I've been writing for the screen since 1999. I moved from Seattle to Hollywood in November of 2004. Three of my five screenplays are making the rounds.
My latest comedy, FALSE SECURITY, took 2nd place in the WriteSafe.com contest for the third quarter of 2005.
I wrote, produced, and directed a short film titled, Memoir.
I gained representation as a screenwriter in 2006.

I'm referring to the word "guru" of course and its specific connotation for screenwriting and screenwriters.

But before I jump into those muddied waters of unknown depth here's a quick update on me, the most unguruesque writer you'll ever read:

My manager, M has mounted a major assault on the readers of the Town to put FEAR OF THUNDER under some appropriate noses. We talked the other day about the current state of affairs and, despite our best efforts, we're both anticipating the relative famine to become something akin to a feast. The Town is hubblin' and bubblin' lately and the proverbial lid is about to lift off the metaphorical pot. Now you're up to date. Onward...


.: Introduction :.

Question: Would the art and/or craft of screenwriting suffer if one person became the de facto standard (guru) for narrative structure and plot?

In other words, should screenwriting be dominated by a specific method? Do screenwriters need a creative Microsoft®?

I intend to answer those questions. This essay will document the process.

I'm writing an essay about screenwriting and gurus now because I might be too busy to write it next month--hell, I might be too busy to write it later this month. We'll see. And perhaps most importantly for me, I'm going "on record" before I make a sale: I want readers willing to add as much intellectual salt to my opinions as they require.

First off, let's get our terms straight. Here's what the Word Wide Webster lexicon says:

Main Entry: gu·ru
Pronunciation: 'gur-ü, 'gü-rü also g&-'rü
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gurus
Etymology: ultimately from Sanskrit guru, from guru, adjective, heavy, venerable -- more at GRIEVE
1 : a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism
2 a : a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern b : one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent c : a person with knowledge or expertise : EXPERT

This essay will concentrate on the use of the word as denoted in definitions 2a through 2c and my focus is on the most recent screenwriter to don that heavy mantle: Blake Snyder.

Begin Full Disclosure
I'm acquainted with Blake and have been since 2003. He's always been friendly, considerate, and helpful to me, i.e I have no personal beef with the guy. We haven't talked in awhile--he's been super busy, and I've either been busy or waiting to be and when I'm waiting to be busy I'm not always good company.

I attended Blake's book signing in 2005 for Save the Cat! and my signed copy is presently resting atop Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. On pages 11 and 12 of Save the Cat! Blake writes about my battle with SCRATCH (a romcom). I'm the screenwriter who "bitched and moaned" about having to rework my logline and the entire premise of the story. And in my own defense I'll say I moaned a lot more than I bitched.

I met Blake's manager, Andy Cohen at the book signing. He was completely uninterested in me as both a writer and fellow Homo sapiens. He wasn't rude or unkind, just utterly uninterested. We haven't spoken since that night in 2005 and I've never corresponded with him. Mr. Cohen read SCRATCH in late 2005 or early 2006--a copy sent to him by Blake. He didn't like it.

Blake read the outline, and later a draft of my next screenplay, FALSE SECURITY (a comedy). Act III was a bitch-kitty. Neither of us liked it nor knew what to do to fix it--a case where even the Beat Sheet® didn't reveal all the narrative flaws. I finally came up with a version we liked. I still like it--for better or worse. I don't know if Blake still does.

I wrote FEAR OF THUNDER on my own. I dimly recall using the beat sheet but my current hard drive contains no copy of an outline and I've been too lazy to dig into my deep archives. Neither Blake Snyder nor Andy Cohen have read FEAR OF THUNDER as far as I know.

I have never read a screenplay written by Blake Snyder. I have read a weekly column he used to write. It was hilarious. I won't reveal the name of the column because Blake never put his name to it. I don't know why. Like I said, it was hilarious.

I have no plans to write a book about screenwriting ever in my life. I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by a writer. I have no financial interest in any writing seminars or workshops being conducted anywhere on this planet.
End Full Disclosure

.: On Becoming a Secular Guru :.

There may be many paths to that raised and rarefied place, but at minimum one needs at least one person, preferably a journalist, to bestow the title. It appears that Blake was first bestowed in September of last year: Blake Snyder, Screenwriting Guru, Answers 3 Questions
Next, the bestowee must accept the title and begin using it. Blake used his as recently as February of this year. In this interview with ScribbleKing Blake says, "I am unlike other screenwriting gurus out there."

So it's official: The title of screenwriting guru was bestowed upon and accepted by Blake Snyder.

One might argue, and correctly so, that it takes more to become a functioning secular guru than a journalist's bestowment and the bestowee's acceptance of guru status. It helps to have a book or two published wherein one pontificates. It also helps if one's guru book(s) are being read by their target audience. According to Blake's blog, "Save the Cat! is now outselling Robert McKee’s Story on Amazon, making Cat! the #1 screenwriting book overall." Blake's got the books and readers aspect totally covered.

