THE STORY VAULT BLOG

Page 2 of The Story Vault Blog

Why I Don’t Recommend Screenwriting Books

I’ve read at least a dozen books on screenwriting over the years and I can honestly say that the only really useful thing any of them taught me was screenplay formatting. I’m sure there are professional screenwriters who will tell you that screenwriting books were really helpful to them early in their career pursuits. And I’m not telling writers that they shouldn’t read these books. I’m only saying that for me they have not proved beneficial.

There is a major disconnect between the way these manuals teach the craft of screenwriting and the way my brain works. Screenwriting books generally present a script as a collection of parts that must be dealt with separately. Take the matter of theme, for example. The standard representation is that the writer should decide on a theme prior to beginning the story and that character, dialogue and action should be tailored to fit this theme. When I take that approach my writing becomes wooden: it’s functional, but not alive, like a marionette.

My approach is very different. When I begin a story I don’t even think about theme. I’m imagining a character in a situation, taking action. This is story. And theme will naturally emerge from story. Rather than allowing theme to guide story and plot, I allow theme to be discovered organically through the development of story and plot.

In 2024 I become a much better writer due to a decision I made. I discarded everything I thought I’d learned — all the rules and guidelines — deciding they were largely irrelevant. In their place I created four new guidelines for myself:

Create characters that actors will give their eye teeth to play
Keep the reader wanting to turn the page
Play to your strengths
Have fun

These are my rules for writing fiction.

They won’t work for everyone.

Writers who think very analytically are unlikely to be successful with this approach. But for the synthesist thinker this approach can be incredibly liberating, unleashing a level of creativity that leads to a richness of writing they would not otherwise achieve.

As a side note: when I decided to tackle screenwriting again I thought back to the one screenplay of the many I'd written that I was proud of: Handle With Care. I recalled how it came about. I was a member of Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope Virtual Studios. Another writer challenged me to a competition: who could write a first draft in the shortest time. The only rule was you had to try to make it good - you couldn't just put anything down on paper to get to Fade Out.

I wrote the first draft of Handle With Care in 11 days. I won the competition by 3 or 4 hours. There was no time for extensive planning. I didn't over-analyze the premise, I didn't engage in my usual obsession with act breaks occurring around a certain page count, I didn't worry about theme, I just wrote. Those 4 rules I posted earlier...I followed those. (When I looked at the script again it ran 113 pages. My first thought: "Why is this 113 pages? It doesn't need to be 113 pages." I set a goal of cutting it down to 105 pages. I brought it down to 99 without losing anything essential. But the story, characters, dialogue, thematically, emotional payoff...that's all the same.)

What About Theme?

There are screenwriting teachers and gurus who recommend establishing your theme before you put the first word of your story on "paper" - and that everything we write should serve the theme. I've tried to write this way. It doesn't work for me. I need theme to develop organically from character and story.

I came across an interview with Sam Boyer (which appears in The Blacklist blog) who wrote the original screenplay “Ojek” which won a 2022 Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting. Here’s what he has to say about theme:

Scott: How about theme? You strike me as someone who, when you are writing the script, think thematically. Like money and morality, and that sort of thing. Is that stuff that’s more upfront, or is that stuff you discover along the way?

Sam: Man, saying I think of it upfront makes me seem smarter, more cerebral than I really am. And I’m not really sure I do think of theme at the very outset.

When I’m sitting down to write something, it’s always…I start with concept, what this story is about in a couple of lines. I do start off the logline. Then, I do try to think of the characters, and what themes they could play with from there. Sometimes, it surprises me.

A lot of theme, at least in my scripts, is one of those things I almost discover in retrospect, but I try to keep the character journeys front of mind.

In an interview professional screenwriter Paul Goyut said:

Every great story has a solid theme. I don't think you need to start with that because I don't. My brain isn't big enough that I can sit down and say I'm going to create a story about redemption or betrayal or, you know, whatever. I come from character first and I'm firmly in the camp that plot doesn't exist without character. For me those always come later.

