Comments for Jane Espenson
Jane Espenson runs a terrific blog offering advice on writing TV spec scripts. If you’re at all interested in writing for television, it’s worth checking out.
Jane’s site has two quirky aspects. First off, she consistently notes what she ate for lunch. Second, she doesn’t offer any online mechanism for reader feedback. Not only are comments turned off, but she doesn’t even provide a contact email. Instead, she lists a post office mailbox. You’re supposed to write a letter the old-fashioned-way.
That’s her prerogative, certainly. But it makes it difficult to point out simple errors she might want to correct. For instance, this post from last week:
I’m sure there are many of these out there, but tonight I’m just presenting the first documented clamshell that has captured my attention. Remember these lines?
You smell like aftershave and taco meat. (Blades of Glory)
You smell like beef and cheese. (Elf)
You smell like sweet red plums and grilled cheese sandwiches. (The Wedding Planner)
You smell like old people and soap. (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)
That last one is from my script for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is the Gene Wilder version, and doesn’t feature that line.)
A simple mistake, easily corrected. But how am I to tell her? I suppose I’ll need to write her a letter, and find a stamp with which to mail it.
This got me thinking: Since she and I probably have a significant overlap of readership, why not provide a feedback mechanism for her? So here’s what I’m going to do.
Next Monday (April 30th, 2007), I’m going to print out this post and all attached comments and mail it to Jane. So if there’s anything you’d like to ask her, or a response to something she’s written, just leave it as a comment on this post.
Remember, these comments are for Jane’s blog, not mine.
Me? I’m having Quizno’s for lunch. A mesquite chicken sandwich, no bacon.
Articles
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Great idea, Mr. August! You have yet again brightened my day with something quirky and yet genius. Keep that up.
Oh, right, comments aren’t for you. Ahem.
Ms. Espenson — I’ve been wanting to tell you for some time now that your insights on “humor” and the “joke” are indispensable. I’m not a particularly humorous fellow, at least not in my writing, so it takes a lot of thinking, preparation, research, and more thinking just to come up with a bit of humor. Your tips have proved quite helpful.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Today I had tuna salad and turkey tetrazzini. Those kinds of unfortunate combinations happen when only a couple of people bring a lunch but no one has time to leave. I really have nothing of significance to add, just wanted to say I’m a fan of both the Jane Espenson and the John August. Thanks for the fun and instructive blogging!
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Oh that’s great! Jane and John are my top 2 writing blogs that I keep tabs on (RSS feeds rule!).
My question for Jane would be in regards to the Disney Writing Fellowship. Is that going to happen again next year (with applications due this summer)? The link on the site goes to a page that hasn’t been updated since last year’s, with a “check back at the end of the year” line in reference to the 2006 results.
I emailed the contact at the page a month ago with the same question, but hadn’t heard back.
Also, Jane: Do you get to give any input on the Firefly MMORPG getting worked on for a launch next year?
Thanks a ton, both Jane and John, your sites are valuable resources that I often download and come back to for future reference!
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hi Jane. Do you know a mail address where I can write John August to send him a letter regarding his post about comments to your blog?
Thanks in advance.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Thank you for doing this John. This is the first screenwriting blog I started to read which led me to other screenwriting blogs which led me to Jane.
And I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE Jane’s blog. I’ve wanted to comment so many times. To tell her how great Andy Barker PI was (may it RIP). To tell her how awesome her advice is.
Please, Jane, enable comments on your blog. If you’re worried about spam, then get in place a system where people have to type in a funky code or have a couple volunteer administrators. But for the love of all that is good in the world (including yummy turkey pesto sandwiches for lunch), allow comments!
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
That’s funny — I just visited John’s site immediately after visiting Jane’s, and saw the heading “Comments for Jane Espenson.” I thought I’d (a) hit the wrong button, and in doing so had miraculously (b) found the link to her comments section that had always eluded me. But now I understand.
I don’t really have a current comment for Jane’s blog, but I do remember months ago wanting to email her about something she’d said. I think she had mentioned someone (don’t recall who) who was the only person she’d ever heard of who got a job writing for a show by submitting a spec for that very show, rather than a spec for a different show. I wanted to point out that Ron D. Moore (BSG) had also gotten his job at Star Trek TNG by submitting a spec TNG script (which was actually produced). But I’m sure she knows that.
Anyway, love your blog, Jane.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Well I pulled her agent/laywer contacts from Studio System, but, eh….
