Screenwriting Professionally: 2021 edition

In what's become an annual tradition, I recount the highs and lows of my screenwriting efforts in the last year. A special year indeed: 2021 was my first year as an agented writer, thanks to the great Andy Townsend. It marked my first steps into broadcast drama and was the first time, in nearly a year, that I was able to start working outside again, as is my preference. The COVID pandemic had been, and still is, profoundly surreal, and trying to get back into 'the swing' after such a seismic shift in culture and society has been tricky.

Has it been a better year than 2020? A firm YES - vaccinated, got talking to industry folk again and my productivity was up a good 100% compared to said prior. Was it a good year, for me? Did I achieve my own goals and did I grow as a writer? That is much more complicated to answer.

 
Jan-Mar (Winter): 

At first, the year started relatively quiet and slow - with my vaccine eligibility still months off, I was endeavouring to power through my action drama pilot, best as I could. I had been tinkering away on it since last autumn, believing it was a great new challenge, as well as showcasing my ability to write setpieces and something with a faster pace. Writing from home, given I live in a flat with others, was incredibly difficult: always distractions.

On the flip side, however, I progressed through the BBC New Voices scheme from last year. Now I got to do a Writer's room for series 2 of Jojo & Gran Gran (a Cbeebies megahit). Working with the producers and script editors of the series to conjure up stories and learn the particular flavour of the show was indeed a lot of fun. I even got to make the acquaintance of its lovely creator, Laura Henry-Allain.

Apr-Jun (Spring):   

Now this period ended very differently to how it started: work slogged on with the action pilot, but that lack of 'space' was possibly the worst it ever was. Work that should've been a few hours took days, if not weeks, to turn around. No matter how bad I wanted it, it was hard to muster up the energy. Add to that, a family health scare, and it was rough.

There appeared to be two bright spots amidst all this. Two things that could turn it around: first was my agent liked an old crime spec I had on the backburner, which needed some punch ups. The other was a new disability initiative on one of the continuing dramas, which itself was partially following through an earlier script submission I had made to the production team, which they had liked. If I could land these, the blockage would finally clear and I'd be back, right into the heart of the action. A new submission in a lucrative genre, and a shot on a beloved show.

And it all went wrong.

The timing of the scheme conflicted with rewrites, and due to a misguided sense of hope, mixed with a few drops of arrogance, I decided to put the crime pilot aside again. In the moment, it seemed like the right choice: the pilot was revealing deeper layers of problems, and the circumstances around the scheme, I thought, meant I was a shoe-in. I also, for reasons that make even less sense, decided to go full charge with the action pilot, thinking it was near finished (forgetting my own rules on having a varied slate). A few things happened regarding said scheme, which I cannot put up for public knowledge at this time, that meant it was not to be, and for reasons which I still have questions over.

At this point, I was feeling miserable. I had taken a gamble and it completely blew up in my face. Thankfully, it wasn't all gloom: I had kept in touch with a script editor-turned-producer from Doctors, who I sent over a script to. My own manners and diligence had, at least, granted me this much needed lifeline.

Jul-Sept (Summer): 

And here begins my Doctors journey. The script was liked, passed onto another script editor, Mary Flannigan, and ta-da, I was on the Writer's scheme. I've got posts planned to detail the process further, but over the coming months, I would pitch, draft and rewrite a trial script for the show under Mary's guidance. After what had happened with the 'other' show, this was such a boost and I loved the experience. 

Plus, with my first shot in, I could start to think about getting outside again. I went, for the first time in my life, office hunting. It's a minefield, to put it lightly. Eventually, however, I found just the place and began to work from there.

As for the action pilot... I had begun to reversion it, trying to solve a problem around the protagonists that emerged in notes. What started out as something closer to Donnie Brasco was starting to drift into more of a mother-son story with this element of homegrown fascism. It wasn't a bad approach, and I thought it would add a lot of intensity and action to the project. However, what I should've realized, as the drafts and brainstorms worn on, was that I had screwed up. Not here, but back to the project's origins. I hadn't done my due diligence and was building on weak foundations, with a script that ended up more mimicking other shows than being its own thing.  

How had this happened: anxieties. I was worried about getting work and chasing shows I liked, that I wasn't paying attention to the right things. A writer must endeavor to maintain a clear and cool head in tough times, otherwise this can happen.

Oct-Dec (Winter again): 

The action pilot, not unlike a plane featured in it, finally crashed here. A last ditch effort to rescue the project by doing more a Shakespearean family tragedy, trying to add dimension to the lead, was a no-go. I felt awful: months of work and after all that, nothing to show for it. In two years, no new spec.

Doctors, thankfully, rode to the rescue again: I completed the scheme and secured the big prize: getting to write my first broadcast TV drama script. As of writing this, still on the treatment stage, but considering how fast the scheme went by, and what had happened earlier in the year, it was nothing short of a miracle. In addition, ITV called out yet again, with me landing on the 2021 Original Voices scheme, this time for Emmerdale. After a fun zoom workshop, I got to draft half an episode of a hypothetical episode.  In that same week, I attended the launch of Underlying Health Condition, and did some pitches for a major northern production company, so hey, the year ends on a bang!

Returning to the above question, did I accomplish everything I wanted? No. The saying 'one step forward and two steps back' is an apt summary of 2021: I am grateful for the success I did have. Breaking the continuing drama deadlock is a huge win, whatever else can be said. But where I failed, indisputably, was in craft: I did not grow as much as I had wanted to, and in turn, hurt my slate. I forgot basic principles and charged into situations with the wrong mindset. Never put your eggs on one basket, always spread yourself out and never take anything for granted.

 If I want 2022 to really hit the heights, changes will have to be implemented and certain tenets revisited. Discipline needs to be re-instilled: I fought hard to get here, and I'm not backing down.

Underlying Health Condition: A New Chapter for Disability in TV

If you've read this blog for any length of time, you'll know I'm not shy about talking about disabled issues in film and TV, as someone on the spectrum. Because of it, I've able to be part of some delightful things that have travelled the world (like the animated series Pablo). Representation is becoming a bigger talking point in this business, and I try to do my own little part to add an informed perspective to the conversation.

