Hello, everyone.  Another post on what you won’t learn in screenwriting courses, screenwriting classes or even most screenwriting workshops.  The subject:  What do we think about readers?  This is a question that I hear from lots of the writers I work with.  Is it worth it to send your script out for coverage to hopefully get an objective professional eye – someone who can find things you’ve missed or even better to find better solutions to the problems you’ve having?

My take on readers is very cynical.  The reason for this is that most readers are frustrated screenwriters themselves, they’ve never had a film made and even worse, they’re right out of film school.

Film school taught them how to be scholarly and critical but didn’t teach them a darn thing about getting their films made or anything really about the film business.

The typical reader who does coverage for a film studio or production company or film contest is not being rewarded to find those films that have a good chance of getting made.  They’re being paid to be as nitpicky as possible and to show how clever they are in the jibes they take at the writers they’re judging.

That’s not what you want when you’re looking for an objective take on your screenplay.  You want someone who actually knows what it takes to get a screenplay into good enough shape to be bought or optioned for production.  You want someone whose gotten films made or at least has been through the process as a producer or production assistant.

I had a reader once as one of my students and over two years of doing coverage for big production companies he passed on two or three films that actually got made.  I asked him if he was fired or reprimanded for this.  Not at all, he told me.  One of the scripts was “Elf,” which eventually starred Will Ferrell.  He passed on Elf and there was no blowback from his bosses?  How could this be?

Because it’s always safe for a reader to pass, it’s when he recommends something that he’s in some danger.  Then his bosses want to read the script and if they don’t think it’s good they blame him.  How could he possibly like this crap?  So most readers pass on everything.

The right person to do coverage for you is not only smart enough to find clever solutions to the problems you’re having but is excited about finding projects that actually are commercial and have a chance of getting made.

Almost anyone can sense when something is wrong in a screenplay.  But it’s the creative individual that can come up with the right ideas in fixing those problems.  They need to be creative themselves, not nitpicky critics.

I’m amazed that even development people, your directors of development and creative heads at most companies don’t have a clue about how to fix the problems in a screenplay.  They can point out areas that aren’t working but the true talent comes in brainstorming to fix those problems.

And that’s not to say you don’t need professional feedback before you send a script out.  The biggest mistake most screenwriters make is that they attempt to market screenplays before they’re ready.

So go to people who have gotten films made themselves, who are creative in their approach, who have professional credits and actually have a stake in finding the next Elf.  I’ve found a few of them over the years.  If you’re interested, get in touch and I’ll let you know who I’d recommend.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  I started this new conversation talking about marketing, and I’m looking for any insights that any of you can offer regarding selling screenplays in new and creative ways.

Once again, these are not the normal topics you will be exposed to in screenwriting courses, screenwriting classes or most screenwriting workshops.  That’s why these posts were created, to provide information you wouldn’t find from most books or classes.

My latest foray into creating a brand – and that is what you’re doing in effect when you create a following for your story and concept – is to explore the idea of self publishing on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and on Apple.

Each one of these companies have ereaders:  Kindle for Amazon, the Nook for Barnes and Noble and the Ipad for Apple.  In addition to this, many people download books on their phones and will read them when they’re at a café, or have a moment between meetings, etc.

This is the future, my friends.  Last year, more books were downloaded on Amazon than paper books.  One of five people last year in the U.S. read an ebook.  I know there are still lots of hold-outs who love the heft of a book, the feel and smell of a book, but that is not the future of publishing.  Even college course books are now being downloaded by students.

We need to take advantage of this trend and consider whether our screenplay project would make a good ebook.  As I mentioned last week, the buyers don’t really know what’s commercial.  They’re lawyers now and business people, not filmmakers or creative people.  All they know is that they have a package – here’s a screenplay with a director attached, a star attached possibly, and a producer they trust.

But even more attractive to them is the fact that this project already is branded.  That is, it’s already performed well as a graphic novel, a comic book, a published novel, or an ebook.  It proves to them people have already shown interest in the concept.  Sometimes it doesn’t have to be a big audience either.  But there is a following, and these readers love the story and characters.

So that shows the buyers it’s marketable.

