Startups and slippery facts
I cut startups a lot of slack. Innovation and entrepreneurship rely on some suspension of disbelief: we’ll be able to make this product, on this schedule, at this price. Google was once a pipe dream, as were Twitter and Facebook. Dream big, I say.
But since I was name-checked twice in this interview from Wharton School of Business, I feel some responsibility to point out a few fallacies and follies.
When the Writers Guild of America went on strike in 2007, it looked as if Hollywood’s balance of power favoring big, money-hungry studios would never be the same again. To some extent, that’s the case, but not necessarily in the way the striking screenwriters expected. The growing popularity of free, web-based writing software — available to anyone, anywhere — is breaking down the barriers to entry of the screenwriting profession as never before, says Sunil Rajaraman, co-founder, president and CEO of Scripped.com. As he tells it, the urgent mission for his California-based screenwriting software startup couldn’t be clearer, yet more daunting: Change Hollywood.
I met with Sunil and his partner Zak Freer (a Starkie) in 2007 when they were coming up with their concept for Scripped. I gave them a few suggestions and wished them luck.
In particular, I hoped they could fulfill the international aspect to their mission:
We combine cloud computing and web-based software to provide free access to Scripped.com to aspiring writers worldwide, to find the next John August. He or she might be in Thailand, China or India — not necessarily in Los Angeles, which is the way the film industry has traditionally thought about sourcing this kind of talent.
Their site is up and running. I haven’t really checked in with it for the past two years. But it annoys me to see Rajaraman recycle this Hollywood urban legend as proof his software is needed.
Two problems are solved with web-based screenwriting software. The first is collaboration. Many of the scripts of the films we see in movie theaters have undergone dozens of rewrites before they make it to the screen. For example, for the original of Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck put the screenplay together with more anecdotal stories about South Boston and friends they grew up with. Characters were eliminated from the screenplay and it underwent a very detailed rewriting process. Who knows how many writers had their hands on that screenplay before it was made — and it eventually won an Oscar.
So, wait: does the untrue story about rewriters on Good Will Hunting mean your collaboration software is good thing, or a bad thing? Rajaraman is taking one of the few actual advantages of of web-based screenwriting software — real-time multiple users on an open document — and making it sound unsavory.
The second problem online software solves is access to writers. If you give the software away for free — it is very cheap to provide the software — you can attract all sorts of talent that would have otherwise not been interested in screenwriting.
There are many free or low-cost options for screenwriting software, including the basic word processors everyone already has on their computers. I wrote Go in Microsoft Word. Screenwriting software is useful, but hardly necessary.
For that matter, both of the flagship applications cost less than $200. When the price of an iPod will buy you all the software you need, that’s a very low barrier to entry.
The Writers Guild West consists of about 15,000 writers, a very small group. The average price in Hollywood for a feature-length script from an accomplished writer is US$250,000. These writers have to protect the system, and the system exists to provide for them. Because Scripped aggregates talent worldwide and brings new content to producers, it is a threat to the way business is currently done.
WGAw membership is closer to 8,000. I don’t know where Rajaraman is pulling the $250,000 figure, but he’s committing the classic mistake of confusing a script sale with a career. In 2007, median earnings for a WGA writer were $104,857.
Hollywood pays roughly US$1.2 billion a year for feature-length scripts. So point one, producers are not necessarily getting the most talented writers to write those scripts. And, two, they are overpaying for those scripts. We aim to democratize the process, cut the cost and increase the talent pool of writers who have access to the Hollywood studio system and elsewhere.
I emailed Rajaraman to ask about the $1.2 billion, but I think he’s off by at least a zero.1 Regardless, I can’t fathom how that proves producers are overpaying for less-talented writers.
I don’t know that there’s a viable business model for Scripped. I still wish them luck; I’m not rooting against them by any means. But they do themselves a disservice by misrepresenting the facts behind the motion picture industry and the career of screenwriting.
Through my work with the Sundance Screenwriting Labs, I’ve experienced that the best way to extend the craft of screenwriting to other countries is through example and outreach. The Labs does it with in-country sister programs. I do it with this site, trying to make sure my articles acknowledge the wider world beyond the 30-mile zone.