Paul Goyut acknowledges that their are professional writers who begin with theme and stresses the importance of having something to say.

Interview with Paul Guyot

In an interview Paul Thomas Anderson said:

It's a mistake I think for a filmmaker to pursue themes, you know, this is a mistake I think themes have to emerge from a story that is based in fact, that is entertaining to an audience and that hopefully has comedic and dramatic possibilities. The themes have to grow quite naturally from that...

If I've ever had a theme in mind usually that's just like the worst. Then you're, yeah, you know you feel yourself, you feel yourself writing and there's nothing worse than that feeling of kind of chasing after a theme and that's always writing at it's worst for me, you know, um, the best things kind of become something and you're just happy it's there.

Interview with Paul Thomas Anderson

Many professional writers say listen to your story, listen to your characters - and through them you, and the audience, will discover the theme.

I have no doubt that many amateur writers can benefit from beginning with a theme. I'm not trying to be prescriptive. I'm merely presenting another point of view.

My pragmatic side says “do whatever works.” Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how you reach your destination, so long as you get there.

Creating An Identity

For many, many years I struggled with the concept of voice. I couldn’t find mine. I couldn’t find my voice because I didn’t know what I was looking for.

I confused voice with style. I thought discovering your voice meant finding your own style like Shane Black—self-aware asides, unconventional descriptions, breaking the “fourth wall.” That’s all good and fine if you can pull it off, but it’s not voice. Voice can influence style, but it’s not the same thing.

Voice is how you view and interpret the world. Your view might be dark, light, satirical, optimistic, pessimistic, simple, complex, political, apolitical, spiritual…maybe you see life as a tragedy or a glorious adventure…maybe you see yourself as victimized or as a powerful agent of change. The lens through which you view the world is your voice as a writer.

Establishing Your Identity

To find your voice determine what you bring to a story that is uniquely you.

At one time I saw myself as an action-adventure writer. Once I found my voice I realized I could incorporate just about any genre.

In 2024 I asked myself “what are my greatest strengths as a writer: what do I do really well?”

Create quirky or offbeat characters and provide them with unusual dilemmas
Write stylized, bantering dialogue
Devise creative action set pieces

What did this tell me?

My voice does not lend itself to dark realism. I’m not going to write Ordinary People or Kramer vs. Kramer or Awakenings or The Black Swan. I’m more hopeful. I recognize the absurdity that dwells even in very serious events and situations. And most of my stories are ultimately about identity and belonging.

Writers will typically sell themselves (or be sold) as specialists in a specific genre. That’s not what I offer. I bring three talents to almost any genre: horror, drama, action, science-fiction, crime, espionage…I will infect it and mutate it like a virus—but not a deadly virus. I create a symbiotic relationship. And with luck the new organism will thrive.

What I have to sell is my voice. Is there a market for it? Well, we’ll see. But at least I found it.

My Three Favourite Foreign Films

Amélie (Original title: Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain) 2001

Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Writers: Guillaume Laraunt | Jean-Pierre Jeunet

I found myself very depressed after the events of 9/11. I was overcome with despair...a gloom descended over me that I could not shake. In early January...it might have been January 1...I went to see Amélie. The movie had a profound effect on me. It restored my sense of hope.

My whimsical nature, my acknowledgement of the absurdity of life - these were things that I had lost, but they were restored by Guillaume Laurant and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. For the first time since September I felt we could recover from 9/11...that we could build a better world.

Tuvalu (1999)

Director: Veit Helmer

Writers: Michaela Beck | Veit Helmer | Lyudmila Merdzhanska

This multicultural production is virtually a silent movie. The version I have has only one word of dialogue (Stop!). Visually it is extraordinary. The film has undertones (overtones?) of early German expressionism. It's poetic and heartwarming.

Stalker (1979)

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

Writers: Arkadiy Strugatskiy | Boris Strugatskiy | Andrei Tarkovsky

Haunting. Stalker blends science-fiction, drama, philosophy and psychology. It's a movie about tortured souls. It moves slowly, but draws you in like a horror film. You find yourself always wondering what is around the next corner, what is behind the next door? And what does it all mean?

