Screenwriter and novelist Brooks Wachtel discusses detective fiction and his challenging switch from screen to book and the importance of serious research.
Ya Ya Ya: How did you get started writing?
Brooks: I have always been a story-teller. It is simply part of me and always has been. In elementary school I wrote and performed in backyard plays. In Jr. High School I was put, without requesting it, into a typing class... let's just say, it turned out to be exceedingly useful in my future career. When I was a student at Hollywood High School, I wrote a 45 minute Sherlock Holmes spoof which my student film group shot that summer at world famous The Magic Castle.
When I started working in television, writing became how I made a living. While there are certainly stresses and frustrations, what a fun ride it has been. However, after three decades of writing television scripts, I wanted to try something new.
I decided to try my hand at writing a novel. It was a new challenge and exciting... and, unlike every one of my work-for-hire television assignments - this was mine!
Ya Ya Ya: How does a novel differ from a screenplay?
Brooks: Getting into novels was a very different direction. Before Lady Sherlock was a novel, it was a screenplay that never sold—alas—but landed me many television (and screenplay) assignments. When I reread it several years later, I felt it was too good a story to languish in a drawer and only be seen by a few producers and story-editors. As I reacquainted myself with the script, I felt it had the makings of a novel. I’ve been writing scripts for decades and was looking for something new. Little did I know what vast changes lay ahead…
I thought, "How hard can this be? I would just change the format from script to prose, add 'he said, she said' and would elaborate on the descriptions." Which I did. The end result was a novelized screenplay - NOT a novel. However, my friend Rich Mueller, who has worked in both novels and screenplays encouraged me. The real breakthrough came when I started working with my amazing editor, Shari Goodhartz.
We delved deeper into the story, the characters and the world they inhabit. After a dozen drafts, each one more layered, more detailed, I felt, the story evolved into a genuine novel.
However, there were many aspects of screen-writing that were transferable to novels; structure, crafting dialogue, the ability to define character quickly and distinctly, visual writing, creating action sequences, etc. and those skills were useful and found a place in the book. Writing is writing; technique may differ from format to format but the core is the same. Some of the differences I noted; screenplays only relate what you can see and hear and are always written in present tense. A good script should give the impression of the film being screened as you read. A novel can deal with so much more.
One if the first questions that came up was deciding the voice of the novel? Who is telling the tale? That is not an issue in a screenplay which is always written third person, but an important decision in a book. One hint was that the script had a framing story, which I kept, so the bulk of the story was told in flashback by the main characters daughter, now an old woman. Taking a page from H.G.Wells, one of my favorite authors, I started the story with a framing chapter written in third person and shifted to first person as the flashback - the bulk of the book - is being told.
By having a story which takes place in 1906, told by Tasha's daughter in 1982 I was able to get the immediacy of a first person narrative while using the narrator's personality to add humor (she's pretty feisty - like her mother), historical perspective and personal observations as well as stylistically recall the tone of a novel written in the Edwardian period. My hope is that the book, with its period flavor and illustrations will be an immersive experience and help step the reader back in time.
It was quite a learning curve to switch gears from one literary form to another. The transition from a screenplay, which is a foundation for another work (the film), to a novel, which is a final creation in and of itself, was hard work and a lot of fun.
Ya Ya Ya: What is unique about writing for animation?
Brooks: All film writing should be visual writing, but animation is even more so. You have to think and write visually. With a few exceptions, talking heads aren’t going to cut it in animation. And why should they? One question to ask yourself is, “why should this story be animated?” If it could be told better in live-action, make it live-action. But, if you are dealing with elements that would be hard pressed to pull-off live-action, then your canvas is animation.
I just attended a screening of “The Princess and the Frog” which was the last Disney cell-animated feature. In the course of the story, the two main characters become talking frogs. They interact with a firefly and jazz-playing alligator who both become important characters in the course of the story. Now, you could accomplish that with CGI and place them in a live-action context… but I venture it would have far less charm – and be far less believable – than the 2D animated version.
And then there is the technique of writing for animation. An animation script stages and describes in far more detail than current live-action scripts. For instance, you can’t just write that Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus fight; you have to stage the fight. There won’t be stunt-men to work it out. That choreography is up to you and, eventually, the story-board artist.