But I’m also very leery of trying to promote screenwriting as a career separate from the greater film industry. The reason most screenwriters live in Los Angeles is because this is where Hollywood movies are developed, financed and produced. Software doesn’t change that.
- Update: Rajaraman says he’s basing that on $30 billion in worldwide film production costs, with 3% to 5% going to the writer. He will try to get the article updated. It still doesn’t help make his point. ↩
Filed under: Film Industry, International, Screenwriting Software
Articles
December 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
John,
Thanks for emailing me earlier today and I appreciate the frank, up-front post. I wanted to clarify a few things just to make our side of the story heard:
Thanks again for the post, and we will take your feedback very, very seriously for the next time an interview opportunity comes around.
Sunil
December 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
1) The cost of Movie Magic or Final Draft is trivial next to the opportunity cost of hundreds of unpaid hours spent learning how to write a good script. These formatting programs are expensive from the perspective of hobbyists and dilettantes. For working pros, and those who aspire to be pros, MM and FD are cheap.
2) Did Rajarman skip Econ 101? The relatively high pay rates received by A-List writers, together with the glamor, real or imagined, associated with Hollywood, continue to draw a steady supply of the best writers from the elite universities, journalism, theater, and popular fiction. It’s clear from the numbers of Canadians, Brits, Aussies and others, that the writing talent pool is drawn from the entire English speaking world.
3) The Hollywood film and television industry, the TV part in particular, continues to generate the most artistically and financially successful products in the world. There’s no evidence, at all, that Hollywood is lacking good writers. There are often problems in bringing together good writers with the resources and opportunities to realize their visions, but that problem isn’t going to be solved by formatting software.
4) It’s clear this guy doesn’t know enough about the business he wants to sell products to.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Ha ha ha! Free software is lowering the barriers to entry!? How about that exotic technology known as a pencil and pad of paper? That’s all anyone ever needed to become a writer. I hear Tarantino still writes that way.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I don’t really see the point of this. 1. As you mention software is cheap (Celtix is free). Price of entry for screenwriting is very cheap compare to anything else. Write it on yellow pads and use a word processor at the library.
It would seem most writers either write independently (similar to most books or plays) or they collaborate (2 people, maybe 3) as real writers. Just because other writers come in later does not mean they all stare at the same script page and work on it at the same time. Again most software has a collaborate function of some type and I’m not sure how much true value it as for actually writing/editing. Discussing, yes.
How do you work create a script with a lot of collaborators at the same time? Each doing a scene, an act? One doing dialog and another doing action and another slug-lines?
How do you divide the payment even if it worked? Are the all equal like 2 partners? Who owns the rights?
Certainly work can be outsourced but it seems to me that a fair bit of the refinement of a script in the development process is by having the execs, producer, director and the writer in the same room at least occasionally. The writers who carry the full project at a distant location happens but seems to be somewhat of a rarity and seem to happens primarily with writers who have already established themselves.
Executives don’t always know how a script will turn out or what changes at the studio will enable or disable a greenlight. So it’s likely there will be more material purchased than will be used at least on some level. Just as there are more pilots than can be on TV or more startups that might not make it. Overpaying for the script very, very low on the cost scale. Execs make VFX changes that costs millions of dollars without batting an eye (even after pleading poverty)
Seems like they are trying to find producers who can’t seem to find any usable scripts (not likely) and trying to find talented writers whose only restriction to becoming a paid writer is their lack of free software, inability to move to LA and the lack of a producer asking them to create something. There’s certainly plenty of those people but it’s unlikely they are writers.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
What does it do that Celtx doesn’t?
December 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Wow. If I was ever planning on considering using this software I certainly won’t now. That’s a shady list of explanations for why we should want this product. So many lies and half truths that even if the product were great this writeup makes me feel like I’m getting swindled. No thanks.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Celtx is free, and doesn’t come with the douchey notion that writers are overpaid.