Do You Have To Struggle To Be A Good Writer?

I've heard it said that if writing isn't a struggle, you're not a good writer.

What I find is that not writing is the greater struggle. Sometimes I find myself taking care of necessary business and feeling like I can't wait to get it over and done with so I can get back to writing.

That doesn't mean writing isn't hard. It is hard. But if you feel compelled to write then it isn't a struggle. It's like being an athlete - it's a way of life.

Being creative is how I relate to the world. If I stopped being creative I would become disconnected. And that's when the real struggle would begin.

Unexpected Consequences

I've been writing a screen version of my short story The Belmont. In the process of translating it for the screen I keep finding ways to improve the short story version. I find myself bouncing back and forth between the two. This is maddening. It's maddening because I thought I'd made the short story version of The Belmont as good as I could possibly make it.

Original dialogue:

Dr. Benson: “Let me get this straight: you're telling me that’s why you didn’t arrest Eva? She’s the sole remaining firefly? All the other lights have been snuffed out?”

Detective John Doyle: “I just don’t like to work in the dark, Benson.”

Dr. Benson: "Are you sure that's all?"

Detective John Doyle: "What else is there?"

Dr. Benson: "Far be it for me to suggest you're human, but don't tell me that when you go to bed at night you won't be thinking of her."

I was reading this and thinking, "Why does Benson have that line? Dr. Benson is the logical, scientific thinker...who practically psychoanalyzes Doyle (much to his annoyance). That's Doyle's line! He's the one that sees things as a puzzle to be solved!

So...

BENSON

Are you telling me that’s why you didn’t arrest Eva?

DOYLE

She’s the sole remaining firefly. All the other lights have been snuffed out. And I don’t like to work in the dark.

BENSON

Is that all?

DOYLE

Fill me in, doctor.

BENSON

Far be it for me to suggest you're human, but don't tell me that when you go to bed at night you won't be thinking of her.

(And believe me, he will.)

I'm going to end up with a 2026 revision of The Belmont short story. But I'm not going to run it through all of the AI programmes for an updated analysis. This was the biggest adjustment, the others are minor.

I have a bigger challenge. My adaptation is on track to come out at 48 pages. Most short screenplay contests have a limit of 30 or 40 pages. Feature contests require a minimum of 70 or 80 pages. Cutting 18 pages would destroy the story. Adding 22 pages to a 48 page script would be a major undertaking. It's a detective noir/spy thriller set in a hotel in 1933 - is anyone even going to be interested in producing this?

Can I even use it as a writing sample?

Stay tuned. There might be another installment.

Ascending to the Stars

I've been thinking lately of actors that I saw for the first time and who I instantly knew would be stars.

Julia Roberts (Mystic Pizza), Denzel Washington (The Mighty Quinn), John Goodman (Raising Arizona), Winona Ryder (Heathers), Scarlet Johansson (Ghost World), Ryan Reynolds (Foolproof). It's an amazing feeling the first time you see someone who lights up the screen...who is the focus of attention in every scene they're in. There are many talented actors, but some just have an unforgettable presence.

Michael Caine, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, Jackie Chan, Billy Crystal, Brendan Fraser, Ana de Armas, Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Jenna Ortega, Tom Hanks, Jason Statham, Bette Midler, Ryan Gosling, Mathew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Antonio Banderos, Meryl Streep, Mike Myers, Audrey Tautou...the list goes on and on...and that's barely scrapping the last 50 years. But what is it they have? What is that magical quality?

Is there an equivalent for screenwriters? Something on the page that says this writer is going to be a star?

Pushback

Expectedly, I’ve received some pushback to my blog post “Why I Don’t Recommend Screenwriting Books.” The main objection has been that there has to be some rules to dramaturgy and that I’m not really telling people what to do.