So I suggest, prior to snail mail we use my advanced industry professional detection system:
first initial + last name @aol.com or earthlink.net or yahoo.com
second to that, I have some other formulas that lead me to these email addresses:
jepsenson@aol.com
janeepsenson@aol.com
jane.espenson@aol.com
jepsenson@janeespenson.com
and so on, you ge the idea
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Stephan, it’s Espenson, not Epsenson.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I believe Jane’s not worried about spam, but about sample scripts and stuff. The idea being that people could post writing samples in the comments, and then if Jane ends up writing something similar (even if she never read the comment), she could get sued for all the royalties and for pain and anguish and stuff.
God bless America.
On an entirely unrelated note, I’m currently working on an original superhero movie about Captain Marvellous and his Zamshaz powers, k? K.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I can understand why the Great and Powerful Espenson doesn’t have commenting. Perhaps she’s been tumblelogging ahead of the curve. Anyhoo, I have been meaning to send along the following bit of info but have been too shamefully lazy to send a postcard:
Jane blogs quite a bit about spec pilots and the new trend of potential employers asking for them as writing samples. I’d just like her readers to know that there is a competition out there specifically for spec pilots: the Slamdance Teleplay competition. I was a semifinalist last year and it was a great experience.
Thanks for the blog Jane. It’s invaluable for us tv wannabes. Sorry I was too lazy to send an actual postcard.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Lunch: Turkey and swiss with all the trimmings on nine-grain bread with chips, pickle and a brownie. Yummy — and filling!
You mean, by contrast, we’re encouraged to post script pages in August’s comments section? How about Shazam! scenarios? A proposed compromise: We can post Andy Barker, P.I. spec pages in August’s comments and they’ll be couriered to Espenson.
Jane’s blog has got to be the most useful (and among the most entertaining) out there. It’s like a master class in TV writing. I can understand not wanting to deal with moderating comments and sorting through all the emails. The FAQ notes her webmaster takes typo corrections at webmaster(at)JaneEspenson.com. Using Stephen’s method, might discover Jane’s secret inbox on that domain …
There’s only one thing I want to know about Jane that she hasn’t covered in her blog: dinner.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
These two blogs have taught me more about screenwriting than any book possibly could. The lessons learned are invaluable. As for a question, what do you think is the key difference between writing a single-camera joke and a multi-camera joke, if there is one? There certainly seems to be, but it might be the absence of the laugh track or maybe just the premises of the single-camera sitcoms.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Fantastic idea John! Love her blog - been reading it in detail for ages. Adopted a lot of advice. (hehe) But what I really wanted to say was why it’s so good: it is just so god-damn generous with real writing tips. Now, sure, quite a few blogs do this but what makes Jane’s blog different is that she gives us these ‘tips’ and associates them with the work she is doing RIGHT NOW, making theory REAL - art into craft, if you will. This is so important for we spec-monkeys who are (often) putting this stuff into practice anyway but secretly suspect that somehow we are writing ’school-girl’ screenplays like speaking ’school-girl’ French - using all the rules and vocab but can we really communicate? Jane helps us see that everything we’ve learned at Uni and in all the books and blogs is in fact a real language which we can use with confidence. Of course, I’ve learned a lot of new stuff from her blog too but I think it’s the “They do that on Battlestar? Hey! I DO that! Maybe I am a real writer!” moments Jane provides that makes it so special. Thanks Jane.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Jealousy? Do I detect a trace of sour grapes over what is usually a well-disciplined, oft-updated blog? I am a huuuuge fan of both blogs, but let’s face it, John, Janey doesn’t appear to get flustered over blogosphere minutiae.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
John:
I think your heart is in the right place. Jane writes a wonderful and informative blog. But more than likely, the reason she has comments disabled is because she just doesn’t want that binary traffic in her life. If you’ve noticed, blogs are shutting down all over the place. A lot of it has to do with the pure hassle.
I don’t know if you know Jane or not but it’s a little intrusive to shove this at her. If she wanted to converse with people she’d turn on the comments. But now for putting out a great blog on her own time, making it clear that she wants her privacy, she’ll be getting a big bag of letters for her troubles?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Sorry if that sounded like “scolding”.
It’s just that, with the loss of Chris at The Inside Pitch shutting down his blog, it’d be a shame to lose Jane’s blog as well.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’ve been reading the books Ms. Espenson wrote on “Firefly” and actually bought all of “Andy Barker, PI” on iTunes because she wrote an episode.