As mentioned above, anyone who doesn’t want to pay a few hundred bucks to become a professional writer shouldn’t be in this career to begin with. I hear similar garbage from people who want to be equity traders but don’t want to pay for data feeds, brokerage services, trading software, etc. Of course, the worst are people who want to be equity traders but refuse to learn the quantitative skills like programming or statistics required to get anything done. And that’s the real barrier to entry. It’s like some who wants to work in Hollywood but doesn’t care to learn the craft of storytelling. Because that educational hurdle is far more expensive than formatting software.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
The original version of GOOD WILL HUNTING was not filled with more small, scenes – it was a big action chase movie with exploding helicopters. They were hunting Good Will.
I wrote scripts on a typewriter, then use a macro on a computer, then – after several sales and several produced movies – bought Script Thing. If a virus wiped out all electronic technology tomorrow, I’d just go back to a manual typewriter. The machine has nothing to do with the writing.
I quit my forklift jousting job and moves to Los Angeles after selling a script, because that’s where the endless meetings were. I think if you were to ask ten screenwriters where they are from, probably none would say Los Angeles. Sure, there are a couple – but most people move here because this is where the jobs are. I was supposed to have a meeting today, it’s been postponed until Monday, I live in Studio City (L.A.) so it doesn’t matter.
I think the strange thing is that the adverts are not about the qualities of the product. Movie Magic has iPartner which allows two writers from different side of the globe to work on a script together, so how is this product different? If they are selling the product, focus on the product.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
@ odocoileus: Hollywood produces the most financially successful products in the world? It sure does. The most artistically successful? With all due respect: seriously doubt so. Not to say that Hollywood movies are inherently bad, but they are in no way artistically better than films from many other countries. Heard of Germany, France, Brazil, South Korea, China, Argentina,…? The Downfall, Tell No One, City of God, The Island, In the Mood for Love, Son of the Bride,…? Just to name a few. I’d say that two thirds of the films I’ve ever watched are Hollywood films, and I like many of them a great deal, but don’t mistake bigger names and budgets with greater artistical worth. Any of the above films can stand proud by the best of Hollywood movies. And yes, what the guy is saying about his online software is pure bulls**t; if someone can’t afford FD or MMS, they can always use Celtx, and John’s point about the screenwriting software being as expensive as an iPod is probably the best argument I’ve ever read on the subject. Anybody who can afford a computer and wants to become a professional writer can afford dedicated software. If you smoke you’ll probably spend that much in four or six months.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
These posts are brutal in core. God-thanks. A cool Load of -awee-rabbitholes- into young screen-jedi`s minds.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Hell, so that’s what I’ve been doing wrong all this time.
Having writtten 4 writer-for-hire scripts for a US company from way down South in Africa, I now discover the sole reason none of them received any love (read funding) from the studios has nothing to do with the bad spec market, or my non-presence in Hollywood or even, God forbid, my lack of talent.
It’s all because I never used the web based software. Well, damn, I’m deleting my Final Draft program right now and going proceeding to scripped.
Hollywood beware…I’m coming.
(Good grief).
December 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
A quote from Preston Sturges would seem appropriate here:
“A man in possession of many bolts of woolen cloth, quantities of lining and interlining, buttons, thread, needles and padding is not, of necessity, a tailor. A man in possession of many characters, many situations, many startling and dramatic events, and many gags is not, of necessity, a storyteller.”
In the 21st century, one might add “many versions of screenwriting software” to that list. And anyone who thinks that software makes a writer… well, isn’t one.
Sorry, guys. Hope you don’t have investors to pay back.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:05 am
“Wow. If I was ever planning on considering using this software I certainly won’t now. That’s a shady list of explanations for why we should want this product.”
Oh, come on! PR always twists the facts to some degree, every single company in the world does that. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but neither would I condemn them for doing it.
As for Scripped itself, I’d give it some time. About a year ago, I wouldn’t have thought I’d ever use something like Twitter either…
December 5th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Plotbot is a pretty awesome collab site
December 5th, 2009 at 3:03 am
On the front page of the site being discussed there is a picture of bag of money with the title “Make Money. Scripped Regulars can earn thou$and$!