Well, the latter is really the point. I’m suggesting what people should do, but not specifically (on a technical level) telling them what to do.

When I say, “Keep the reader turning the page” I mean do whatever is necessary to keep the reader turning the page regardless of whether it breaks rules or not, establishes new ground or treads old ground. Don’t try to force your story to conform to a set of rules because in the process you will suck the life out of it.

If your first turning point needs to be on page 25, put it there. If it needs to be on page 20 or 30, likewise, put it there. If your story benefits from your main character having an arc then give him or her that arc — and if it doesn’t enhance the story, then don’t. Exposition, monologues, voice overs, breaking the fourth wall, non-linear storytelling — perfectly fine if it serves the story and keeps the reader turning the page. There are no rules other than “don’t be boring.”

Do a Google image search for “chair.” You will find chairs with four legs, three legs, with no legs, chairs on wheels; chairs with arm rests, chairs without arm rests; chairs made of wood, plastic, fabric, vinyl and metal; padded chairs, hard chairs; reclining and non-reclining chairs; simple chairs and ornate chairs; chairs with square seats, round seats, oval seats and triangular seats.

Now imagine this was the template, a set of rules, for making a chair:

Must have four legs
Must have two matching armrests
Must be made of wood
Must not have any unnecessary embellishments

Chair shopping would be pretty dull.

Shouldn’t we grant story tellers as much freedom as we grant the designers of chairs?

If all painters followed one set of rules there would be no Picasso, Dali or Monet. And if all writers followed rules there would be no Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, or New French Wave.

Speaking of Christopher Nolan, I was just watching an interview:

I think the only really useful advice I ever got, in terms of, you know, trying to figure out your own way into the film business, the film industry, is to get yourself a script and hang on to it, um, it’s that idea, that concept, whatever that’s going to be, that’s so important…you have to find something that you can do, that maybe other people couldn’t do and even if it seems different or doesn’t fit into other people’s expectations, that’s what’s going to distinguish you if you can do it successfully…You have to play to your strengths, you have to do something that really excites you and whatever’s different about that.

- Christopher Nolan

And there is number three on my list of guidelines: Play to your strengths.

One of the most common things I hear from professional screenwriters is, “There are no rules.” Yet most amateur screenwriters cling to rules like a life preserver on the open Atlantic. And I can understand it. Rules are comforting. Structure is comforting. It’s like having a system for picking winning horses — all that nasty uncertainty is stripped away. Our choices are made simple. Chaos and chance are regulated to the sidelines. We have a proven system. This is going to work. I understand the rules and it puts me ahead of all of those other amateur writers.

I would ask those writers, “does it put you ahead of other amateurs or does it put you behind the professionals?”

I will leave it there…with that simple question.

Lost In Emotion

I uploaded a spec script (not mine) to Mistral and we ended up in a debate. Mistral mentioned "Lost In Translation" to illustrate its point. Later, I began to think about "Lost In Translation" and about Bill Murray.

Murray has made some great comedies like Ghostbusters, Little Shop of Horrors, and Groundhog Day, but when I think of Bill Murray I think of Lost In Translation. There are movies that when you recall them you remember a great scene or an event or outstanding dialogue, but with the really great films and performances you remember the emotion.

When I recall Lost In Translation it's an emotional experience. The story of Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlet Johansson), their circumstances, their situation spark an emotional reaction. I don't recall any of the lines from that movie - and undoubtedly there are many great lines. But I recall the way I felt when I watched that movie.

I hope one day I can write a movie that stays with people that way.

My Thoughts On AI

AI is so controversial. And I don't understand why.

AI can be abused. Horribly abused. When fakes are created, either of celebrities or average people, AI can cause emotional harm that is simply heinous. There's no controversy here. We cannot permit this. Safeguards must be instituted. Punishments for those who circumvent those safeguards must be harsh. This is not controversial.

People who use AI to write stories for them are not writers. This is not controversial.

AI is really bad at writing fiction. Those who fear that AI is a better writer than they are will never be professional writers. They will never be more than hobbyists. I don't think this is controversial.

