Luck Of The Devil... The Red Planet Draws Near...

Had a nice li'l surprise the other day. On June 29, I attended the BECTU Freelancers' Fair. Among the many intriguing stalls was that of Production Base, the insider's network for film, television and commercial production. I entered a competition to win a free year's subscription, and ended up winning. Hooray for me. So I've just signed up: looks like pretty useful stuff.

The Power Of Three process on my Red Planet Prize script is nearing its end now, in the third round. Took a bit of a bashing from one of my PO3 folks this morning, and led them to think I was fine about it. When in fact I'm writing this from their garden shed, where I'm loading up on guns. In all seriousness, though, I do seem to be pretty good with criticism. It's certainly not because I disregard it; not in the slightest. Guess I just see it as a firmly professional thing, as opposed to anything vaguely personal. I'm also realistic about how I'm still absorbing the craft, and how fiercely I want to learn more. One thing's for sure: you don't learn much from people in rose-tinted spectacles. Besides, they're out of fashion.

Doctor Who Mag #385, Power Of Three, Apostrophes & the Best Antiseptic Cream Ever

Doctor Who Magazine smashed headlong into UK shelves today. It features my eight-page article on the special effects of Series Three's last three episodes, collectively known as The Master Trilogy. There's also a bit of brief Episode 13 on-set reportage from me. Buy it at once! As I've said before, I swear it'll be of interest, even if you're not especially into the series, thanks to its wealth of information about how TV shows are made.

The first round of Power Of Three is complete: I started to make changes before the third response came back, partly because of the Red Planet Prize's September 1 deadline and partly because I'm impatient. But as usual, each and every person has delivered vital information/questions about the script. As well as consensus on some weak points (one scene on a bus is so destined for the cutting-room floor, for instance), there also seems to be a consensus that the central story idea is strong, which is encouraging.

Lucy ran an interesting piece today about writers who are offended and/or disheartened by frank PO3 critiques. To partly repeat my comment on her post, we surely need to have thicker skins than that. A PO3 person's critique is either right (and therefore useful) or wrong (and therefore well-intentioned, but ultimately irrelevant if you disagree). The only irritation I've felt after a PO3 round has been with myself, for not seeing the flaws which others have had the objectivity to point out. But when you're chipping away at the coalface, you can't see the wood for the trees (God knows what a wood's doing in this mine), and therein lies the joy of PO3.

I've had nothing but good experiences with the system so far. One PO3 helper critiqued a script of mine to high heaven, to the extent that they subsequently wrote again to apologise, having re-read their own blunt missive! It didn't offend me in the slightest, though, because they were giving me great feedback. So for what it's worth, I'd say this: forget the way in which the feedback's phrased or couched, and concentrate on drawing the maximum value from the feedback itself. That's the whole point. Besides, no-one agrees to be a PO3 helper in order to belittle or upset you, unless they're seriously in need of a life! And if their feedback carries a slightly weary tone - almost a creeping resentment at having agreed to read your work and being disappointed by its quality - then maybe that's just your fault. Accept it. Improve that script. The next draft will inevitably be better.

God Almighty: apostrophes. I'm not sure what's going on out there in the world: maybe a whole generation of people who couldn't be bothered to learn about apostrophe useage has recently spilled out into positions of copywriting power. I'm no grammatical god, but it really seems that so many people see a word ending in 's' and think, "Blimey, I'd best stick an apostrophe in there". I've noticed incorrect apostrophes and general typos all over the place lately, from fairground signs to newspaper articles to antiseptic cream packaging (more about this brilliant cream in a minute). I even saw a ludicrous typo on a BBC One between-programmes page: the word 'subtitles' being spelt 'sutitles'. Whats' going on? And yes, that was a deliberate misuse of an apostrophe.

Right, then. What's so great about this antiseptic cream, produced by Galpharm Medical? Well, in truth it's not the cream itself, but the packaging. For a start, there's a textbook apostrophe fuck-up in the shape of this:

Help's to prevent infection.

But best of all, here's a snippet from the instructions:

Avoid contact with eyes, ears, brain and surrounding membranes...