Like I said, not all screenplay projects will translate well as an ebook.  But genre material does exceptionally well – romance, paranormal romance, science fiction, fantasy.  These are great genres for ebooks.

Do you have a project that would make a great ebook?  Have you ever thought about writing it as a book?  Even though you’ve never written prose, it doesn’t mean that you can’t.

The screenwriters I’ve talked to who’ve gone this route universally have loved the process.  It allows them to go much deeper into their characters.  It’s given them more control over their projects as now they’re the sellers, they can create the buzz and the interest – it makes them feel more self determined, not just at the mercy of those faceless buyers out there.

I know when one of my close friends and colleagues came to me with this idea I was initially very hesitant as I didn’t know anything about writing books.  But then I saw the light and realized all the advantages of being proactive like this.  Let’s give this more thought in the weeks to come.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  Let’s take a step back now from our exhaustive conversation about Hugo and think about marketing.

You probably haven’t really had much guidance in this area in your screenwriting courses, screenwriting classes or screenwriting workshops you’ve attended.

This current environment we’re in is exceptionally competitive and we need to figure out ways to make our projects rise above the crowd.

How do we do that?  Well, there are many strategies.  We need to promote our screenplays.  We can do that by entering screenwriting competitions, promoting our projects on inktip.com and virtualpitchfest.com

We obviously need to work long and hard on our loglines and on our one page synopsis so buyers will see the core story and the marketability of what we’re doing.  If they read a great one page of our project it gives them confidence the writing of the screenplay is also professional.

We hit up all our contacts, our friends in the industry, anyone who has relationships with industry pros and see if we can’t share those contacts.  We might also go to pitch fests like the ones given by Fade In and The Great American PitchFest, giving us an opportunity to pitch our projects to producers and agents.

We have to do all this if we don’t have an agent or manager, whose job it is to market our material.

But there are also other ways to get the attention of the buyers.  Michael Blake who wrote “Dancing With Wolves” was friends with Kevin Costner, who read his screenplay.  He liked it but advised Michael to write it as a novel as it would make it easier to sell.

Even at that time, a western with Indians was not considered commercial.  So Blake did that and it was sold to the studio as they had a book with a following which gave them confidence the movie would have a following as well.

As we all know, many films are based on books or graphic novels.  The reason for this is simple.  The studio heads don’t have a clue what is commercial.  But if a screenplay is based on a pre-existing work which has an audience, this gives them confidence the film will also be successful.

“The Invention of Hugo Cabret” is a perfect example.  The film “Hugo” was based on this book, which became very popular.  It was actually more of a graphic novel with many illustrations amidst the prose.

Now with ebooks on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Apple, you don’t need a publisher to get your book published.  You can self publish for a very small investment.  John Locke (“How I sold a million books on Amazon”) and Amanda Hocking have had tremendous success doing this.  We will talk about this strategy in the weeks to come.  It’s something my writing partner, Dale Pitman, and I are exploring ourselves for one of our screenplays.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  I hope you enjoyed my last post relaying how Brian Selznick, the author of the book:  “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” responded to the screenplay by John Logan.  For those of you in screenwriting courses, screenwriting workshops or screenwriting classes, let me know your thoughts on Hugo.  It’s a great screenplay and we have much to learn from it.

The one thing we haven’t factored into our discussion of the film is that this is an adaptation of a beloved novel, really more of a graphic novel as it has many, many illustrations.  There is a large devoted audience that loves this book and the story, both young people and old.  And that is one of the reasons this movie is getting made, because it’s already got an audience.  It’s branded in effect.

We will talk about branding your project in the near future!!!

But back to Hugo.  Will the fact that this screenplay is based on a popular book effect the writing of the screenplay?  Of course it will as the filmmakers don’t want to turn off all the fans that already love the novel.  They would clearly be hesitant to significantly change story points in the book as this would anger the book’s fan base.

So what do the filmmakers do?  They try and stay as faithful to the book as possible.

And therefore, even though the story has some major flaws in terms of creating deep emotional moments between the characters, the filmmakers are leery of changing the major story points, because this will anger the book’s fan base, who will all certainly make sure to come see the movie.