Apparently to make money and earn thou$and$, all I have to to is pay $4.95 a month. Or I can pay them $49.95 and they’ll give me than the $250 value !!!! (Note: ‘Value’ defined as them giving me things that don’t cost them anything)
Is this really the professional image that they are trying to give?
And the claims made in the article are actually contradicted on the site.
Compare:
Article: “Because Scripped aggregates talent worldwide and brings new content to producers, it is a threat to the way business is currently done.”
-to-
Website: “Can Scripped help me sell my script? Scripped does not currently market or sell scripts.”
So how can it bring new content to producers if it doesn’t sell or market content? Remember, there are dozens of equally free options – so it must ‘bring new content to producers’ in a way that the other free options don’t.
It might be a good idea in principle, but they are marketing it like a get-rich-quick scheme.
Mac
December 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I like the part about being able to write something really cool from word. If your not going for gold, transformers is the script winner this year, i think, and a great one with twilight. Both of these are scripts made for the project of it, not from a new idea, right?
December 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I just recently entered a screenwriting contest at Scripped.com. By far, it was the most unprofessional contest I’ve ever been in. And that includes a goat-milking competition at the state fair in 2nd grade.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
So they’re trying to sell an application to screenwriters by saying screenwriters are overpaid.
Great business model.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
@Nelson. I take your point about quality films being produced outside of Hollywood. There are different definitions of quality, of course, and the one I was referencing for feature films was a utilitarian one. The most good, being, in this case, customer satisfaction, for the most people.
Hollywood, it seems to me, has consistently been able to find the sweet spot between a high level of artistic quality and a high level of mass market appeal, in a way that other nation’s film industries haven’t. A debatable claim to be sure, but not unfounded.
Although I would rather watch Oldboy five times rather than sit through Transformers once, I have to admit that Michael Bay does a great job of satisfying his audience.
The case for the highest quality in the world coming out of Hollywood is stronger for long form TV drama. US television is in a kind of golden age for that format, a golden age that is primarily writer driven. The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Battlestar Galactica, and now Madmen, are state of the art TV drama. I would argue that they are as good as anything that’s ever been put on screen. Again, a debatable point, but not withou justification.
I know the Brits have done great stuff too. Being primarily a sitcom writer, I know we Yanks have done pretty well by stealing their stuff.
December 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Agreeing w/ CarolP, they do come off as shady.
Bill’s point about Movie Magic having a collaborative feature is also accurate. The companies who make MM and FD are tied in to the industry, and they’re much better equipped to innovate in ways that film industry folks require. They at least know better than to start out a pitch to writers by insulting writers.
I like Celtx as well, and I use it sometimes myself when I don’t have access to my own laptop. It’s not really competitive w/ the big two for professional work, but it’s a fine tool, and it has decent collaborative features. It keeps getting better, and the Canadians who run the company are making a genuine effort to understand the needs of their users, not blow them over with a sleazy sales pitch.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Too bad. Just another “get rich quick” scheme. Everyone knows the best way to become a rich and famous screenwriter is to start a blog like moi. :)
December 6th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Whoa…
Did this guy just claim that the problem with Hollywood is that the SLUSH-PILE isn’t BIG enough?
Cause that’s what I heard.
That there’s some sort of barrier. – And now that I can colab with Zurich by means other than skype and email… the wall has finally crumbled. — oh-glory-be-freedom-at-last.
Look…
If the REASON you’re going to write a screenplay is solely so you can nab the money… guys like me are gonna kick your script’s ass right at the starting line anyway.
And the idea that screenwriters are overpaid is so maniacal it almost bears deleting. — Let me put it this way… If I put in ONE HOUR to contribute 15 seconds worth of music to the soundtrack of a major Hollywood movie… and another guy puts in 6 years of his soul to become the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and every line of dialog in it… you know who gets royalties when that flick plays on a Delta flight? – Me.
By and large, screenwriters are not treated like the Gods of the worlds they’ve created, but rather often see their work go floating off (IF THEY’RE LUCKY AND TALENTED) into the ether with a moniker bearing some person’s name, after having averaged just above minimum wage as take-home.
Now, I’m not the next John August… but I assure you the guy who IS, isn’t going to be stopped by a crippling lack of pleasantly collaborative java tables.
