/lit/ - Literature

>>17556223
They can, Dalton Trumbo did.

>>17556223
They all have a femenine brain.

>>17556223
Michael Imperiolis book was quite good

>>17556223
Screenplays are written in third person objective, rather than the chad third person omniscient

I'm reading this, too, OP. It's pretty bad, actually.

>>17556223
It’s a totally different part of the human aesthetic that they tap into. How many great musicians are also great writers/filmmakers?

>>17556285
Also, let's not forget that many novelists tried to write scripts and failed. F. Scott Fitzgerald thought he could write a play and be set for life in terms of fame and money, and it was a total flop ("The Vegetable," a terrible play). Faulkner's efforts in Hollywood were widely regarded as a waste of time and money, somewhat satirized in "Barton Fink."

>>17556296
What are you talking about? The Big Sleep and To Have and Have Not are top-tier golden age movies.

>>17556223
To write even a great script you need a concept and some dialogue, maybe a unique structure (though editing sometimes has a defining role in that.) On top of that, multiple other people realise every other detail of that world--even the script, as many directors and producers shape the script and sometimes even write substantial portions uncredited, even if there aren't rewrites by multiple (often uncredited) screenwriters. The screenwriters don't make the set, the clothes, the atmosphere, the humanity, etc. At best, the writer only contributes to how the scenes are 'framed'. In a novel the author is responsible for every single aspect, and has the added task of rendering it all in appealing language. Literary editors will tidy it up, suggest changes or remove elements but that's hardly creative.

That said, Ethan Coen writes decent fiction, probably because he's also director and producer and editor (obviously with his brother) of his films.

>>17556320
He didn't write those alone, genius. In fact, the studio usually took the script to a "script doctor" after Faulkner got done with it to make it tenable.

>>17556223
I liked it, honestly. It has some beautiful moments.

>>17556296
But Faulkner was a writer first...

>>17556223
>another /tv/ thread because muh intellectual board

>>17556223
Does anyone think this guy wouldn't still be writing sitcoms if it weren't for Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry?

>>17556403
Don't robots write sitcoms now? The last few I saw didn't seem to require a human hand/effort.

Gave up after 100 pages, felt like he was trying to cancel himself. Honestly had no idea what he was trying to say.

>>17556640
The first 100 pages is "lulzy." I think he's just trying to be funny and not succeeding.

>>17556223
That's a pretty bad example considering Kaufman is precisely the counter-argument to your question. He was literally a screenwriter who became a novelist. Are you fucking retarded by any chance?

>>17556381
That what he said numbnuts

>>17556296
I'm currently writing a book for screenwriters, so I've been doing a ton of research on novelists who transitioned into screenwriting and vice versa. Basically, it boils down to this: screenwriters have an excellent understanding of dialogue flow and scene writing (you must always be aware of smaller details like blocking, staging, etc.). However, they lack often lack the technical skill to write beyond this scope (just read Tarantino's scripts for example -- they're almost childish). Novelists, on the other hand, possess superior technical abilities and a greater capacity to generate new structures. They also appear better at doing research (most don't have teams to rely on) and using traditional literary nuances (symbolism, various other literary devices). They do, though, fail to write punchy, more digestible dialogue (as was Fitzgerald and Faulkner's case) and often struggle to adapt to the immediate, stripped-down style that screenwriting demands (don't make your characters speak in stream-of-consciousness soliloquys for a fucking action movie). Both parties share an ability to probe the darkest, most intricate parts of the human mind, but the edge goes to novelists on this because they have less help with this.

>>17556640
>>17556646
he writes like a 13 year old kid high on sugar trying to impress his clique with "cool rad epic shit"

i gave up after 30 pages...this much childishness gets boring after 5 pages

>>17556940
OP is implying the book is trash and that he only "became a novelist" because of his fame and name recognition, and that someone who wasn't famous who wrote this book would have never been published. Pretty easy point to grasp, are you sure you're not the retarded one?

>>17556940
Kaufman is good at writing movies, but that doesn't mean he's a good novelist

>>17556333
The coen scripts are fantastic. The ballade of buster scruggs screenplay is amazing.

>>17556333
this. well said

>>17557736
>but that doesn't mean he's a good novelist
Yeah, I didn't say or imply that he was. That is entirely besides the point. OP mentioned absolutely nothing about quality.

>>17556333
Not this. Please stick to talking books and that goes for the rest of you uninformed faggots.

>>17556403
Why? What did Gondry do except have quirky set changes? Spike Jonze doesn’t even know what a director does

>>17557276
Basically screenwriters write present action and dialogue or else they can’t get their movie made and novelists can write anything
Not a fair fight or a lucrative comparison

>>17556333
nice digits, big fan of the coens, was wondering how Ethans literary work was

>>17557736
There were some moments that appeared they could be introspective, but was drowned out by indulgent pop culture references and overdone wordplay.

I wonder if there was an editor or leveraged his "Do you know who I am" to the publisher. Either way, needed a lot more editing.

i thought this book was fucking hilarious. first 100 pages were maybe the funniest book i've ever read. really lost me in the second half though. wasn't awful just didn't have the good sense to quit. was surprised how much of a post-ironic edgelord kaufman can be.