So, this is a quandary for the intelligent producer, director, studio heads.  If they are intelligent enough to see the flaws, should they fix them and thus alienate the book’s fans?  Probably not is their reasoning.  If the book was so popular, then despite the story problems, the audience loved the book nevertheless.  So why create a firestorm of controversy?  Why not go with what has already worked?

Let me know your thinking about this.

Next week we’ll talk more about creating those deep emotional moments I keep talking about.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello everyone.  We have gone into great depth lately discussing Hugo.  It has been something I could never do if I’d been teaching a screenwriting class, screenwriting course or even attempted something like this in one of private screenwriting workshops.  There just wouldn’t be the time.

As a part of this analysis, I thought you’d all be interested to hear what Brian Selznick thought of the film adaptation of his book, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” This article appeared last month in The Writers Guild Magazine.

As you will see, Brian was extremely happy with the work John Logan did, the screenwriter of the film:

“Sometimes, from what I hear, authors are unhappy with the film adaptation of their books.  Sometimes authors feel that the decisions made to their original stories obscure their vision and leave them feeling alienated and unhappy.  That’s what I hear anyway.

As for me, let’s just say John Logan asked me to write the preface to his beautiful screenplay adaptation of my book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret.  I jumped at the chance.

I had the great pleasure of reading John Logan’s screenplay from the very first draft.  Right away, he had come up with a new ending that expanded on and completed one of the central scenes in my story, a conversation between the two main characters, Hugo and Isabelle, about what their purpose in   life might be.  That’s when I knew the screenplay was going to be brilliant.  John kept the dialogue spare.  I love the fact that there are no spoken words for the first several minutes of the movie.  The world of the Parisian train station station, Hugo’s world, unfolds visually, just like it does in my book.”

So as you can see, Brian Selznick had no problem with this adaptation.  There is one scene that bothered and that’s what I’d like to point out in this post.  He continues:

“Sometimes, though, I admit I just couldn’t understand the changes.  For instance, in my original book, Hugo keeps the fact that he lives in the walls of the train station as a closely guarded secret.  After he meets Isabelle, who wants to know where he lives, he goes out of his way to hide the answer from her.  Isabelle manages to track Hugo down, wrestle him to the floor, and force him to explain what’s going on.  It’s a rough, uncomfortable scene, and it unfolds over many pages.  In the screenplay, however, Isabelle simply says, “Hugo, where do you live?” while the two characters are standing on a bridge.  Hugo points towards the train station and says, “There.”

What? I thought.  That’s it!

I was really disappointed by this scene as written on the page.  But I happened to be on the set in London when Scorsese filmed it with Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Morentz.  The kids were standing on a fake bridge in front of a green screen that would eventually become the River Seine.  I watched Asa and Chloe perform this moment together.  Chloe gently asked the question, “Hugo… where do you live?” and Asa paused.  You could see him making a thousand decisions in his mind, deciding whether or not to trust her.

John had actually provided these directions in the script, which at first I’d overlooked:  “He stops.  Looks at her.  Should he tell her?  Should he trust her?  Yes.”  Slowly Asa lifted his arm and pointed behind him.  “There,” he said quietly.  Tears came to my eyes as he pointed toward the train station.  It was so simple and yet so moving.  And it was perfect for the screen, just as John knew it would be.”

Whatever weaknesses we have found in the basic building blocks of this story, you see here the inherent difference between film and prose.  What might take pages and pages to describe in a book, can be captured with a look or a brief interchange on screen.

The more succinct we are in writing with pictures, telling a story visually, the more powerful it will be on screen when translated by the director and the actors.

We will discuss more important lessons about screenwriting, using Hugo as our model.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  We’ve been discussing Hugo, which won a slew of technical kudos at the Academy Awards but no creative ones.  It is a greatly admired film, beautifully directed by Martin Scorsese and we have spent some time pointing out its merits.

If you remember from your screenwriting courses, screenwriting classes or even screenwriting workshops, much was said about dialogue and character development, but probably little was said about the very nuts and bolts of what made a script work.

Hugo is such a wonderful film to analyze because of its flaws.  It leads me to discuss exactly what great art is.  It isn’t technical greatness.  In other words, craft is not what makes great art.  Great art requires just enough craft to communicate the deep emotional feelings of your characters.

