disqusymo9u8slio--disqus
horkology .
disqusymo9u8slio--disqus

I REALLY enjoyed this. The actual experience sounds like a Dante-esque hell (less for the sleep deprivation than for the "Whoo"-ing), but this was a great, hilarious write-up.

You make a lot of false assumptions. Who is writing about firefighters without knowing any personally? I mean, the guy who wrote Backdraft was an actual firefighter. I know you're just using that as an example, but good writers don't write blindly about whatever it is they're writing about. Your comparison of

Yes, they do. There's nothing to "know" about magical fantasy worlds or superheroes, because they don't exist. And writers who write historical fiction do so because they're interested in the time period and have researched it. Writers write about what they're familiar with. Given a choice between writing about

No. No, it's not. Especially since I didn't say I don't write women. Writing scripts about men doesn't preclude also writing about women (obviously, as a writer, I wouldn't get very far if I included no women in three scripts).

I don't include men for the sake of including men. I include men because that's what the scripts are about, and it's what I've been interested in writing about thus far.

No, I don't think that. I never said that. Saying that I (like most writers) write about what I know is not the same thing as saying that I can't write about what I don't know.

I didn't say I couldn't relate to women (I actually relate to female characters all the time). I'm not sure if you think I was implying that or if you were just speaking about screenwriters in general, but, either way, I thought I'd clarify that.

Of course it's not difficult. It is, however, pointless.

I've written three screenplays and they all fail the Bechdel test. I'm okay with this. I'm a man, I write about men, because it's what I know. If I were a woman they'd probably all fail the reverse Bechdel test. And most Hollywood screenwriters are men. There's probably something inherently wrong with that, but