shove the narrator’s mental state down the audience’s throat instead of thinking about how it can be shown through words and actions (stop saying ‘humiliation’, for example, and make us feel it). Structural points:

1. Give us more time at the start. Establish the ordinariness of the
   surroundings. I would take the audience see them before they see the narrator (i.e. you don’t need the first sentence, do you?). I didn’t buy the dictators – a bit obvious, surely, given what’s to come?
2. I think you need to establish a time and place for the beating at
   the bottom of page 1, otherwise it blends confusingly into the previous incident.
3. Take time to discover grandpa’s weapons. We need more space when something innocent seems to be happening, and you need to take the opportunities to evoke place whenever they arise – it’s still rather mono-modal, stuck inside this very unusual head.

First and foremost, what is mono-modal? Is it the lack of dynamics?

I have turned, rather randomly to a science paper: Multi-modal Perception

Which provides this encapsulating hypothesis:

To design, optimise and deliver multimedia and virtual-reality products and services it is necessary to match performance to the capabilities of users. When a multimedia system is used, the presence of audio and video stimuli introduces significant cross-modal effects (the sensory streams interact). This paper introduces a number of cross-modal interactions that are relevant to communications systems and discusses the advanced experimental techniques required to provide data for modelling multi-modal perception. The aim of the work is to provide a multi-modal perceptual model that can be used for performance assessment and can be incorporated into coding algorithms.

I won't know how pertinent this is, but at least I can assume mono-modal regards a thinly layered discussion that lacks visual imagery.

Also, Reading Like A Writer Of Electronic Texts, says:

New literacies are multimodal - visual, auditory and they move fast.
Computers are ‘symbol machines’ (Labbo, in press) that allow children to negotiate a complex interplay of multiple sign systems (e.g., video clips, music, sound effects, icons, virtually rendered paint strokes, text in print-based documents), multiple modalities (e.g., linguistic, auditory, visual, artistic), and recursive communicative and cognitive processes (e.g., real time and virtual conversations, cutting/pasting text, manipulating graphics, importing photographs).

Intriguing, no?

Monologue Revisal

Okay, next response from my tutor:

This is vivid and gripping, and you’ve thought about how it’s paced. I
think it would work even better if you told us more about the acts of bullying; as it stands, we have the uncomfortable and not very rewarding sensation of standing inside the head of a maniac with little apparent motive. Make us sympathise with the speaker more before you show us how he takes it out on the bully. That will give you a better tonal balance, too. At the moment you are over-explaining – it’s a very difficult trick in a monologue to reconcile performance of a mental state with the need to narrate, and in this draft there are too many moments when you are in prose fiction mode (especially looking
around the classroom). Think seriously about ditching the beginning and ending, which give too much away and try to buy our sympathy instead of earning it. I would start from the ‘primal scene’ – the classroom and the things that happened there. Make your audience imagine the place, and things will follow.

So, positives:

• Vivid and gripping
• I've worked out my pacing

And the suggestions:

• Work in the bullying more - relate the acts to the audience; to build upon his motive and gain the audience's trust and identification with the protagonist
• Change the order, removing descriptions of the place - possibly talk about the Dictators' faces and pasting the bullies over the top, but develop the tone over the original plot
• Possibly ditch the beginning and ending - as these give too much reasoning - buys audience sympathy... I guess through telling
• Think about beginning with the 'primal scene' - that moment when it all turns for him:
  "I was sitting here, minding my own, you know, whispering to Rose in the first row that I'd heard she'd put out for Julian Satiety, when Mr... answered the door to a year 7 student with a note.
  'Excuse me,' he said, and I replied, 'You're excused, Sir.'
  I hadn't meant anything by; it got a laugh from the class, but when Mr... came back in he looked fuming. 'Your mother says when you return to the Bates Motel tonight,' he said, staring right at me, like he'd had enough, 'keep your socks on, she's fed up of your cold feet in her bed'...