Half the time I’m tempted to turn in a screenplay literally written on napkins in pen, just to prove the point that its the skill that matters. – And I’m fairly sure I’m not going to die without having done it.
P.S. – The first two films I worked on were Bollywood. – I went THERE for the work. – That’s how many writers we have access to in this town.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:33 am
This is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.
The biggest problems for new writers are:
As John pointed out, they do not live in a major production center. It’s hard to be in the loop when you’re thousands of miles away from the action.
In Hollywood, to get anywhere you need representation, which requires a solid body of work, which is hard to do if done part-time.
The competition is already quite fierce. There are many qualified writers who are under-employed if at all.
Having access to free tools does not change that. In fact the same problems exist in he music industry: you can get free music software with every Mac but that doesn’t make you a professional musician.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:58 am
@odocoileus
Although I too think the world of Oldboy, I must say that if you force yourself to sit through Transformers 2, you’ll find it surprisingly … watchable. At least I did.
December 6th, 2009 at 7:25 am
A few minutes spent on this site will betray this company’s mission: Make money for its investors by preying on bad-to-mediocre writers’ desire to get noticed/contracted. The only thing i like about this site is its title, a bastardization of the noun ’scrip,’ which tells you everything you need to know about its mission and services.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@ odocoileus: I see what you mean. I think the films I’ve mentioned were quite successful with the general public -well, maybe The Island wasn’t-, but the truth is most films made in my country -Spain-, among others, fail to reach the wide audience Hollywood films do. There are many reasons to explain this that could excuse our cinema somehow -lack of big international stars, large scale advertising campains, the fact that Hollywood films are much cheaper for theater owners than Spanish ones- but the fact is that most Spanish films, or European for that matter, don’t try too hard to be profitable -read “satisfy the general public”-. I think public funding doesn’t help much this situation, because it allows filmmakers to carry on producing works that leave the audiences cold but get funded because they please the cultural intelligentsia. Don’t get me wrong: I totally support public funding in countries like mine, where there isn’t a well established film industry and audiences are shy about films that deal with our culture or history, but I don’t think this money should be handed so freely and without asking anything in return -or so it seems to me-. These filmakers should be asked to be profitable by compromising with the audience and stop trying to lecture them, or else they shouldn’t receive public funding for future projects. It’s absolutely inmoral to spend the amount of money that goes into a film just for art’s sake. As you say, the Brits have managed quite well to produce quality television that pleases the public, especially miniseries like Edge of Darkness, State of Play, Red Riding, some of which are being remade into Hollywood movies. There’s a terrific comedy series called Peepshow, which I recommend you if you haven’t seen it. I’ll check out Breaking Bad, which I hadn’t hear of before but since you put it together with The Sopranos and The Wire -my all time favorite American tv series- it looks promising. Battlestar Galactica? Mmmm,there are excellent episodes, like Razor or the beginning of season three when the scape from New Caprica, but on the whole I found the show uneven and ultimately disappointing, mainly because of the writing. Cheers.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Nick Da Man – you hit the nail on the head. Like free music software, it’s just a tool. Having said that, it is a tool that can make a difference, even if it’s not an all-encompassing difference.
Sarah – I think you’ve got a point too. There’s probably nothing uniquely immoral going on here, and this product may eventually evolve into something that does contribute to the creative process.
On a separate note, thanks to those who mentioned Celtx – I’d not tried it before and it’s great! As always, these posts, and equally the accompanying discussions raise a lot of interesting and helpful points, and for that I am extremely grateful.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:04 am
It has always, in time, been about being the star and thats always rare. -The star has something the rest of them lacks. When everyone stands around looking at it, only one writer can bash that giant with a spear.
In modern warfare it`s just the same, even more complex-in writing having your own work put out as a neverending journey of progress.
I like Miley Cyrus. As a studdy of self promotion. She got a job, had some history and everything set up, and she keeps up with the breeze. I guess. It really looks that way.