So I guess I just wanted to mention, since she may recieve this, that she is awesome.
Thank you for being awesome, Ms. Espenson.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Jane, I love your everyday epiphanies on screenwriting. Please don’t stop blogging.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hi, Jane. I really enjoy your blog.
That is all.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Hi Jane.
1st off, big fan of your writing and your blog, which I have neatly fed through my live bookmarks at the top of Firefox…
Okay: In almost every television series there’s some sort of overarching narrative or metaplot that features in every episode, even if only for a scene or two. Take for example Lilly Kane’s murder in the 1st season of Veronica Mars, or the Armenian Mob hunting the strike team in the third season of The Shield.
My question is, when speccing a show, should you go anywhere near this sort of metaplot? Does it better reflect produced shows, or will it just piss off the writing team who’ve had it all planned out for months?
Cheers, Oli.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Hiya Jane!
Huge Buffy fan here. I wandered across your blog a few weeks ago and read the first 2 months worth of entries in one sitting. A number of times I found myself thinking, “I totally do thatâ€? followed by, “And the way she explains it now I know why.” Great stuff. I look forward to catching up on the rest.
So, I have a question. If it has been answered in the year’s worth of entries I’m behind on, please disregard. Can you detail the process of your first writing assignment from start to finish?
What I’m most curious about is, if show x likes my specs and is interested in working with me, what comes next?
Thanks Jane!
Keep on bloggin’.
CarolP from Vancouver
April 24th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Hi Jane,
Your blog is one of the six websites I choose to check each day. Thanks for sharing.
Lunch today was pumpkin soup with lite cream, corn-fed roast chicken, potatoes and gravy, honey-glazed carrots with sweet-potato mash, crumbed mushrooms, Penne Pasta Salad, pepper-corn steak, egg rolls, roasted-vegetable lasagna, creamy cep risotto, gourmet nacho-pizza, spinach salad, a hogs head, two elephants and brown rice with peas.
Take care.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Hello Jane,
I love your blog.
My question is: can you list all the kind of jokes you know (or often use) in a regular show? Maybe this list will be very long, I don’t know, so maybe there are big “catégories” of jokes. What I want to know exactly is the “palette”* of humour we can use in a TV-show and how large it is. And then, what kind of humour you CAN NOT use in a TV show.
*excuse my english, i’m a french speaking person so I hope you understand this!
April 24th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Great idea John, I kept thinking I was missing the comments or contacts sections on Janes blog, however I now don’t have anything specific to ask except to thank both you guys for donating your spare time to helping people out with great advice! The only other thing I remember wanting to ask Jane was I wonder if she noticed what appeared to be an inside joke in series 5 of 24, a late-ish episode when Jack is infiltrating an office, Chloe uses the PA to lure a secretary out of her office by enquiring over the tannoy for a ‘Jane Espenson to reception please’. It made me smile and I always wondered if it was intentional…
April 24th, 2007 at 7:11 am
This is awesome. There have been many times that I wanted to say something to Jane and have been foiled by forgetting how the postal system works.
Jane:
You’ve worked on some of my favorite TV shows, but it is surely your job on BSG that I am most jealous of. I’d love to hear how you secured the position, what the interview(s) was like, and your take on the dynamics of the staff.
I also recently found the BSG podcast that is a recording of a writer’s meeting. It is arguably one of the most interesting and helpful screenwriting-related podcasts ever recorded. More of podcasts of the development process would be greatly appreciated!!
You’re site is amazing helpful, thanks for taking the time to do it.
Thanks Jane and Thanks John!
April 24th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I don’t mind that she doesn’t have a comments section. Neither does anyone else, really–no one avoids a blog because its comments section is disabled.
But no email address to send in questions and comments? So not only do readers have to print up letters and mail them, which is beyond annoying, Jane also has to re-type the questions in her blog in order to answer them, as opposed to just cutting and pasting them from an email. Bizarre. Why would you give yourself the extra tasks of opening the mail, decipher bad handwriting, and transcribe the questions you want to answer?
So my question to Jane is, why no email address?
April 24th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Why did you break up with her?
She smelled like beef-vegetable soup.
(So I Married An Ax-Murderer)
Paraphrased. Haven’t seen it in quite some time now.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:20 am
I have a spec script that’s just amazing, I know Jane will love it! Can I send it to her?