Beats

So, here I am rewriting one of my short stories into a Monologue, whilst bearing in mind what my tutor has told me:

... you will need to do a lot of filtering to pitch your work for speaking actors... you need greater economy in indicating space and time, and you need to pace the pieces around what playwrights call ‘beats’ – the changes of direction which give a performer a clue to mood and keep the audience on their toes...

http://wondering-mind.blogspot.com/2007/03/professional-development-collaborative.html

http://www.ehow.com/tips_5213.html has this to say about beats in a Monologue:

Divide your monologue into "beats." Within each beat, analyze your
character's objective, actions, and emotions. A beat changes every time the character's objective changes. Beats usually work best when analyzing an entire script.

But, I also found the following on: http://dannystack.blogspot.com/2005/12/beat-sheets.html:

‘Beats’ are the dramatic structure of your scene. They help build to the
point and purpose of what you want to establish.

Perhaps a better example would be the Ghostbusters scene I referred to a few posts back when we meet Peter and Ray for the first time. The purpose of the scene is to introduce them as characters, show that they’re involved in the paranormal and get them to the library where the ghost has appeared.

But the drama/comedy of the scene is played out with Peter trying to impress a vacuous blonde with his paranormal test and Ray coming in spoiling his moves before they go on their way. The scene has three beats.

Beat 1: Peter tries to impress the blonde by favouring her answers over the geek who he supplies with electric shocks and the geek, fed up, leaves.

Beat 2: Peter moves in on the blonde, buttering her up for his seduction.

Beat 3: Ray bounds in, interrupts, and forces Peter to dump the blonde so that they can check out the ghost in the library.

It's important to note that a 'beat' is not an exchange of dialogue. They're mini-beats if you like, to help progress to the proper beat. For
example, Peter, the blonde and the geek go through a few funny exchanges but the beat is for Peter to impress the blonde and be alone with her.

In writing for soaps, quite often you are given the “story beats” of the serial element. For example, you may get the story line: “John goes to tell Sarah that he’s impotent but he can’t quite summon the courage. Sheila and Maria prepare to adopt their first child together.” Etc. So, as the writer, you’re looking at this outline, and these story beats, and thinking of how to break it down into small dramatic beats of action so that you can do each scene justice.

I don’t know a lot of writers who actually take the time and bother to write a full ‘beat sheet’ (where you list the scene’s purpose and its relevant beats). Crikey, sometimes an outline and treatment can be hard enough without having to go to this much detail. But if you attempt a scene by scene breakdown or a ‘step outline’ then this is essentially expressing the key beats of what’s happening and how it’s going to be dramatised.

In writing for TV, it’s invaluable and obligatory, and perhaps if we all took the time to do it with our features then our scripts would have that extra edge of efficiency, drive and purpose to make the characters and drama truly stand out.

So, I need to pay heed to this in my screenplay also. Gah! Should have guessed this... McKee's been talking on and on about it in Story. It's about time I re-read that too.

Professional Development - Collaborative Project

As part of the National Academy of Writing, we've got to do a Professional Development encompasing teaching, collaborative arts and maintaining a diary of learning. There's a lot of work involved (justly) as it covers up to two years. I've decided to take the bull by the horns and look into the collaborative element with respect to getting something done and ready for the New Generation Arts Festival (in June - whoah!).

I was wondering how I should go about linking my ideas together and getting some kind of ball rolling... perhaps I should mention what I'm considering:

I have written three 1,500 word short stories that can be turned into monologues. Their unifying themes are the 'trials of childhood':

• The courtship of two sixthform students (my original submission for entry to NAW)
• A bullied student seeks revenge on his classmates
• A daughter pieces together her mother's reasons for hating her dead father (originally the 1,000 word Fanny and Alexander improvisation).

I'm thinking of writing a 4th to wrap it all up, but have yet to plan it. Each one takes roughly 10 minutes to read out and my thoughts so far on tying it all together would be one actor/actress to read each monologue a-la a kind of Alan Bennett "Talking Heads" with basic set pieces and possibly projections of images relating to what the actors are saying - either representing the truth of the words, visual metaphors, or juxtaposed imagery.