The writers with the greatest craft, James Joyce comes to mind, is not for me the greatest writer.  Charles Dickens, a much more popular writer, for me, is a greater novelist. Joyce had great abilities when it came to crafting prose, but it was Dickens who moved us.

Who will be read more in the next 100 years?  Will it be Joyce or Dickens?  I think Dickens wins hands down.  He had exceptional craft but it was not his craft that will live on for centuries to come.  It’s his characters – Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Mrs. Haversham, and Macawber and all those wonderful characters who move us so deeply.

So take heart you writers who worry so much about your talent.  It is not the most talented writers who prosper.  It is those writers who have the relentless determination to prosper and who can delve deeply into their characters and move us emotionally.

It takes just enough talent to achieve those ends.  Martin Scorsese and John Logan, the director and writer of Hugo, both have enormous talents.  And yet because they ignored what truly creates emotional resonance with an audience, failed in their quest to make us care.

When I read this screenplay, I had a hard time getting through it through from beginning to end.  I admired the writing, I loved the style, but I was not truly gripped by the story.  I wasn’t compelled to keep turning those pages. This is the mark of a great screenplay.  You have to keep turning the pages to see what is going to happen to the characters.

A great example is the climax of Hugo.  The young boy rushes back to the train station to show Georges the Automaton.  There’s all this action and suspense but what are the stakes involved if Hugo doesn’t succeed?  What are the consequences in his failure.  There are none really.  Georges won’t see the Automaton and Hugo won’t be able to show it to him.  Those are not significant enough stakes.

In your screenplays, make sure there are real tangible consequences to success or failure.  Make us care deeply about the stakes of the story.  If you do that, you will make us feel deeply and that is what true art is really all about.

We’ll talk more about creating deep emotional moments in your stories in the weeks to come.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  We‘ve been discussing “Hugo,” and for many weeks have praised all the things this screenplay does right.

Now we are exploring the problems with this story and analyzing why it doesn’t effect us more emotionally than it does.

I wish in more screenwriting courses, screenwriting classes in college and elsewhere and even in most screenwriting workshops, more instructors would zero in on these kind of fundamental concerns – the very building blocks of what makes a great screenplay.

The basic problem in Hugo is the stakes of the story.  These stakes that you build into your screenplay is what makes an audience bond with your characters.  The stakes have to be significant – they can’t just be intellectual puzzles like the mystery plot in Hugo.

And because the stakes aren’t high and nothing is directly effecting Hugo and why he has to solve the mystery of Georges (the toy store owner), we are left admiring the film but not becoming deeply engrossed in it.

The Screenwriter John Logan tries to raise the stakes by having the Station Master (played admirably by Sasha Baron Cohen) lurking around and almost capturing Hugo as a vagrant. When Hugo is being chased he drops a screwdriver and is almost discovered.

All this attempts to prop up what is a fundamental flaw – what will happen to Hugo if he doesn’t solve the mystery of the toy store owner.  Will he die?  Will his life be destroyed in some way?  Will his whole life fall apart?

Compare this to another kid’s film:  E.T. Elliott, the young protagonist has found an adorable new friend, E.T., who desperately needs to go back to his home planet.  Scientists get closer and closer to where E.T. now lives. Finally at the end of Act 2 they find him and prevent E.T. from going home. What really drives the stakes here – E.T. is getting sicker. He has to get home! Elliott has to help him or his little friend will die.

This is what Steven Spielberg understands so well. This is really what makes a film work on an emotional level. In Jaws, ET, Indiana Jones, Schindler’s List … The heart of the movie has real stakes.  If the protagonists don’t achieve their goals terrible things will happen.  That’s why we care when we’re watching these films. I don’t think Scorsese gets this in the same way that Spielberg does.

We’ll discuss this area of high emotional stakes in the weeks to come.  It is the make/break point of a successful screenplay!

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, everyone.  I wanted to let all of you know our last post was honored as Best article Of The Week On The Web by the Philadelphia Script Fest, an online magazine and scriptwriting contest.  Pretty nice, huh?  Go to this link and check it out.

www.ScreenplayFest.com

If you guys really pay attention, you can learn more by studying these posts than you can by going to screenwriting classes, screenwriting courses, or even most screenwriting workshops.  Everything I’m trying to get across is stuff I’ve learned as a screenwriter over an entire 30 year career.