Descriptions of backgrounds and settings should be detailed and inspire the layout team. In many ways an animation script resembles a screenplay from golden-age Hollywood; before directors objected that any staging on the part of the writer was stepping on their “vision.” Animation scripts, by necessity, direct on paper to a degree not allowed in current live-action screenplay writing. As a writer, and the first person to see the film – on the back of my eyelids – I enjoy being able to express the film I envision in that kind of detail.
A final thought. Much of television animation is aimed at kids. That has its own limitations and challenges, which range from making certain your script is age-appropriate, to dealing with Broadcast Standards and Practices censorship which can be more intrusive than in prime-time. However, never write down to kids. If they sense that – and they will – they will tune you out in a second.
Ya Ya Ya: You do lots of things: magic, art and write. How do you balance all that?
Brooks: Writing is how I make my living, however I teach a screenwriting course at the UCLA Extension School (having just starting my fourteenth year). Or as I explain, I try to discourage eager young minds from becoming my competition (or if they get ahead in the business, they better pay back that "A" and hire me! ;)
Seriously, I love teaching and have been blessed with some wonderful students. Teaching writing gets me back in touch with the fundamentals of the craft. I am learning as much as my students.
I am also on the Steering Committee of the Animation Writer's Caucus of the Writer's Guild of America, the Hollywood High School Alumni board and the membership committee of the Magic Castle. On a less frequent basis, I also utilize my skill set as a photographer and graphic artist. Years ago I did story-boards, mostly for commercials and live-action films (my first paid job in entertainment was right out of high school when I did story-boards for the Star Trekanimated series). Recently I have started acting in commercials. It has been fun to be on the other side of the camera for a change. I also love performing magic and, while I have done stage-shows, my main arena is close-up magic with a deck of cards.
Ya Ya Ya: What things have made you a better writer?
Brooks: Living life. Listening. Reading. Exploring.
Ya Ya Ya: Do you have a writing routine?
Brooks: My work schedule evolved as a television writer facing exceedingly short deadlines. Typically I start in the morning and work until lunch, take a long break and then start again in the late afternoon and work through evening.
Of course, as a freelancer, the deadline is sacrosanct (and I have never missed one), so if you have to pull an all-nighter, that's part of the game. Fortunately they are very few. I once had to write a half-hour action show in three days. It had lots of action, and in an animation script that has to be staged. It was three acts and I did one act a day. Then finally got some sleep.
Television deadlines for a half-hour action-adventure show would often be a week for a first draft. I got used to that kind of pressure. It was like being in a foot race; the starting gun fires and I start running. A week for the outline, notes, a week for the first draft, a few days later more notes, three or four days for the second draft, more notes, a few days for the polish and I am done... and exhausted.
I realized that kind of intensity was not going to work for a longer form like a novel so I relaxed. Again, compared to television it is a whole new world and even after all these drafts I am still settling in. I have to force myself to take it easier. It has been a luxury to not be on an imposed deadline and using my own discipline to hone and complete the book. Another major difference I discovered was "notes." In TV and film you get notes - LOTS of notes from lots of people. They are sometimes pointless, occasionally story-shredding and, as they come from different sources, disturbingly contradictory.
And they cannot be ignored.
There's a saying that the first draft belongs to the writer and after that your job is to save the script. That was refreshingly absent from the novel process. My editor and I discussed the story, WordFire Press gave notes (and good ones), but it was vastly different from television. I could use the ones I felt useful to improve the story and not go through convulsions trying to twist the story to fit bad notes - of which there were none - into the final piece. It was wonderfully liberating.
Ya Ya Ya: Do you create an outline before you write?
Brooks: Always. For me, trying to write a story without an outline is like trying to construct a house without a blueprint. Structure is vital. It is building the house - the rest is what color is the paint and trim and what kind of curtains will decorate the windows. The color and curtains make it look nice, but without the structure, the edifice will collapse.