Please do not send spec scripts. Jane cannot read any unsolicited scripts at any time, for many legal reasons to long and complicated to list out.
The ‘to’ before ‘long’ is missing an o. But more importantly I enjoy reading your blog and hope you continue. Andy Barker was a great show as well.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Several classics from the same scene in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Not all of them contain a combination of odors, but I think they are sufficiently memorable to be included:
Veronica: My God, what is that smell? Oh.
Brian: That’s the smell of desire my lady.
Veronica: God no, it smells like, like a used diaper… filled with… Indian food. Oh, excuse me.
Brian: You know, desire smells like that to some people
Garth: What is that? Smells like a turd covered in burnt hair.
Employee: Smells like Bigfoot’s dick.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I let out a yelp while watching 24 last season when one of the characters claimed over the phone to be “Jane Espenson from Accounting.” Easily one of the least action-packed moments in 24 history, but yelp I did anyhow. Thanks for blogging and I’m sorry to see the shutdown of Andy Barker, PI, that’s a damn fine show deserving of a better fate.
Thanks to you as well, John, I check each of your blogs daily and always come away enriched, even if they just leave me hungry for commissary food or a big red cheese.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Jane: Thanks for sharing on your blog. The stare at something post really helped. I will soon look into U.S. work visas. I wonder if you or John have any advice on getting work visas since I’m a Canadian citizen wanting to work in L.A. as a screenwriter.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I’d love to hear what advice Jane can offer re: what to do/not to do during staffing season (for those of us going through it for the first time).
April 24th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Actually there is a way to contact the site. See the FAQ page:
There’s a broken link/funky page/typo on the website. How do I contact the webmaster?
Please send any emails intended for Polgara to webmaster(at)JaneEspenson.com.
Granted it’s an e-mail for the person running the “fan site” for Jane but surely they can fix the error/typo much faster and/or contact Jane much faster than doing a letter.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi Jane! Delightful blog.
I have two questions, one of which was already mentioned, but I will mention again for emphasis.
What is up with the Walt Disney Writing Fellowship Program and not having any info for 2007? So distressing!
What was it about Buffy the Vampire Slayer that made its writers so visible and gave these wonderful writers a fan-base, as opposed to most shows which seem to render the writers rather invisible and feed a fan-base only to the actors?
April 24th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Jane gets a Dear John letter.
Gotta love it.
Love your blog Jane. Your’s too John.
Thank you both for all your time and effort on behalf of a bunch of wannabe’s that are trying like hell to take your jobs.
Lunch: Can’t afford it… yet.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Write the letter, John. mention the error.. Say thanks for correcting the error… Keep on blogging..
April 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
John -
She already corrected it.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Kevin A is absolutely correct. I just received a package from a peer that I respect. Of course I was upset to find that it was packed with fan-mail. It’s enough to make me want to discontinue my wildly popular blog.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Jane,
First of all, thanks so much for your blog. As an aspiring screenwriter, I’ve found the advice and information on your blog to be absolutely invaluable. I particularly enjoyed your advice on writing a spec script for a show that would justify having an important character do something out of character (I believe you used the then-recent episode of The Office where Dwight quit Dunder Mifflin as one of your examples).
Anyway, I don’t really have a question for you at this time. I just wanted to tell you to keep on doing what your doing!
Oh, and “Earshot” is probably my all-time favortie Buffy. I wanted to tell you that as well.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
After visiting here for a couple of years and seeing some of the comments posted, I can completely understand why a person would choose not to deal with responding to the general public. If you still aren’t convinced, please choose at random any SciFi.com Battlestar Galactica forum topic and review a page or two worth of posts.
And (this is from someone with eight e-mail addresses), there’s something rather charming about someone who chooses to receive hand-written letters and cards. I believe she’s a very gracious Webmistress and often acknowledges those who write in (yes, she gave me a shout-out once). Thanks, Jane — keep it inky old-school!
April 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Hey Jane,
Loved your work on Andy Barker. Some of the best dialog ever.
Sorry I got it canceled by liking it.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
If Jane did not want mail she would not have put a mailing address on her contact page:
“please send all questions, comments, congratulations, and lunch commentary intended for Jane to the following snail-mail address…”
She isn’t shunning mail. She is shunning email. There is a difference.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Jane, you f’n rock.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I guess this would be a clam, not a clamshell but I was wondering where the line “I just threw up in my mouth a little” was originally used. Any ideas?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Jane and John,
Am I wrong, or is the over-use of names really a tell-tale of bad writing? Who really says the “name” of the person over and over and over?