Now let’s get back to our ongoing discussion of Hugo.  At the Academy Awards, Hugo won a slew of technical awards but didn’t win any creative ones.  Why do you think that is?

Although the movie is extremely rich visually and wonderfully executed with great characters and dialogue, there is something fundamentally missing in the underlying story structure that makes the movie less than fulfilling emotionally.

That is, as you’re watching the film you’re admiring the filmmaking but you’re not becoming emotionally involved in the story. This relates to the very building blocks of what makes a movie work.

There is really only one important rule in any great script:

It must be emotionally satisfying.

As I’ve discussed many times when discussing art:

Great art is simply having enough craft to communicate the emotional moments of your characters.  It’s not about the technical skills of the artist.  The artist simply has to have ample technical skills to convey those deep, emotional moments.

And how do we achieve those deep, emotional moments? By having real stakes that will move your audience emotionally – the story must be so gripping it makes the audience feel as deeply as possible.

THIS IS WHAT THIS FILM IS LACKING. And it’s a critical flaw that effects the artistic and commercial success of this film.

WHAT DRIVES THIS STORY?

1. Hugo loses his notebook – he has to get it back.

This keeps plot moving forward until

2. Page 19 when Georges shows him ashes in handkerchief of his notebook being burned. It’s a great moment in the movie.

Why he burned it or kept it at all is a total mystery.  Why the notebook is so important to Hugo is also a mystery for a good while as well.

3. Then we discover the book wasn’t burnt and Georges has Hugo do errands for him if he wants the book back.

4. Then we basically drop the book as a driving force of the plot and substitute the Automaton. Can Hugo get it going again?  Where is the key?  **Is anything now really driving this story?

5. No – what drives story is the mystery: Why does Georges take the notebook and not give it back? Why does Isabelle have key around her neck that gets Automaton working? Why does Automaton write Georges’ name? Why is Georges upset by the drawings? After making his seminal film:  Trip To The Moon — why did he stop working? Why do people think he’s dead and how did he end up in Train Station selling toys?

That’s what’s really moving this story forward. THE MYSTERY.  We ask questions and want them to be answered.

But what are repercussions if they’re not answered? Hugo will be disappointed and not find answers he’s seeking. Are those stakes high enough?  I don’t think so. It also doesn’t relate to Hugo directly. Is his relationship so important with Georges that he has to help him? He barely knows Georges.

Every film needs at his core large emotional stakes that effect the protagonist in a deep, heartfelt way.  If not, we are not creating art, we are possibly creating a technical feat with great artifice but no real emotional depth.

We will talk about this more in the weeks to come.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

For all you newbies, these blog posts come from my Secrets of Screenwriting Group on Facebook.  Please join this group on FB, it’s free.  You will get much more from reading these posts than you would ever learn from a screenwriting workshop, screenwriting class or screenwriting course.  They come from years of experience as a professional screenwriter and screenwriting instructor.

Hello, everyone.  Now that we know that Hugo is up for 11 Academy award nominations it certainly behooves us to take a good look at this film and discover what it can teach all of us as screenwriters.

I am going to mention here a few more things this film does right before I analyze its flaws.

William Goldman, one of the greatest screenwriters in the last 25 years (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Misery, etc) wrote in his book – Secrets of the Screen Trade – which I encourage all of you to read:   that if you have 4-5 great moments in a film, you have a successful film.

Let’s think about that for awhile.  One of Goldman’s great screenplays is Marathon Man.  Zell, based on Joseph Mengele, is a Nazi doctor who has hidden diamonds in the U.S. and when he’s afraid his stash has been compromised, he’s forced to travel to New York to retrieve the diamonds.

To find out how much his jewels are worth now, he heads into the diamond district, which is mostly controlled by Hasidic Jews.  This is an amazing sequence in the film.  For as he walks down the streets, a Jewish woman recognizes him from the camps.

She begins screaming:   “ZELL, it’s Zell!”

The man who wants no one to know about him has now got a street full of Jews staring at him.  Another man recognizes him as well and starts to follow him – The woman keeps screaming:  “It’s Zell!”  The Nazi doctor kills the man following him and barely escapes with his life.