It is a tool from my screenwriting career - in television detailed outlines have to be approved by the story-editor, production company and network before you can proceed to first draft. As a novelist I don't have to answer to networks or producers but still appreciate outlines. In my UCLA Extension writing class I always stress the importance of outlines in working out the story. Otherwise you can really get lost, travel down dead-ends and waste a lot of time. I know there are writers who just hit the keyboard and plow ahead - but I don't think I could ever work that way. I need to know where I'm going.
The fantastic experience of writing a book has allowed me to use my decades of script writing for the purpose of a novel. As a writer, I think we continually evolve creatively in many ways. Sometimes it's because of all of our life's experiences and perspective that continuously shift and change.
Ya Ya Ya: What do you consider your artistic roots?
Brooks: As Sherlock Holmes observed, “Art in the blood is liable to take the strangest forms.” My Mother was an artist and my Father also loved the arts. My Grandfather loved Opera. I probably was encouraged by my parents.
Ya Ya Ya: What do you read?
Brooks:Fiction. Non-fiction. Articles. Labels. Billboards. I think you can follow the general trend.
Ya Ya Ya: How much history research do you do about the period (1890s?)?
Brooks: I've always had a love of history (and have incorporated that into my non-fiction work as well) so it was a thrill putting that knowledge and interest to work in these documentary shows. Perhaps I got that fascination as a child. My father was a career Naval aviator, so that kind of upbringing is deeply associated with the past and left its mark on me.
That interest has paid off well professionally. I co-created the series “DogFights” about air combat for The History Channel (they used to do history) and have done other history based documentaries. A good knowledge of the past has helped in ways I never imagined, even when writing contemporary or futuristic stories. The wheel turns slowly but the same spoke always comes up again.
I read books about and from the period (a book written in that era will present lots of day-to-day details of life that might be overlooked in a history book written generations later), study old photos, maps and films… whatever I can find to immerse myself in a particular time and place.
A more recent resource is social media. The next Lady Sherlocknovel (Night of the Lethal Liberator) features a period-correct airship. By contacting dirigible enthusiasts I was able to discover lots of useful information – some of which had eluded my more traditional searches - to incorporate into the new book.
Ya Ya Ya: You’ve created a new character, a female detective. How does she differ from Sherlock?
Brooks: Before "Lady Sherlock" was a novel, it was a screenplay. The idea came about as the confluence of several of my favorite interests.
First, I love writing strong female characters. I became known for this with my television writing and often was the pick to do episodes which featured the female leads (eg. An episode I wrote for "Young Hercules" featured the Amazons). I also have a love of history, especially the late-Victorian-Edwardian era. Fitting comfortably in that era is another interest of mine; Sherlock Holmes. Add to that, growing up a military-brat (or more properly, Naval Dependent) gave me an appreciation of ships, sea-power and its place in history. I decided to combine these interests; history, naval, the supernatural, Holmes, powerful female characters, in one story. The story has a basis in real history as H.M.S. Dreadnought and the naval race and political collision between Britain and Germany which that ship help set in motion are a part of the book.
Making my main character a woman - a very capable, confident woman - in a particularly chauvinistic era would be fun and offer story and character opportunities that a male lead would not. There would be so many circumstances and attitudes, which would simply not exist for a man, of that era, that she would have to overcome. She's a character equally skilled with women's rights - and lefts. There's a lot of humor in the book and much of it is the collision between a witty, smart woman who will not easily tolerate chauvinistic attitudes. The character also had a visual inspiration. My friend, actress Tanya Lemani George had a wonderful look that I thought would be a great image for a feminine take of Holmes. She is the model for the cover and many of the interior illustrations.
Ya Ya Ya: What would you add and what would you take away from your writing life to make it better.
Brooks: A good review and a check that clears... Just kidding. Really, having someone truly appreciate the world I created in the rare leisure moments we all seem to have these days.
The challenge is the same for any kind of writing; sitting down to write. Then, as the saying goes; Write. Re-write. Right.
You can learn more about Lady Sherlock here: http://ladysherlocknovel.blogspot.com/
and here's where to buy the book: https://www.amazon.com/Lady-Sherlock-Circle-Smiling-Dead/dp/1614753695/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1569632273&sr=8-1
Commentaires