Call me picky, but if your brain's exposed, then antiseptic cream is probably a bolted horse/locked stable door interface. Hmmm?

Power Of Three: the dilemma

Over the next month, we scribosphere bloggers will naturally be whizzing our Red Planet Prize scripts to each other, for a little Power Of Three action. Critiques, questions, opinions, denial, editing, tears, paper, ink and blood will fly like crazy geese.

Here's a question which might be worth a mini-debate: should we send our PO3-helpers those first 10 pages, or the whole script (provided it exists)? Even though the first 10 pages seems sensible, as this is what the first-round readers will see, isn't there the chance that a PO3 person might spot something later in the full script which should be dragged/flagged/foreshadowed up-front, making for a better 10 pages? I welcome opinions. Forge them with your nimble fingertips.

PS As an anonymous poster recently pointed out, somewhere or other, the Red Planet comp seems to have changed its stance on multiple entries. They're now permissible. I say that our one entry should be sufficiently brilliant, in order to win.

You're All Going To Die, Done And Dusted. Possibly.

My short horror-comedy script You're All Going To Die has taken longer to complete than I anticipated. Many drafts, many changes. God only knows how I made the finals of 2004's British Short Screenplay Competition with a script which had barely seen a few revisions. Must've been a really slow year for them...

This was my first experience with the Power Of Three system, and it really works. Every single one of my nine readers delivered very helpful notes, which helped reshape the screenplay. I discovered that if one person makes a criticism, you consider it; but if several people concur, then it really needs to be changed. For instance, today I made a drastic final edit to the script, chopping it down from 15 minutes to 10, as a fair few readers said it either took too long to get going, or was just plain over-long. It's much, much better with a third (aptly) slashed out of it. Hopefully it's now finished. I'll naturally wait until early next week before sending it off to the competition, though.

So let's hear it for my Power Of Three folk, as follows...

ROUND ONE: Potdoll, Good Dog, Pillock.
ROUND TWO: Oliver Jeffery, David Bishop, Anne-Marie (who doesn't have a blog, but really should).
ROUND THREE: Laura Anne Anderson, Stuart Perry, Piers Beckley.

Power Of Three: just to clarify...

A fellow writer asked me about Adrian Mead's Power Of Three system, so I assume other people might be interested. There's also a matter in which I'm unclear. So here we go...

In Adrian's excellent London day-class, a couple of months back, he gave us a template for progressing and polishing your script using other people's critiques. The Power Of Three system involves giving the first draft (or whenever you're ready to show it, in my own view) to three readers, who give feedback. You act on it - especially on points over which there is a consensus - then give the second draft to three more readers. Then the third draft goes to yet more readers. Bingo! It shines like a new fifty pence piece.

A fellow writer asked me how much notes/coverage these Power Of Three readers give, and I didn't have an answer. In the first round which I just did, the notes/coverage varied considerably. All were extremely useful, I'm pleased to say, but the actual volume and detail really differed from person to person. So I'm tempted to say it's really a matter of (a) how much time people are willing or able to spend; and/or perhaps (b) how much time they are inspired to spend on writing notes.

I hunger for views on this. Feed my face.

Anyone For Power-Of-Three?

Now then, I've got this here Doomsayer short-script. It's 16 pages long, which means it needs a little trimming if I'm going to enter it into the British Short Screenplay Competition.

I'd love three people-with-writer's-blogs to have a read and give me some feedback. Apart from the usual 'Did you enjoy it?' stuff, I'd especially like to know if it hangs together, tonally. Horror-comedy can be tricky to pull off, so I'd obviously like to get it right. Please don't pull your punches, either - I like the direct approach. Remind me of that, when I'm crying in a pool of Jack Daniels...

First three writers-blog-types to comment (obviously provided they're offering to read the script and not just hurling abuse), will get the pdf, the lucky lucky bastards! And naturally, if they want, I will return the favour on a piece of their work.

God, this could be embarrassing, if no-one sticks their paw up. Then again, it is Friday evening...