On Friday December 3rd, I was invited to the launch of Underlying Health Condition at none other than the Tate in London. What's UHC? a new report and initiative to improve what has been, frankly, the systemic failing of disabled talent in media in the UK for years. While headed up by award-winner Jack Thorne (His Dark Materials, Skins, Enola Holmes), this was an event, and a project, dominated with actual disabled voices. Among some of the speakers and guests included actress Ruth Madeley, Genevieve Barr and Tom Wentworth (both working on the BBC's A Word spinoff, Ralph and Katie). Watch the event for yourself at the following link:

https://vimeo.com/652927043

 

 

Talent in various fields (screenwriting very much included) who, despite hard work and determination, have found themselves shut out of jobs and opportunities they were fully entitled to. Why? Because the industry couldn't be bothered to do the bare minimum. We have money for big star actors and elaborate VFX, but not for ramps or disabled-accessible toilets (know how many there are in UK film and TV? 1000? 100? Not, just one. In the entire country). 

 

They aren't asking for preferential treatment or some other tabloid nonsense about 'PC this, diversity quota that' - they are asking to be able to do their jobs. Because they are adults who want to work and create, not 'problems' or 'nuisances' to be brushed aside. They have the determination, the willpower and the work ethic to succeed, they only need space. If you recall my blog on it, Jack Thorne also discussed this at his powerful MacTaggart lecture - disabled people fighting hard and ending up with credit stolen or being unfairly dismissed from opportunities they were completely entitled to and had proven capable of doing.

Basic attention to detail and accommodation will do so much good - ramps, special kits, co-ordinators and proper toilets are the start. After that, actual sustained job support and training schemes that do lead to paid work and viable careers (for disabled writers, agents can also be a nigh-impossible hurdle to climb. I got lucky with mine, but how many others can say the same?). Merely more workshops or classes will not right a long-running ill, there has to be meaningful remuneration and strategy at play, an actual investment in the talent. Already, Channel 4 has adopted the proposed guidelines, and here's hoping more companies and broadcasters follow suit.

 Pictured: Not a valid reason to ignore someone

Will one initiative solve everything? No, but then UHC isn't a lone wolf - it works with and builds on other disability organizations, like DPTV (Disabled People in TV), 1-IN-4 Coalition, Triple C/DANC (Disabled Artists Networking Community, which if you're not, you should be a member. Lots of support and masterclasses available). Collective effort is how things will change in how disabled creators are perceived and hired.

 

If all of that sounds like soapboxing, then all I ask you people reading to keep an open mind and listen to what disabled artists and crew are saying in the video above. If nothing else, do watch the first ten minutes, which has a short film talking about what disabled people deal with on a regular basis in TV, including some faces you may know from your favourite shows. 

A Writing Formula... from the inspiration of Superman?!

Everyone knows Superman, the big blue boy scout from Krypton. Clark Kent, small town Kansas reporter is the last son of an advanced civilization who fights for justice against all manner of monsters and villains.

Some know Doc Savage, a super scientist who was an inspiration for the Man of Steel (even had his own 'Fortress of Solitude', an arctic base where he conducted experiments and meditated). A master adventurer accompanied by five war veterans, busting all manner of super crime. (Those of a certain age may recall the Bantam reprints with the James Bama covers. Or the cheesy movie with Ron Ely.)

Probably less known still, outside of pulp and 30s nerd circles, is Doc's original writer and creator, Lester Dent, a real life adventurer and treasure hunter, who wrote a lot of pulp material, not just Doc Savage. A body of work comprising of hundreds of stories, short and novels alike.

Like many pulp authors, Dent was a machine, a man who had to churn multiple compelling plots on deadlines for a monthly, or even bi-monthly, target and a readership numbering in the millions. For any writer today, that may seem pure insanity. However, Dent gifted us with his method for writing, which laid out an easy to follow formula. Credit to website Dirty 30s who archived this. Read it here: http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html

 

In the event that it goes down (because this is the internet), here are the main bullet points: Dent has four criteria when he writes a pulp story. They are the following:

1. A DIFFERENT MURDER METHOD FOR VILLAIN TO USE
2. A DIFFERENT THING FOR VILLAIN TO BE SEEKING
3. A DIFFERENT LOCALE
4. A MENACE WHICH IS TO HANG LIKE A CLOUD OVER HERO

After that, he divide up a 6000 word story (typical for a pulp novel of the time) into four 1500 word parts (you can think of them as acts, and work exactly like they do). For Act 1/First 1500, he says: 

1--First line, or as near thereto as possible, introduce the hero and swat him with a fistful of trouble. Hint at a mystery, a menace or a problem to be solved--something the hero has to cope with.

2--The hero pitches in to cope with his fistful of trouble. (He tries to fathom the mystery, defeat the menace, or solve the problem.)

3--Introduce ALL the other characters as soon as possible. Bring them on in action.

4--Hero's endevours land him in an actual physical conflict near the end of the first 1500 words.

5--Near the end of first 1500 words, there is a complete surprise twist in the plot development.

 Act 2/Second 1500:

1--Shovel more grief onto the hero.

2--Hero, being heroic, struggles, and his struggles lead up to:

3--Another physical conflict.

4--A surprising plot twist to end the 1500 words.

Next, Act 3:

1--Shovel the grief onto the hero.

2--Hero makes some headway, and corners the villain or somebody in:

3--A physical conflict.

4--A surprising plot twist, in which the hero preferably gets it in the neck bad, to end the 1500 words.
 

And finally, Act 4:

  1--Shovel the difficulties more thickly upon the hero.

2--Get the hero almost buried in his troubles. (Figuratively, the villain has him prisoner and has him framed for a murder rap; the girl is presumably dead, everything is lost, and the DIFFERENT murder method is about to dispose of the suffering protagonist.)

3--The hero extricates himself using HIS OWN SKILL, training or brawn.