This is one of the amazing moments in a film which no one will ever forget.

So according to Goldman, if you have 4-5 of these moments, you have the makings of a great film and screenplay.

Do we have great moments in Hugo?

SOME OF THE GREAT MOMENTS IN HUGO:

**Hugo has a notebook given to him by his father and it’s confiscated by Georges, the toy store owner.  When he finally returns the notebook, he opens a handkerchief and inside is a heap of ashes. The boy is devastated.

**Hugo and his father worked together on a Automaton but never were able to make it come alive.  When Hugo finds the key that turns on the machine, it comes to life.

**The climactic scene in the film where the authorities discover Hugo has no family and they’re about to send him to an orphanage.  Georges tells the authorities that Hugo does not belong there, he belongs with them.  They’re his family now.

These are just some of the great moments in the film.  And you will take note that what we mean by great moments are emotional moments.

They are moments in the film that move us on a deep, visceral level.  This is what true art is.  A great screenwriter needs just enough craft to make us feel deeply about his characters.

We will talk much more about this in the weeks to come as we discuss Hugo.  If you have not seen the film yet, please do so.  You will get a lot more out of these posts.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

For those of you who are new to this blog, these posts come from my newsletter/blog on Facebook:  SECRETS OF SCREENWRITING GROUP.  Please go to FB and search for this group.  I send out a post every week-end on some aspect of screenwriting.  These posts are much more involved than anything you’d find in a screenwriting workshop, screenwriting course or screenwriting class.  It’s free too!  Here’s the post —

Hello, everyone.  We have been discussing “Hugo,” and there is still much to talk about.

But before we do that, check out this action on our Wall.  One of our members was looking for help on one of her scripts and she posted this:

Amber Dawn Lee

I have a script MAGNOLIA LAKE that needs something- not sure what..but was wondering if there is anyone here who wants to be a “script consultant” just for fun – by reading it and coming over with the director in next few days to make suggestions on it? I know y’all are busy, but this script is good- and getting ready to produce in Texas-but want it to be really awesome.

This is the response she got:

This is the value of our Wall.  Writers helping other writers.  This is what I envisioned when I first began this group.  It’s awesome!  Please continue the good work!

Now, back to Hugo.

Along with the character diamonds David Freedman talks about there’s another aspect of character that is crucial in developing a unique and well rounded protagonist.

That is the character’s FLBW (Fear/Limitation/Block/or Wound).  Every great protagonist in just about every movie you’ve ever seen has one of these.

What do we mean by the FLBW. The Greeks referred to it as the Achilles heal, that thing which makes the hero vulnerable – some aspect of their character that the protagonist has trouble confronting.  The plot of the movie is there to force the protagonist into facing that FLBW.

That is in fact why we have plot points.  Most people don’t want to change.  They’re fearful of facing this aspect of their character.  So we have plot points which force them into dealing with the very thing they don’t want to confront.

In the case of The Descendants, (a movie I thought was purely constructed and executed) George Clooney doesn’t want to face the fact that he’s been an absent father.  The death of his wife and the discovery of her affair forces the Clooney character to connect with his kids in a way he’s never connected before.

What is Hugo’s FLBW?

His fear/limitation/block or wound:  His father’s death. He hasn’t reconciled himself to his father’s death and has to complete the Automaton to somehow make peace with him.

If a character does not have a FLBW there is literally no chance for a character arc.  Remember, none of us wants to change.  The only reason we change is that we have no choice.

For example, a promiscuous father is told by his wife she will leave him and he’ll lose his children unless he becomes monogomous.  So he’s forced into changing.  An alcoholic always hits rock bottom before he finally is forced to confront his drinking.  Alcoholics like anyone with an addiction only change when they are forced to.

When you are constructing your story and desire to give your protagonist a character arc, first consider what is your protagonist’s FLBW.  What is it they’re most afraid of confronting?  Then, you will also decide on the plot point, for that is what forces them to come face-to-face with that FLBW.  The greater that fear is, the more conflict you will build into your story and the greater the character arc.

We will discuss other key elements of story and conflict as we continue to delive deeper into “Hugo.”

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this: