In a message dated 2/13/01 11:49:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc@bas.ac.uk writes:
<< This is because a book is like a cake and a script is like a recipe for a cake. A script which actually contained all the worked-out detail of a finished artistic product would look hellishly overwritten, with nothing for the director or performers to do. >>
Exactly! That was my point. You can't write a short story or a novel the same way that a script is written. You can attempt to make the story "visual," in a sense, but if you try to duplicate a script, you're going to end up with a badly written piece of fiction.
Annie
Ashton7@aol.com wrote:
Exactly! That was my point. You can't write a short story or a novel the same way that a script is written. You can attempt to make the story "visual," in a sense, but if you try to duplicate a script, you're going to end up with a badly written piece of fiction.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible to go to far in the opposite direction. Some of the things I really like about B7 are the subtlety of the characterizations, the multiple layers of meaning in the things they say to each other, the fact that they *don't* sit around discussing their emotions like touchy-feely Trek characters. In attempting to make everything explicit in dialog, it's very easy to completely ruin all of that, and make the characterizations feel wrong, to boot. It's a difficult balance to achieve, really.
-
Ashton7＠aol.com -
Betty Ragan