4--The mysteries remaining--one big one held over to this point will help grip interest--are cleared up in course of final conflict as hero takes 
the situation in hand.

5--Final twist, a big surprise, (This can be the villain turning out to be the unexpected person, having the "Treasure" be a dud, etc.)

6--The snapper, the punch line to end it. 

Detailed, right?

Not too dissimilar to modern paradigms we use for discussing structure and writing methodology. And it makes sense - given his line of work, you couldn't wait for the divine muse, you had to get a story down. It gives you a way to think about the pace of your story and what will keep your reader hooked. It may not be as fanciful as Blake Snyder's Pope in the Pool, but it is a reminder that act and writing theory existed long before Syd Field was around.

It's also a methodology not unlike writing for continuing drama or more procedural television today, where plot can take a level of primary focus over drastic character growth. This is a way to give a decently fleshed out cast new adventures every week, because character proactivity and choice still drives, and a format viewers will grow loyal to.

I'm working on BBC's Doctors

So, I finally have some work news and it's a whopper: I have just gotten a place on BBC One's Doctors, following completion of their writers scheme. Basically, it was a trial to write on the long running drama about a medical practice in Birmingham. The series follows the lives of several GPs and staff at the Mill Health Centre. There's love, there's laughs, there's loss and always a new patient with some new problem every day of the working week! 

 

As I succeeded to the script editor's satisfaction with said practice episode, now I get the real deal: pitching (and hopefully then scripting) my first broadcast drama credit.

 

 

 

It's been quite a trek to get here, having tried to get on the scheme two years ago, and not landing it. (On the flip side, it's a reminder to be gracious, as that script editor went onto become a producer and put me forward this time when I showed him a new, and better, script). I do intend to do a full post on the scheme and how the process to develop a Doctors episode works, but sufficed to say, do not let the quaintness fool you: this is a tough and demanding gig.

 

However, I'm really excited to get cracking on the real deal in the coming weeks, and big, big thanks to Mary Flanigan (no J, as she made very clear!) and Simon Curtis, for giving me this opportunity, as well as Michelle Goode of Writersofluid, whose notes helped polish the drama script that got me onto the trial in the first place. And in true awards tradition, not forgetting my friends and family, who've cheered me on through not just this, but last year and a bit as I've navigated a turbulent industry and media landscape.

HOW DO I GET AN AGENT? - Screenwriter's Survival Kit

The big question that every writer has. The age-old dream that the agent is a wondrous wizard who, upon choosing you, will grant your deepest wishes and get you all the jobs and all the monies. You go from a  nobody to champagne at the BAFTAs and royally rolling in residuals dough. Oh Saints be praised!

Well, I can tell you right now, that's a crock.

I love my agent to be clear, he's a cool guy, but he's not a miracle worker. No agent is, and I think writers think about agents in a way which is harmful to both their development, as well as to the potential relationship they could have when they find one. Agents cannot guarantee you consistent work, and they cannot guarantee you will always make money between big gigs. Companies, broadcasters and even studios can only buy so much material, and the UK doesn't exactly have the same resources as Hollywood.

What they are is middle men, the guys who get you past the gatekeepers and put you in rooms with people who may have the money and work. They're a stamp of legitimacy that says 'this writer is not a crazy person who will stalk you for not reading their script'. They take care of contracts and other paperwork, enabling you to focus on writing the best material you can and not fret so much about networking.

Can you get work without one? Yes, I did a whole article about that. However, if you are getting to a point where you need one, I'll offer up two things for you: the standard wisdom on how to get one, and then how I did it.

HOW TO GET AN AGENT (CLASSIC STYLE):

• RESEARCH: Look up the writers you admire and want to be like. Look who represents them and where they are. Some of the classic names include Curtis Brown, The Agency, Valerie Hoskins, Knight Hall Agency and Independent Talent, but that's just the surface. A great tool here is The Writers and Artists Yearbook, full of names of places looking for submissions.
• REFINE: Get that script, if not several (actually, make it several) as good as you can. I would really advise you take your time and have two, or three, in sharp shape. One is not enough - you need to show range and that you're not a one trick pony.
• REFERRAL: Exactly what it sounds like - get someone in the business to read your script and, if they like it, ask them to act as a referral, an industry recommendation. I touch on a way to do this in another piece.
  
• QUERYING: The most daunting part - actually asking for a read. Usually, agency have a submissions guideline on the website, which you MUST follow. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT DUMP SCRIPTS ON PEOPLE. If you blind-send, or worse, spam send to everybody at once, you will crash before you've even started. It makes you look like a cynical huckster out for a fast buck, instead of someone building a professional relationship. As for the query itself, much like the networking article I wrote, there are some standards: a succinct introduction to your self; why you'd like this agent to rep you, and a quick pitch of the script you'd like to send. Be tight and to the point.
  

HOW I GOT AN AGENT

I did the above and got good responses from several places, but no firm yeses. Big or small, the size of the agency made little difference (but don't lose faith if you're waiting. It's a slow game.) However, I did, through my networking, send a script off to a development person at Dancing Ledge, who passed it onto Andrew Roach, an agent specializing in disabled talent, who passed it onto my current agent, Andy Townsend at the Galton Agency (who work with Roach's clients on screen projects). This was the power of a referral in action, and then some.

Andy read my stuff, liked it and we had a meeting. We got on well and he asked to read some more stuff, so I sent it over. In total, he read four scripts, counting the one from Dancing Ledge. Satisfied, he offered me the contract and I signed. Since then, we've done catch up meetings once a month, discussing projects and places to submit to. It's been a pretty easy-going thing, all told, and he has never pressured me to do something I wasn't happy with.

I hope this has been of use - the big thing is not to stress. Like writing itself, it's a long process and there will be mistakes and failures. So long as you understand this, you'll manage fine.

Jack Thorne's MacTaggart lecture: why 'Best Person for the Job' isn't an answer

Jack Thorne is a UK film and TV powerhouse (too much to list here) and staunch ally of disabled creatives. At this year's Edinburgh TV Festival, a major industry event, he handled the much-coveted MacTaggart to deliver a damning indictment of how the industry has time and again failed disabled people. As an audience, as creators behind the camera and as performers in front of it. Go watch it and come back here after.