The seminar circuit is the next path to travel: The guru must manifest himself unto those who thirst for his proverbial fountain of knowledge and seminars/workshops are the perfect watering holes for acolytes.

.: Which Manifests First, The Guru or the Title? :.

The question begs one or more questions, but I don't feel like riding a slippery slope just now. When the question is applied to chickens and their shelled ovums the answer is easy: The egg came first because chickens come from eggs. I don't see the answer nearly as simple for gurus of any ilk: Eggs are physical, gurus are conceptual. There are some tells that separate the functional gurus from mere poseurs: Reviewing the guru's credentials is a good start.

Blake Snyder has credentials. He's on record as writing 78 screenplays and selling exactly 39 of them including his latest horror/comedy. He states that two of those 39 screenplays were produced, to wit, Blank Check and Stop or My Mom Will Shoot.

The consistency of the guru's statements over time are also a good way of determining if the secular guru-in-question is functional. Blake has been mostly consistent but this Blake Snyder interview with Jenna Glatzer is a lot more like the Blake I corresponded and spoke with in 2003 through 2004. The interview is undated but Glatzer states in the intro that Blake had sold 10 screenplays (including the two I mentioned above) and NUCLEAR FAMILY to Amblin Entertainment--still unproduced. Blake states in the interview that he'd written 74 scripts--that's a difference of 29 screenplays sold based on his most recent tally.

If my memory is remotely reliable, I read that interview back in late 2002 or early 2003 and the beat sheet (BS1) was linked there. It's not linked from there any more possibly because the BS1 has been deprecated by the current BS2.

There are other inconsistencies. Here's a few that caught my eye from the Glatzer interview:

"I never took a screenwriting course until after I sold my first screenplay."

"...I'm self-taught and, frankly, I think everyone is."

"... I'm still convinced that concept is king. No matter how good a script is, if no one is in the mood to buy a "giant alligator" movie (or whatever) they won't."

.: The Guru's Message: Does it Parse? :.

A diligent acolyte will objectively compute the guru's parse index (PI). The PI is more an intuitive exercise in logic than a mathematical task.

A simple example: Is the guru under test directly contradicted by one or more peer gurus?

One must of course verify that the comparator guru is of equivalent stature to the one in comparison. A positive response will lower the guru's PI.

My favorite question: Is the guru always right?

By definition, gurus should always be right. By "right" I'm saying that every statement the guru makes must be verifiable as 100% correct. I'm not denying that people make mistakes and gurus, no matter how exalted, are people. Yet I expect anyone accepting the title to always be right within their area of expertise. The answers a guru gives to legitimate questions must always be 100% correct. I don't expect a guru to always have the correct answer immediately in mind. I'll accept a guru's need for time to research and verify their answer before giving it. They can take as much time as they need. That way there's never an excuse for a guru to be wrong. A guru's PI goes to zero if he gives a wrong answer.

.: Guru Theories, Guru Rules :.

Some will say my last test question is unfair no matter how eloquently I argue for its validity. So be it. How about this:

Does a valid example exist that disproves any theory propounded by a guru?

My example is from Blake Snyder's own book: The film, Miss Congeniality is sited as a $100 million dollar success and Blake shows how the film hits all his 15 beats, QED.

Then what about Hidalgo?

It hit all 15 BS beats to the minute. Hidalgo was a fast and resilient mustang but only $100 million worth of dog food at the box office. No QED there.

A disproved theory should be considered the same as a wrong answer. The same goes for any rules, like the page number of a screenplay where some aspect of a narrative must appear. Axioms must withstand the same tests.

.: In Conclusion :.

The title of guru should be taken seriously by anyone accepting it. Whereas it's only one of many foreign words adopted for use in American English, the word "guru" strongly connotes an unassailable status. I don't consider anyone truly deserving of the title: screenwriting guru. None who have claimed or accepted the title are even remotely unassailable.

The art and craft of screenwriting would be harmed by a creative Microsoft. The medium is too broad, too malleable, and too personal for both the creator and the audience to be legitimately bounded by any but the broadest definitions. No expression of talent within the medium deserves to be excluded by anyone's theory or rule.

There is no perfect operating system for computers. To understate: every available OS has flaws. Bill Gates, as an OS guru, fares no better when tested with the questions in this essay than Blake Snyder does as a screenwriting guru.

Perhaps Blake nailed it when he said he thinks we're all self-taught. Perhaps every creator must teach himself to create before learning from others how to create better if at all. Perhaps it's human nature to desire a guru: they typically promise to enlighten and smooth the acolyte's path. Perhaps creation of any type will never be easy and always inscrutable.

Perhaps Herman Melville was right when he wrote, "And perhaps after all, there is no secret."

< < Back to Main