AI has incredible potential to create benefits for people and society. AI is neither good nor evil. We humans are in control. If the end result is negative it will be only because we allowed our flaws to supersede our better natures.

How Should Writers Use AI?

Hell if I know. I can only tell you how I use it and why.

When I complete a draft I provide the following prompt to ChatGTP, Mistral Chat, and Gemini -

Analyze and rate this screenplay on a scale of 1 - 10, in increments of .1, using the following criteria:

Concept & Premise

Story, Structure & Pacing

Tone, Genre & Originality

Characters & Arc

Dialogue

Action & Visuals

Themes & Resolution

Emotional Impact

Originality & Voice

Overall Cohesion & Rewatch Value

Quality of Writing

Overall Score

The AI returns an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the screenplay along with a set of scores.

Obviously, the evaluation is the more valuable piece of feedback.

I request scores (ratings) so that I can use them to track progress. For example, if my draft is awarded an 8.7 for Character & Arc I can compare this score with the one that my revision receives. If the new score is the same or just .1 higher I know that either I haven't done enough or I've done something wrong. From the re-evaluation alone you can't always tell if you've achieved major progress.

The scores are important - but probably not in the way you think. From my perspective, it really doesn't matter if the score is 9.0 or 9.5. This is just a number awarded by the AI. No one is going to produce a screenplay based on a number produced by Artificial Intelligence. The score is important because it pushes me as a writer. Any time I get a score that is less than 9.0 for any criteria on a screenplay I am highly motivated to boost that score. And the thing is, if I get it to...say a 9.1, and I read the AI's criticisms and I find them valid, then I'm thinking, "if I work hard to strengthen this maybe I can get it to a 9.3 or 9.4."

To put it simply: the AI pushes me to be a better writer.

If the ratings are important only to the process why do I post them on my web site? Honestly, I'm hoping for one of two reactions. Either: A 9.7? Intriguing. I should read this in case it's a hidden gem - or - A 9.7? Who does he think he's kidding? I'm going to read this and debunk this ridiculous, pretentious score!

I don't care which, just so long as the script gets read.

The feedback I get from the AI helps me to write the best possible screenplay I can write. With any luck, people will read my work and they will decide based on their own judgement, the needs of their company, the marketability of the project, the budgetary requirements, and numerous other factors, whether they wish to pursue it or not. I don't have any control over those things. The only thing I control is the quality of my writing.

The reason I use three AI programmes is that each has different strengths and weaknesses. One might pick up on a flaw that the other two miss. it has happened. On the other hand, if all three identify a specific strength I can be fairly confident that I have nailed that criteria.

Is AI infallible? No. Absolutely not. But neither are humans. I've had human readers miss things that were clear to all three AIs. In response, I revise that thing so that it's clearer for humans. (I always recommend that once a writer has gone as far as he/she can go with AI analysis they get at least one human to read their script because, in the end, that's your audience. And that human reader will often pick up on something the AI has overlooked.) AI analysis should compliment, not replace, human feedback. But instead of paying money to a reader to analyze your first draft, get it in the best possible shape you can.

Occasionally, I test the AIs by feeding them a produced screenplay. And here is where you start to learn about the "character" of each of the AI programmes. For instance, I uploaded Beetlejuice to ChatGTP - it returned very high scores and high praise. I really enjoyed the movie when I first came out, but I was aware of a number of weaknesses, none of which ChatGTP addressed. And this is where I have to tell people, don't be afraid to challenge the AI. If you make a good argument it will acknowledge it. If not, it will stand its ground (particularly ChatGTP and Gemini). I pointed out that the first half of the screenplay lacked an antagonist. And that the protagonists weren't all that interesting and were lacking in terms of character arc. Also, that the pace of much of the first half of the screenplay was a little slow (but saved by the visuals). And finally that the tone of the movie and the goal of the protagonists (initially it's to frighten the Deetz's so they will leave they house and then it shifts to preventing Beetlejuice from marrying Lydia) shifts with the beginning of act three.