So, pretty tough listening isn't it? And sadly, all too true. Speaking as an autistic screenwriter, though I can't claim to speak for all disabled creators (running all the way from the physical to the mental, with each have its own traits and challenges), it's mind numbing how little progress has been made, and how the success stories have made no difference to how shows are made, or how talent is reared and supported. I even commend Thorne for admitting his own blindspots (though obviously he didn't have the final say on casting in Wonder, as one of several writers on a Fox movie, to be fair) and glad to see his partnering up with more disabled creators like Genevieve Barr and Ruth Madeley. 

While reception has been overwhelmingly positive, because this is about representation, there were the usual crabs-in-a-bucket with the same tired, boring, intellectually empty points: 'Acting is about pretending to be someone you're not', 'representation doesn't matter', 'best person for the job, background is irrelevant', 'meritocracy' and of course, splitting hairs about 'um ackshually, 20% of the UK population is not disabled because blah blah blah' from people who suddenly became expert data scientists. And next-to-none of whom are in the industry.

I've talked about representation in the past on here, as well as my experience on Cbeebies' Pablo, but this time I wanted to really zero in on why this attitude is a problem, the culture it creates, and where the audience has a role to play as well.

To begin, I get it: It's unrealistic to expect your average audience member to have the same in-depth knowledge of how film and TV works as an insider. From a certain POV, they shouldn't need to - fans are there to consume and talk about the content when its done, not engaging with broader production questions. The problem is the internet, and in particular social media, has broken down a lot of the walls. Now, talking to creators and companies has never been easier - the problem then becomes audiences are not used to a lot of industry chatter and so, wind up in discussions they, technically, have no business being involved. Big problems in the industry, whether it's the UK or US, Disney or BBC, relating to issues around outdated structures that artificially impede the career progression of people from a number of minority groups, seem like sudden changes to newcomers (even with multiple surveys and reports, like the ones Thorne cites in the lecture, showing how long this has been going on).

Because audiences don't have, or sadly in some cases, don't care, about all that background and don't understand when a creator is talking about issues with, say, more disabled characters in TV, it's easy to mistake a plea to fix a longstanding problem with some kind of sinister demand or entitlement. When you don't understand how hard it is for, say, a disabled writer to get the same shot, or at least the same amount of opporunity, as their able-bodied peer, it's easy to just say 'best person for the job' or 'I don't see disability, just the person'. How many times do you think these creators have been told that and not only not seen that sentiment lead to change, but now have it be used to tell them to, basically, 'shut up and be grateful' by people who don't even work in the arts at all?

And speaking of that, it's also tiring as a creator to see our achievements get blown aside in an instant when one of these types tries to tell our stories and royally bungles it. You may have heard of Sia's directorial debut, Music. The title refers to an Autistic girl, played by Maddie Ziegler, who is placed in the care of her drug dealer sister. With a premise like that, you can guess where it goes, but what's important is that A) Neither Sia nor Ziegler are autistic, B ) Autistic actors are not in the film, even in background roles, C) No Autistic expert or group was consulted during development, save for some brief interactions with the notoriously controversial Autism Speaks, widely condemned for treating Autism as a disease. As counter examples, Atypical and Pablo (Hey, that's a-me) all involved autistics in creative roles: yet, when Music became a hot topic, with discourse raging about its portrayal of the condition, were any of these shows mentioned? Did anyone cite that a show like Pablo, effectively, disproved both Sia's choice and, indeed, the very methodology of Music's development, treating actual autistic voices as tertiary? Nope. 105 episodes, airing on major channels, a worldwide fanbase and a much publicized selling point (a pretty good sign of a job well done. The BEST kind, if you will)... and it might as well have not existed.

However unintended, the message is clear: autistic creators are not to be given chances on larger projects, precisely the kind that can change the narrative, because a highly successful musician said so, and all the previous autistic movies and shows don't amount to a 'valid' counterargument. See how that applies to what Thorne is talking about here? How the disabled shows he was able to make were done on breadcrumbs, and even when they got acclaim, and he went on to work on big properties, still nothing changed. How broken is that metric where success doesn't equal 'make more'? The one thing that the film and TV industry can be reliably called on to do, and this is the exception? Because of that, I wrestle with creating autism-based scripts and often wonder if my mentioning it limits my job prospects. Why should it be like that though? Why should a script, that's been worked hard on, proofed, run by other peers and thought good quality, be arbitrarily denied a chance for something unrelated to merit?

As an additional point, I do also think there is a blind spot in Thorne's lecture: staffing. He alludes to Silent Witness and Liz Carr's battles, but I feel this needed more hammering home from a writer/director angle. It's not enough just to greenlight disabled stories, as vital as that is: it's about getting disabled creators the experience and credits needed to not just get those shows in front of commissioners, but also to pay their bills and put food on the table. Disabled artists don't just want to talk about themselves: they're fans of shows like you are. They have dream jobs too, whether that's Eastenders, Casualty, Hollyoaks, Doctor Who or Call the Midwife. We need to ensure they have the same shot as anyone else on getting on this shows, and not just for 'the disabled story' but because they are professionals who can tell good stories period. As long as just blindly parroting 'best person for the job' is seen as the default response, this will not happen because it others disabled people as somehow 'not the best'.

This is as personal as I've ever gotten on this blog, but I need to say it: I am tired of having to fight for my basic dignity, and I've seen plenty of other disabled people share the same: tired of justifying ourselves, tired of asking to be treated like the thinking, feeling adults we are. Tired of being written off or insulted by quacks, anti-vaxxers and religious hypocrites who claim we are a 'mistake', a 'problem' that needs to be fixed or cured. Tired of constantly having to deal with nonsense about 'diversity hires' and 'affirmative action' being the reasons why we achieve anything, instead of y'know, hard work and our pure determination. We are people. We are human.