My tutor for this module has these thoughts:

This sounds interesting in principle and would be a good project to pursue with some student actors. I’d need to see the material you’ve written, though. The word ’link’ always arouses suspicion and I think you might need to find a sharper focus for what you want to do.

Maybe I should say they're "Three separate stories on the trials of childhood".

If it’s to work as a performance there has to be a strong thread, and looking at your pieces individually I’d say you will need to do a lot of filtering to pitch your work for speaking actors. On this, I recommend two books, both of which you can order from Amazon: Anne Hart’s How to Write Plays, Monologues and Skits and Laura Harrington’s 100 Monologues. The latter is an anthology designed (if memory serves) for drama school auditions but it’s a great source of examples and ideas. At the moment you need greater economy in indicating space and time, and you need to pace the pieces around what playwrights call ‘beats’ – the changes of direction which give a performer a clue to mood and keep the audience on their toes. Think of a beat as lasting about 30 seconds! I’d start with the bullying piece.

So, more to think about, on top of planning my screenplay. Perhaps this module should wait till next year.

My Portfolio from the Qualifying Module

Finally got back my graded work. I think it's pertinent now to have a look at what I'm doing well and not so well:

62% (which in Degree standard is just within the 2:1 boundary... I could have done a lot better by putting more effort into it - oh woe is my ego).

Achievement of Learning Outcomes/Criteria
The strongest piece here is 3,000 words, where it is clear Richard has used the Workshop process extremely well to critically evaluate and improve his writing. All of the work shows some flair, promise (at least I think it's promise) and aptitude, technically good all round. The Fanny and Alexander pieces are pheraps least developed. Richard engaged extremely well with the Workshop process and showed a very good critical awareness of aspects of writing.

How this work might be improved
Development of voice, pace, work on sentence rhythm and structure. Issues more of finish and further iterations of the work, rather than any larger issues.

Performance Report
Richard made an extremely positive contribution to discussions and activities over the course of the week and I was left with the impression that he knew a lot about writing and reading. He has also been a very active moodler since the end of the week.

Richard's work shows a good deal of promise, and he seems aware of what he wants to achieve and ways he might begin to get there. He was very knowledgeable about contemporary literature and I felt he was taking marketing into account when he worked with his ideas, which were also strong.

Richard had read other people's work very well indeed and gave excellent, insightful feedback. He was very open to suggestions about hiw own work too. A very promising candidate

Hand written Note
Writing good throughout - slightly clumsy in places on Fanny and Alexander piece.

Press release is excellent, though, as is the way student has used feedback to produce a much improved piece of prose.

My response to the assessment
Obviously, I'm dead chuffed with this. It's the best bit of feedback I've ever got from any course (erm... well, I did get very good feedback on my Counselling Skills course too). Clearly, I'm able to collect my thoughts based upon crits, and use the best and most workable ideas to improve my writing. I fell down on Fanny and Alexander simply because I didn't put as much effort into it, but shoving the ego aside, I did find it difficult to adapt someone else's story, and match the emotion - but then, no comment has been passed on any inability to hold a reader's emotion - I think I relied too much on adverbs and a few tells in that respect.

My development lies here: "voice, pace, work on sentence rhythm and structure." It is said that "Issues more of finish and further iterations of the work, rather than any larger issues", but at present that is little consolation. As Solvejg said the exact same thing the last time he critted my work, I find this my greatest obstacle.

But at least, let's hope, I'm steady on this one track and I'm not going to flounce off back into some other erroneous area. Next step, to look at Solvejg's full critique on The Library Book's first chapter.

Screenwriting 102(5) - Creativity

Good advice for any and all writers, from Andy Conway:

Write the first draft of your work from the wells of inspiration and creativity. Worry not about the adherenece to structure, schema, paradigms or theme.

Problems are solved by the act of writing, not planning and thinking.