Whenever I watch The Simpsons, I am struck by how much the script differs from that of conventional sitcoms (we could argue that it isn't a sitcom, but the point remains). The plot might progress in any number of ways, and very often the events of the first half have very little to do with those of the final part. Bearing in mind how successful it is, what value is there to stick to the 'rules'?
I see it like this -
For me, a writing 'rule' is something that has been proven, by trial and error, by millions of writers before you. They're things that often work.
As Griff says, it's always useful to know what often works and what often fails. Only you know what you want to achieve with your project so having a knowledge of what works (the rules), and deciding your route thereupon is a pretty sensible way to go about things.
I used to despise people who said stuff like "You have to know the rules before you can break them". It made no sense at all to me and thusly pissed me off. It makes every sense now though.
There's another very true phrase that goes something like "If it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it's not." God knows who said that first but he/she was a wise cookie.
Quote: Lee Henman @ June 27 2009, 2:13 AM BSTI used to despise people who said stuff like "You have to know the rules before you can break them". It made no sense at all to me and thusly pissed me off. It makes every sense now though.
Yes, it makes sense to me too; but what about the people who insist you stick to the rules? For instance, a lot of the advice given in the Writersroom site uses words like 'should' and 'must'.
If it works it's ok. Instinct is so much more valuable than knowledge.
I always break 'the rules'that's just the way I write.
Have never had anything of mine used yet.
Nuff said.
Think you need to be a well established writer before being allowed the luxury.
Let's just say that it is less painful and time-consuming to learn from the successes of others than from your own failures.
There seems to be a special case carved out for American animation. Family Guy and to a lesser extent South Park also toy heavily with structural "rules".
A lot of the Simpsons writers had already worked on Sledgehammer, ALF, Not Necessarily The News, It's Garry Shandling's show, SNL and all sorts of Harvard publications beforehand to be fair.
I would argue the peak of the Simpsons(4-8) had a fair bit of structure in them, whether conventional or not, it really went downhill fast after it started toying with that.
Family Guy is almost a sketch show.
People who break rules use understand them well and break only a few whilst sticking religiously to the rest.
I don't think it really matters too much if it's funny. If it's not too funny then you need structure rules I think.
I read several scripts a week. And one of the first things I look for, somewhat obviously, is a writer's ability to tell a great story.
But I like a writer to prove to me that they can tell this story by sticking to a tried and trusted set of 'rules'.
Learn the basic disciplines of writing, first.
Study these; establish yourself as a writer - and then, by all means, experiment with convention.
A comedy writer has one primary objective: to be funny. Yes, of course, try to be different; try to be original - but just make me laugh.
You don't need to reinvent any genre to do that.
Quote: Marc P @ June 27 2009, 9:05 AM BSTInstinct is so much more valuable than knowledge.
This is also useful on Deal or No Deal.
Quote: sootyj @ June 27 2009, 1:20 PM BSTPeople who break rules use understand them well and break only a few whilst sticking religiously to the rest.
Quote: Lee Henman @ June 27 2009, 2:13 AM BSTThere's another very true phrase that goes something like "If it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it's not." God knows who said that first but he/she was a wise cookie.
So there are rules about how to break the rules?
I believe that quote can be attributed to the Puppetry of the Penis guys.