And at the end of this, what I think we have is a tale of two faults: the industry and the audience. A wealth of great talent is there, ripe for picking, and through them, exciting, funny or stirring stories. If we want to move the needle, then every level needs to address how we treat creatives from backgrounds outside the standard. Commissioners who will fight for change, and audiences who will be willing to take a chance and have empathy, or if they like what has been made, demand more. Otherwise, the cycle continues and benefits no one. Not talent, not the audience and not culture, and if we got the Snyder Cut and redesigned Movie Sonic through pressure, why can't we get this?

''Does Fanfiction count as a writing sample?'' Going from Fan to Professional

The long and short answer, most of the time, is no. Professional producers in any sector of media (film, TV, comics, radio, audio, novels, games etc.) want to see your vision, your voice, what you bring to a project. They want you. Fanfiction won't do you a lot of favours and is almost never advised as a proper writing sample: it's legally in a grey area, you're working with characters you don't have a legal license to use and it doesn't do enough to sell you as a writer in your own right. Plus, most of your favourite properties already have the agented writers banging on their doors: you will simply raise the odds against yourself.

There is ONE major exception, which I will come onto in a few paragraphs.

Is that to say fanfics are worthless? Not necessarily: Anywhere you can train up and build up experience is always handy when it comes to writing. Refining your craft is what counts, not where you do it. You don't have to worry about budget concerns or exec notes, so only your imagination is your limit. However, a balance with original work is vital if you actually want to make the jump from amateur to pro.

I do not believe the practice of working with other properties, unlicensed, is useless either in craft: not just because of the upcoming 'exception', but because adaptation is one f the bread-and-butter gigs, whatever field you get into. Working with others' materials is something you will come across, and getting some practice in without producers breathing down your neck, capturing another style and voice, can be handy.

Here's a five point plan I've cooked up if that's your game:

1) What is your goal? Do you want to be a working writer, or just writing one property? While that may sound arbitrary, it's important to consider because they each need different things: if all you want is just to write Who stories and nothing else, you're better off sticking to fanfiction sites as the grind exceeds what you really need. It may not be canon, but if you enjoy writing in that universe, that shouldn't matter. 

If, however, x or y franchise is just 'a goal' and you want to have a full career, beyond that, then that's a whole other kaboodle. Do you have favourite genres? What style do you like to write? What subjects or themes interest you? Do you have weird or funny memories, friends or relatives that could provide a great basis for a story? Write those and give yourself plenty of time: no one will ever thank you for giving them rushed work.

2) Being realistic. Getting to any dream is slow, and this doubly true for writing. The addage is 'it takes 10 years to break in', which is a good metric (though many have done so in half the time) to avoid disappointment and losing your passion. Treat nothing like a guarantee and be ready for a lot of unreplied emails and non-answers as you build a body of work. It's just the reality of the entertainment business.

3) Learn learn and learn: invest in your education. Read scripts and prose, learn drama theory, take classes/workshops and join writing groups. Sharpen those skills and be open-minded. Always refine your work and approach, which thanks to the internet, has never been easier to do. Youtube is awash with free writing tutorials, lecture and seminars, if you're really tight on cash. It's also great as it's flexible to suit your current lifestyle. Learn what pitches, loglines, treatments and beat sheets are - they are a necessity in professional media production.

4) Build the CV. Much fun as fanfiction is, it won't count for much for a track record of professional work that proves you can work on that level. Good news is there are plenty of opps out there: online theatres and podcasts that will perform short audio plays, sketches and monologues, which is good for building up work. Same with physical theatres - scratch nights are always great for putting on short bits of new (original) writing. BBC Writersroom, London Playwrights Blog, Writers Services, theatre websites are full of opps. Do you have prose? Submit short stories to magazines, websites and collections - they will usually provide submission details on there too. Pay can be dicey so make sure they are transparent about that.

5) Network - meet people in the business. Producers, script editors, development assistants. Even if you don't/can't go to in person events like festivals, you can find personal websites and emails pretty easily online. Here, I did a whole article about how to network and make contacts. You're welcome.

And now, for the exception: in the American TV system, you can submit fanfics. Kind of. They're called spec scripts, meaning you write a hypothetical script for an existing show, though you will never submit to that specific show, but to ones like it. If you wrote an Law & Order, it'd get sent to The Rookie or Bosch, for example. I did an entire piece on that here, so go check that out as there's a lot to chew on.

 

 

But above all else, just remember to have fun. Don't drive yourself crazy trying to reach an arbitrary goal - learn and enjoy the process, because that love will show on the page.

The Fake Script Book Epidemic on Amazon

It's one of the most duplicitous things done to aspiring writers... and isn't a dodgy contest for a change. In an age where companies are really anal about copyright, it's bizarre to think that not only are these allowed, but there are new ones being uploaded all the time!

What am I talking about? Up on Amazon, there's a deluge of supposed 'script books' from hit movies, and often for knock down prices. A bargain for new writers who are constantly told to 'read read read' if they want to improve and understand screen storytelling. They even come on Kindle, so no worries about shelf space, right? 

 

Nope - it's just someone uploading a transcript, not a proper screenplay. Not formatted in anything resembling an industry standard, usually next-to no action lines or slug lines: it might as well just be a collection of the DVD subtitles. The audacity makes it almost not qualify as theft, as theft implies some kind of effort - this is the lowest, laziest type of screenwriting-related literature I've seen in the near-decade I've been involved with this scene.

 

How can you spot them and not be conned out? Sometimes, it's super easy as they'll use generic Createspace covers with ugly word art, but over time, they've gotten more savvy and use official images and art from the movie. Instead, here's some ways: 

 

1) If the author is not the actual screenwriter. In the example below, the book is credited to one Charlene Kiser, but Changing Lanes was actually written by Chap Taylor & Michael Tolkin. 

 

 

2) Its publisher is Amazon and not a proper publisher or studio affiliate. Some of the real guys include Picador, Faber & Faber and HarperCollins among others. 

 

3) Check the title: if it doesn't something akin to 'Official Script/Screenplay of the Movie', or if the release date is years, or decades, after it was released and its not marked as an anniversary edition, those are red flags.