I really don
t know who is god over at the transformers camp. I recomend reading the stuff on Micheal Bays site. But i dont care who you are. -Transformers 1- is an intellectual movie. Watch it again.Gold from the posters at the site… I don`t think so :=)But they clearly did not yet get that feedback groups just are mirrors of them selves. And feedback should be hired. I dream about a job like that.
Merry Christmas everyone.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Scripped.com aims to do for aspiring screenwriters the same thing sites like Voices123.com (et al.) aim to do for people who want to do voice-overs (which is, apparently, everybody): make you think you actually have a shot in this industry even though you have no worthwhile experience.
Well, at least Scripped.com doesn’t charge for their service (hopefully it stays that way).
December 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Not to offend any posters at this site. But this is all context in writing about the craft. I can`t remember anyone telling about a title and lay out a perfect story or idea for a 5 season killer on a computer. Where it can leave the cable and get out.
P.S I don`t think England and America could ever compare in terms of industry. They make like james Bond. I wish the yankees stole “the office” a little better. Again down to one actor holding the whole show. But in purpose, the american edition is always on my screen and Ricky is not.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
John is being far too generous here. A bunch of bloody parasites preying on needy wannabe screenwriters is what I see.
Software and formatting — the least of the writer’s problems.
Can they sell me a piece of software that will materialize a little green goblin who will come in the middle of the night and solve all my story problems for me? Beat out a second act that isn’t working, write believable dialogue, come up with an ending that is both surprising and inevitable? Then I might be interested.
Until then, a pox upon the lot of them.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Straight out of the Boston Globe yesterday. Speaks to the power of what Scripped (and others) can potentially achieve, and I think throws a lot of mud back at many of the comments here.
Producer of YouTube video lands $30M deal. Dec 6 Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/12/06/alvarezs_short_film_panic_attack_makes_him_hollywoods_next_big_thing/
Check this out–
But Alvarez’s sudden ascension also speaks volumes about a continuing power shift in the movie business. What’s especially noteworthy about the flurry of interest in the filmmaker is that it unfolded almost entirely outside the studio system. Alvarez didn’t meet with any top studio executives, in large part because today’s creatively cautious studios, who’ve been spending much of their energy reining in talent costs, are increasingly out of the loop when it comes to discovering new talent. If young filmmakers want to find funding for adventuresome projects, they are far more likely to look for support from today’s aggressive talent agencies, managers, and independent producers.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@JR:
I don’t think this speaks volumes about anything, particularly not about the topic of this post. (The guy didn’t use Scripped, for example.)
There’s nothing sudden or groundbreaking about Alvarez getting attention for that reel. South Park started as a Christmas card. Outsiders have always gotten attention. Sometimes it lasts, sometimes it doesn’t.
WEHT Kerry Conran?
December 7th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
W hat E ver H appened T o –> (in case you live in the same sorta cave as me.)
Kerry Conran wrote (what might be the all-time-record-holding) most painful exposition scene in FX movie history. – That long, informative, aneurism-inducing plane ride in Sky Captain is still what pops immediately into my head whenever someone speaks of exposition problems to this day. (If you haven’t seen it, you totally should. – With note paper.)
Special Effects make pretty flashes of light but they wont light your way without something to keep up the burn between them. – Without story, you won’t get through the tunnel…
Unless you’re Michael Bay. — In which case you’re not reading this… because you’re out buying more flashy things. :P
December 7th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The difference between free boxed/downloadable software and web-based software is that we can communicate to our user-base frequently and give our writers opportunities to succeed. In contrast, if you use a free option like Word, or something from download.com, the creators of those options would not be able to tell their writers about job opps and the like.
Software with Craigslist woven in? I’ll make thou$and$!
December 8th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I have a car in my drive. That doesn’t make me Lewis Hamilton.
I have a bike in my shed. Doesn’t make me Chris Hoy.
I have recipe books and kitchen tools. Doesn’t make me Gordon Ramsay.
I have Final Draft and even that doesn’t make me feel like a writer. Writing, re-writing and more re-writing. Sore fingers from the keyboard and notebook. Ideas explored and pursued. And then I’m maybe a writer just starting out.
I don’t need sites like Scripped to help me. Jimi Hendrix didn’t need anything like that to help him become who he was. He played until his fingers bled.