Into the Fire

In order to sustain good literature and good television or film, something within the pages, 45 minute segment, or the feature length movie must have that certain appeal, an attraction for the reader or viewer, which will keep them engaged for all the time it takes to conclude the work.

As writers, we know it's almost impossible to come up with something truly unique, but the variations of everyday and not-so-everyday people, topics, scenery, and fantastical creations are only subject to one's imagination. Some of us are limited in our scope of imagination – me for one. And others of us dabble out there in the realm of possible and impossible, beginning with a favorite writers' question: What if? (Again, not my choice of questions.)

Those of you who read my weeklong character studies of the primary Reckless characters easily saw what the show's unique selling points were for me. I'm a character-study kind of author and if you give me solid, varied, "attractive" characters coupled with good writing, I'm hooked.

Okay. Three words in that last sentence need further explanation. "Attractive": by that I mean somehow the character "attracts" me. Yes, it can mean they're a pleasure to look at such as the co-stars of the drama Reckless: Cam Gigandet and Anna Wood. However, if either of those two had been written poorly, the results could've been the opposite of attractive. Instead, they were given opposing characteristics at war within themselves. Jamie Sawyer (Anna Wood) was both confident and skilled but vulnerable and restricted by her professional ethics. Roy Rayder (Cam Gigandet) was both confident and charming but drawn (to Jamie) and conflicted by the blurring lines of right and wrong.

But "attractive" also can mean the character is deep or shallow, good or evil, but so well done as to keep my attention, confusion, or wishing they would receive justice for whatever they seek or have done.

Next two words needing interpretation from my point of view are "good writing". Some authors, critics, reviewers, and writing professionals will assert that the term "good writing" is not subjective, but I strongly disagree. Since two of the supposed "best" classic authors such as Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner make my list of worst classic authors, I cannot agree that there is some writing that transcends opinion. My idea of good writing might not rate the same value as yours. However, here is what constitutes "good" writing to me in novels and screenwriting: Dialogue must snap, be real for each character, crackle when conflict is present, and pop because it defines the moment. Expressions must be included in the visuals or merge into the perception from the written word. Actions can be subtle or overt, emotions can be controlled or chaotic, but they must ring true to the situation – even if they're "out of character" for the individual.

Of course opinions will vary and contradict on what constitutes good writing. It's the nature of the arts. Someone loves Monet but hates Dali and someone else loves them both because they work in different mediums within the same frame. Spread that out to literature and music. It's inevitable that some will love the simplest rendtions of any art form while others will immerse themselves in the complex. Still others will insist their preferences are the only ones that truly reflect what "good" art is.   

So what makes up those "unique selling points"? Professional marketers and publicists will no doubt agree on many things and dispute others. Exposure is a must and not always tenable. But stripped down, bare naked? The unique selling point is you.

Father, you're the true author of unique. Please help us all to be every part of what you designed us to be. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.