 

 

Hope that was useful as this is something that has been grinding my gears for some years now and it's an insidious way that writers are being preyed on. Not to mention, y'know, you're profiting off of something YOU DON'T OWN. If you want screenplays, you can find the real ones, often for free online. Here's a handy list of them:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts
• https://indiefilmhustle.com/free-screenplays-download/
• http://www.simplyscripts.com/movie-scripts.html
• http://www.la-screenwriter.com/script-index/
• http://www.imsdb.com/
• https://www.scriptslug.com/
• http://www.script-o-rama.com/table.shtml
• http://www.moviescriptsandscreenplays.com/
• https://sfy.ru/

Writers already deal with enough in trying to make a go of a career - don't make the learning process more difficult too.

Tokarev (2014); OR, Subversion for Subversion's Sake

The 2010s are an incredibly odd era when it comes to Nicholas Cage's filmography: from indie king in the 90s, to major star in the 00s, this decade was schizophrenic and lacked a consistent identity. One minute, he's your regular Hollywood lead (Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance); the next he's a quirky character actor (Into the Spiderverse) and then there's the headliner of low budget genre fare. Some are madly experimental (Mandy, Color Out of Space); others just lower grade versions of studio movies (Dying of The Light, Trespass), and then there's Tokarev (aka Rage in the US).

From the outside, it's cut-and-dry: it's Cage-Taken, a badass dad out to get his daughter back from villains. However, Tokarev makes a couple of key choices to set itself apart from both the Neeson franchise, as well as other B-Grade revenge flicks. In turn, I think there are some valuable screenwriting lessons to be learnt (outside of the usual shortcomings of these types film i.e. the two-dimensional characters, the well-trodden premise, predictable arcs etc.)

Naturally, there will be SPOILERS, so you are warned. Tokarev is free on Amazon Prime, if you want to watch it.

Tokarev starts out simple: Cage plays Paul, a reformed crook, now construction bigshot. He's a good husband and devoted to his teenage daughter Caitlin. However, Caitlin is abducted while he's out to dinner. With no ransom demand, Paul turns to his old criminal buddies to help get her back. Alas, a few beatdowns are not enough and she's found dead, having been shot by the titular Soviet weapon. 

This freaks out Paul, as he and his two friends had stolen cash from the Russian mob as young crooks, swearing the theft to secrecy. Paul becomes convinced this is all a revenge plot, goes on the offensive against the Russians, and even suspects someone ratted him out. All pretty standard.

Tokarev then throws out its big curveball: it turns out it was Caitlin's boyfriend who killed her. How? Because she and him got drunk and took out Paul's old gear which, surprise surprise, included the Tokarev he had taken years earlier. She gets accidentally shot and so he concocts a fake kidnapping to mask what he did. Realizing that he's brought hell down for no reason, getting his friends killed in the process, Paul lets the Russians kill him, consumed by his past sin.

I kind of like the twist, at least in concept: it's unexpected, you do get small hints that, to Paul and his fellow criminals, something seems off and it serves as dramatic irony. It even mirrors Paul's own life-altering choice with the Russians and how taking a life changed him. Tokarev plays less like a Diet-Taken, and more like the tragedy of a man who, in trying to hide his crimes, is destroyed by them. Paul's not a bad guy: he values family and friendship and he has, by and large, left that life behind. Even his drive to get revenge comes from a genuine place: he values his daughter above all else and saw her as the embodiment of his new way.

For a film of this calibre, this is more thought than one might expect. Screenwriters Agnew and Keller's experience in genre B Movies means they know the tropes inside and out, and can find ways to play with those to create something with more depth. Toying with formula and genre expectations can lead to fresh and exciting new experiences (Knives Out, Mad Max, The Lego Movie). However, this decision has huge knock-on effects on the rest of the film that open up many holes and undercut what, even among negative reviews, has been called a genuinely strong element. Tokarev would make for a perfect case study in set up and payoff, and how to correctly subvert expectations to deliver a payoff that's not only more original, but more satisfying.

Tokarev reminds so much of one of the classic beginner's screenwriter's mistake - stapling on a twist to an, otherwise, bog standard story. Just write something that's identical to something else, thinking it'll be an easy sell, but then throw in a last minute wrench to catch the potential producer off guard and have them leaving going 'Wow, what an ending!'

Mashing up what I would describe as Taken and Carlito's Way, however, leads to a film with a confused identity: characters are not deep or textured enough to work as a searing drama that meditates on redemption, but there's also not enough action sequences to be a proper action film. A twist like this only works if the rest of the narrative supports: the best twists make subsequent viewings more enriching (think of say, The Sixth Sense). It's like jamming a peanut into a half-melted chocolate bar and calling it peanut butter chocolate - doesn't work.

The main offender, naturally, is the protagonist. Paul is presented, throughout the film, as too much of a nice guy for this twist to land. The film is too earnest in his 'new' self for it to feel justified: he shows remorse, he does have second thoughts, he does doubt why he's doing what he's doing and he does feel powerless. The film makes his quest for revenge palatable to the audience, so when it turns out he was going after the wrong people all along and it was his own gun that killed Caitlin, it feels awkward. Sudden.

If he was more turning more monstrous and become more willing to let innocents get hurt as he tears up the city, the irony of him being, in essence, his daughter's killer would work a lot better. On rewatch, it would make his choices feel more pathetic and tragic, now that we know. Maybe if the film had challenged his 'nice guy' image more, it could add another layer to his character and have us, as the audience, question more who he truly is: did he ever really change? Was his daughter the only thing holding him back from becoming a monster again? As the text stands, Paul is presented in a way that that doesn't match the intended effect of the narrative he's being taken through. Imagine if Othello 'killed' Desdemona but it wasn't him, just some soldier under his command who did it for reasons unrelated to Othello himself or Iago. It's tragic, but the meaning is completely different and less potent.