I’ve noticed TV is getting worse in the last few years. Is it bad writers turning this stuff in/out? Or are light-headed “others” like producers/executives/directors messing with the scripts? Thinking that the audience is soooo stupid that they’ve already forgotten the character’s name? At Fox I used to highlight names in dialogue to kill time….it killed a lot of time.
Maybe it’s just me, but it has me reaching for the remote on the 6th Izzy or 8th Gabrielle in a single scene…
Knowing your lunch could help in identity-theft.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am
As Karen astutely noted, Jane now works on BSG. A show that has a rabid fan base. This is not Jane’s first experience with a show that has such a fan base: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly had equally large and equally rabid fan bases.
Though, I believe her website would beget a great group of people commenting. It could also possibly devolve into debating semantics of the various shows (OMG IS KARA COMING BACK? OMG DO YOU HATE LESBIANS? WHY DID YOU KILL OFF TARA? OMG OMG OMG I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!). If anyone needs confirmation of what it could become, I direct you to Wordplayer.com, where the “Movies” section has become… interesting. Or, to the Lost messageboard. Or, to archives of The Bronze. Or…
And, not to be rude, but the types of shows she works on attract a much different type of fan than, say, GO or BIG FISH.
And, as already evidenced here, the questions about why ABC/Disney haven’t updated their site? A waste of time, if you ask me. Jane’s not the spokesperson for them, she just happened to be a Fellow a long time ago.
John, all of this said, I love your site. I love that you allow comments. I’m sure that Jane’s mistake was just that, a mistake. As noted above, there’s a section to report errors, etc on her site. No need for this post.
I’m not Jane, but if I were, no way would I have comments enabled. Or, a link to my email. Do you realize how many thousands of emails she’d get? If I were her, I wouldn’t even have a link to snail mail, to be honest.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Jane,
No question. In fact, I’m not even a wannabe TV writer. But I still love what you do, and hope you’ll keep it up. Thanks for the great work!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Jane,Your entry “04/11/2007: Long Tall Funny” got me thinking I wish someone would put together a blog post on all the different types of funny. Would you be a good person to do that? I’ve heard of a UCLA class that breaks down comedy into what’s really making us laugh, but that class doesn’t come cheap for an old guy with a family in Seattle. Thanks!
P.S. Thanks John! You saved me a stamp.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Priya:
More than likely she made hand written notes the option because people asking random questions about the Disney Fellowship wouldn’t actually go through with mailing such a useless question. It’s a great way to control these stream of questions.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Good point, Kevin.
I still wouldn’t have it, though. If I were her, that is. But, I’m not. Her, that is. I’m you.
HA!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:05 am
John,
Just a note of thanks for your excellent website and the opportunity to send Jane a note. Your site and Jane’s are the two sites at the top of my list when I come in to work every morning.
Jane,
I’m a huge fan of your work and maybe even a bigger fan of your website. Unfortunately for me, I just sent you a letter in the mail last week (about what to hand network-type people at pitch sessions), so I cost myself some postage, but I will take advantage of John’s generosity and ask another question.
In the new “Youtube” world, do you think writing a five-minute short, shooting it with rented equipment (it doesn’t HAVE to be rented, I guess) and putting it on one of the video sharing sites is a good way to get noticed by producers? Or is it only the writing that counts and a good five-minute written short is the only thing that REALLY matters?
Thanks again for your amazing (and free!) advice.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:58 am
i have mailed exactly one personal letter within the last 3 or 4 years. that letter was a couple months ago, and it was to Jane. Thanks Jane for reading it, and thanks for responding on your blog regarding my question. the whole interchange, as brief and basically trivial as it was (re: the woody allen joke about writing a novel) was nonetheless fun for a guy who hasn’t licked a stamp in ages. a piece of paper that i touched with my own hands was soon after held in yours, and we don’t even know each other! the modern world is truly exceptional!
cheers,
-Andrew
May 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
”I go back and forth on which is funnier, a character who is genuinely not aware of the humor in what they’re saying, versus one who is. Usually I come down on the side of smart and self-aware. And I adore a smart character who catches himself saying something stupid.”
I much prefer a character who thinks they are smart saying something they think is smart but the audience know is stupid.