ChatGTP agreed with my criticisms. I asked it to rerun its analysis without taking into account the films box office, critical reviews, Tim Burton's direction, or Michael Keaton's amazing performance. It told me it could do that.

The scores it returned were a little lower, but I still felt they were too high. So I challenged it again. And what did it do? It admitted that it can't entirely forget those things that I asked it to ignore. But it offered to run another analysis treated the Beetejuice script as a cold read of a spec screenplay, in the same way that it would evaluate one of my screenplays. I told it go ahead.

The results were much closer to how I would have rated the screenplay...though it did mention Tim Burton.

So now when I upload a produced script to an AI I specify that I want treated like "a cold read of a spec screenplay." Even then, you won't totally get that. But you'll get something that's close.

It's important, if you want good results from an AI, to be specific.

This is just my opinion, but I feel ChatGTP is the best AI to use for screenplay analysis. It's the best at detecting nuance and tends to go into detail. And the more times you use it on a project the more detailed (and pickier) it becomes.

Mistral and Gemini are tied for second best. Gemini is valuable in that it will sometimes identify flaws/weaknesses that the other two miss, but it's also more prone to make mistakes. For example, if you create a moment that is intended to surprise your reader/audience for dramatic effect it will dock you for not setting up the surprise. Now, if I explain the reason the event is not set up it recognizes the story logic and corrects the ratings - but there is always the prospect that it is making errors than you are not made aware of. Gemini will not always flag every flaw it identifies. This makes the ratings it awards a little less useful.

Another error it made with the same script was to flag as implausible the order in which events in a particular scene occurred. The trouble is, it switched the order of those events. In the script A comes before B - Gemini read it as B comes before A.

Gemini is more "by the book" than ChatGTP. With ChatGTP if you break a general rule it will look to see if there's a strong justification for it. This is what I mean when I say it is good at identifying nuance.

Mistral tends to be overly generous in its ratings. As a result, I never post the highest ratings it gives for my work. Nevertheless, the feedback it provides is quite valuable and it doesn't make very many errors. I sometimes get into a debate with it over its analysis of a someone's spec screenplay that I've shared with it and find that it makes some good points and advances my knowledge of story telling.

New versions of these AIs are always being introduced. The scripts I'm showcasing on this site (as of January 24/2026) have been evaluated with Gemini 2.5. Since then Gemini 3.0 has been introduced. I find that Gemini 3.0 scores scripts much lower than its predecessor even when the quality of the written feedback is the same. In other words, it isn't that quality of the screenplay has changed, it's just that a tougher scoring...um...what's the word? The scoring is tougher. Which is fine. It's the analysis that's important. The only thing that changes is it doesn't make much sense to average out scores across the board anymore.

AI tends to struggle with identifying page count and also with identifying turning points. Oddly enough, they don't have any problem identifying three act structure. It's only the specific events that constitute act breaks that they have a problem identifying. If it's important, you need to tell them where the act breaks are.

It's important to be aware of limitations that are built in AI. With Mistral I can upload an entire pdf of a screenplay in one go. Not so with ChatGTP and Gemini. Due to data upload limits I have to break a screenplay into 3 parts when uploading to ChatGTP and 4 parts when uploading to Gemini. I add the prompt, "I'm uploading the screenplay in 'x' parts. This is part one...this is part two, etc." To be certain the entire screenplay is being analyzed I will sometimes ask the AI if it has received "the entire screenplay, from Fade In to Fade Out." If the AI has received only a portion of the screenplay it will not necessarily tell you.

The better you understand the quirks, characteristics, strengths and limitations of the AI the better it will serve you.

So that's my (unemotional) assessment of how writers can use AI to improve their story telling skills. I don't think I've proposed anything controversial. I feel, used properly, AI can raise the quality of movie and television productions and make life a little easier for managers, agents, producers and executives.

Return to Page One

Go to Page 3

THE STORY VAULT BLOG

Pushback

​