The fact that the boyfriend, the real culprit, is barely in the film and has no real dynamic with Paul compounds this problem: how much harder would it hit if they had begun bonding in their grief, had gotten closer, only for the bombshell to drop? Would he egg on Paul, maybe get involved as a means to save his own skin, or would he try to pull Paul back as some attempt to atone for his own crime? What vein of rich, ironic drama could be mined there?

The other major problem is that, with its current execution, the twist leaves us as an audience with no sense of closure to the plot, cheating us out of catharsis. Think about it: the Russians still rule the city; Paul's wife is left without her husband or step daughter, and the real killer is still free. This invites so many questions and makes Paul looks ineffective as a protagonist. By not making the tragedy hit harder, and using it as a means to tie everything up, Tokarev ends up, as a story, unfinished. The mob boss doesn't even get the final showdown or come to kill Paul himself: it's just a squad of faceless goons. Had he finished the job himself, it would've acted as a mirror to Paul's own past.

Tokarev, in every way, is a perfect example of how much payoff matters in writing a compelling story. It's also an example of how great ideas, alone, cannot salvage something that doesn't try hard enough everywhere else.

HOW DO I STAY INFORMED? - Screenwriter's Survival Kit

WE'RE BACK, and with a big one. 

 In past posts, I discussed that it is important to chase up your network every few months. On top of that, to know what’s happening means you need to follow the news in the industry. These places will often announce new shows coming out, if shows have been recommissioned for another series, or who is working with who. Often times, they will also include the names of the development team behind the show, who are people you can contact and the companies making them (companies which have development people, very important that.

Now, where are the places you need to keep up with? Well, here's a few:

• SOCIAL MEDIA

Follow production companies on their social medias pages to stay up-to-date. Facebook and Twitter are the main ones where they will post news about projects, commissions and other bits of business. Mentioning these developments in your catch up email will show whoever the relevant contact is you are keeping informed and interested in them.

If you are interested in a specific show, they do often have dedicated, official (always double-check) pages on these websites, where they keep fans up to date on what's going on. 

• INDUSTRY PRESS/THE 'TRADES'
  

These are websites and magazine all about what’s going on in the business. If you don’t want to, or can’t afford, a physical subscription (which can get pricey, if you follow multiple publications), you can also follow them on social media and visit their websites every couple of weeks.

    •    VARIETY
    •    DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD
    •    BROADCAST NOW - this is the big one for UK TV.
    •    SCREEN DAILY
    •    SCREEN INTERNATIONAL

 

Another good, if not vital one if you want to go into children's or animation, is Kidscreen, which is exactly what it sounds like – news on kids content. 

• ASK SOMEONE
  

When you are in meetings and talking to people, don't be afraid to ask ''So, what are you working on?'' Not all projects, especially newer ones, get announced and, well, you never what one might be setting up a writer's room in the future.

Short this piece, but sweet. Knowledge is power. Go get some and become an industry He-Man (or She-Ra, entirely up to you).

4 Screenwriting Negatives FLIPPED into Positives

Screenwriting can, as fun as it is, be a negative space on a personal level. It's easy to get downtrodden, even disillusioned, by rejection, bad notes and even scripts that take a lot longer to write than you had initially planned for. It's easy to let it get into you and seem more damning and impossible than it really is. Often, even simple sentences have torpedoed your confidence for a day or more, depending on what that project meant to you.

However, like making or practicing pancakes (see? Not just for a title pun), there are always different approaches to something that seems like there's only one way, but is actually just hiding alternate methods.

So, let's run down some common ones that may seem like disasters, but in actuality, have something more to offer to those more determined and diligent:

• When you don't place in a contest, it doesn't mean you wrote a bad script. 

Nice and easy one to start with: Contests are often the first port of call for new writers. They are also lotteries, whether they are paid (Script Pipeline, Nichols, Austin) or not (BBC Writersroom, ITV Original Voices): you and thousands of others gamble on having the winning combo. It can be easy to think that winning these is the only ticket, and not doing so is a sign that you cannot write worth donkey diddle. 

Not true, however: taste plays a part in any reading and sometimes, yours will not be to the reader's, never mind a myriad of other reasons why it's not meant to be. A spec pilot of mine that failed in contests got me my first adaptation gig, and another got me Pablo, for example. As I've discussed in other posts, there are more ways to find people in the industry, and they don't cost a penny. 

• When your email to someone bounces with an automated 'out of office' email, you might get extra info. 

In doing the above, you may have the bad luck of sending someone an email while they are away - holiday, maternity leave or no longer part of the company. It's annoying and can kill your buzz. You may get lucky in that the automated reply'll provide an alternate means of contact, such as another email for them, or of another person on the development team.

Okay, so what? What's so special? Well, in the event that it doesn't work with Person A (be it ghosting or them not being able to read), suddenly, you have a person B available to try instead, usually their assistant or a more junior member of the company i.e. someone looking for that next big thing. Just remember your manners.

• When you get notes critiquing your storytelling, it doesn't mean you can't write. 

Let's continue with an evergreen classic: you get notes from a service or writing friend on your script and it just isn't working. May be the characters or plotting or pacing or ending; anything. But don't worry: everyone screws up or misses something. It doesn't mean your whole script is useless or is not salvageable. Always look for the note behind the note, and sometimes, an absence of a note can be illuminating in its own right as the fault behind the other faults.

If you want a more detailed solution, check out Screenwriting is Rewriting by Jack Epps Jr. A great resource and hey, who wouldn't take advice from the writer of Top Gun?

• When you get a rejection, unless specified by the person, it doesn't mean the door is completely closed. 

You took a gamble and it didn't pay off: they didn't like your script. It can be for any number of reasons and it almost never is personal. Everybody gets it. It can be a devastating feeling.

However, that's far from the end. Say your thank you and then retreat for maybe 6 months to a year and come back, refreshed and with a newer, better and more appropriate project. Do ask if you can stay in touch, and always be polite and maybe even a little humourous in your catch ups. Half the job is networking and just being genuine.

Even in business, like in fiction, there is creative license. Use it.

Jed Mercurio and the Importance of Screenwriter's Etiquette (Part Two)

Don't think I need to explain who Jed Mercurio is if you're reading this blog: probably the most successful British screenwriter of the moment not named Nolan. Line of Duty returns for another series and so, press gets generating. One such was GQ Magazine interviewing Mercurio and talking about working amidst the pandemic, as well as some asides to his political and social views. 

On its own, just a simple piece, save for one topic: amidst talking about issues with modern journalism (a topic, to be clear, worthy of examination), Mercurio uses this as a segway to touch on his noted animosity with television critics, and in particular, highlighting an incident in 2019 where, well, I'll let the article explain:

That became particularly evident when, in December 2019, a storm erupted on Twitter after he called out the Guardian for including Line Of Duty in an article titled “The Biggest TV Disappointments Of 2019”, which also included Game Of Thrones and Killing Eve. In a now-deleted tweet, he directly addressed a young critic for her involvement in the article. In it, she suggested that the show had gone “catastrophically off-piste” by revealing that the mysterious “H”, supposedly the inside man at a high level in the police with links to organised crime, was not one, but four people. “The biggest disappointment these jokers really experienced in 2019 was when they realised what they do for a living,” he wrote, followed by another message directed at her that lead to several fellow journalists tweeting back angrily on her behalf, defending her right to criticise the show.

And then he capped off with this:

I don’t see why it’s OK for a journalist to participate in an article which is fundamentally sneering and not at least have some insight into what a c*** she’s being. If you go into the public domain having a pop at people then expect some comeback. There was actually an enormous pile-on from journalists saying, ‘She’s just doing her job. She’s a talented writer.’ She’s a piece of shit. Fuck her.”

Well... that went from one to fifty fast, huh? 

Indeed, why is this eerily similar... (he said, plugging his article about Joe Carnahan and El Chicano that this one is a sequel to.)

DISCLAIMER: I do not know either of the two main individuals. Nor am I here to demonize Mercurio or denounce his work or collaborators. Like with Twitter's 'Line of Duty was never good' takes, this misses the point and trivializes the real issue here.

 

Seeing someone of Mercurio's stature behave like this about one critic's review of Line of Duty is troubling. Just like with Carnahan's infamous blunder, it is another example of people at the top not setting the example to newcomers: yes, art is passionate and we get very invested in it. Yes, being upset at a bad review is understandable, but to engage in public shaming like this, and then hounding said critic off of Twitter, for the crime of being, what, the one person who wasn't raving about monster-hit and critical darling Line of Duty?

 

Mercurio should know better, rather than perpetuating this 'war' between media critics and creators that achieves nothing nor improves either discipline. In the same way it's not our job as writers to please critics, it's not their job to pat us on the head and give us cookies. Does that mean you agree with everything someone writes about your work and have no right to defend yourself? Of course not, but Mercurio's reaction reads as completely disproportionate to the situation.

 

(As an aside, can we also can it with the 'critics are failed artists' schtick? Besides being the weakest scene in Birdman, it's so hilariously untrue and, furthermore, ignores the ones who do both successfully. See Rod Lurie, C. Robert Cargill (back to him in a bit...) and the entire French New Wave that changed cinema in the 50s.)

What's worse, and especially bad for newer writers to be seeing and taking after, is that Mercurio claims in doing all this, he was giving the critic a chance to respond to him. Okay, but why then front load with ad hominems if what you want is a dialogue? Why not create an actual constructive dialogue with this critic so that both you and they learn from it, instead of shouting and calling them this-that-and-the-other? Sorry, but this isn't actually engaging with your critics: she was going to lose, no matter what she actually said or did.

Like I wrote in the Carnahan article, the truth of internet fire-fights is no one, regardless of position, comes out looking good. If you misconstrue critique of the work as personal attacks, proceeding to broadcast that ire everywhere, how can you expect to work with other people and improve both yours and their work? What are you telling peers about yourself when you do this? What does this say about your values? Conduct and etiquette matter; doubly so when you don't have the stature of a Mercurio to act as some kind of (albeit poor and in no way actually valid) excuse.

 

Indeed, I think newer writers very much need to bear this mind: perhaps not from your work getting reviewed by published critics, but any time you get feedback/criticism on a project. Script reading services, script editors, even just getting feedback in a writing group. The core principle is the same: You have to be able to listen and not freak out when someone doesn't like what you write. A great saying that stuck with me is, 'look for the note behind the note'. If you feel like a criticism of something you made doesn't make sense, rather than start attacking, like Mercurio did, put some distance between you and the critique and think: why would they say this? Is there a choice I made that made them take away that impression instead of the one I wanted?

 

But hey, if I can't convince you, because my work isn't on the same plateau as Mercurio, let's hear from a writer who is: here's what novelist and 'Doctor Strange' (An MCU film is, I'm sure, more than a match for LoD in notability terms) screenwriter  Cargill, has to say about taking criticism: 

 

As a capper, I think it's worth considering the personal effect here: being able to handle critique is not just important for having a career, a good image and navigating the industry - it's necessary for your own mental wellbeing. Using others for validation, especially when it involves critique, is a fickle thing and is more like a coin toss. When you land the tails of negative feedback, being snippy and hyper-defensive is going to do your own confidence no favours, and shows you lack perspective on your work and yourself. Writers can often get stuck in negative mires, worrying about our ability or worth, and anger, while understandable, is not the answer to these insecurities.

 

Have faith in your ability, be confident, but don't get into the mindset of you are always right. Writing, like so much in life, is a learning process, and art is really subjective. Understanding this will take so much of the anxiety off your shoulders when you're making stuff: not everyone will 'get' you, and that's fine. You don't need everyone to love your work and praise you. Instead, take pride in the little victories - finishing a page, or three, or ten a day. Writing a gag that makes a friend or collaborator laugh. A tight action scene. Do the work, listen and keep on writing - if you're not enjoying it, why bother?

GETTING WORK WITHOUT AN AGENT - Screenwriter's Survival Kit

I'm repped now (thank you Andy Townsend!), but I spent several years in the 'wilderness' of the industry, without an agent. For new writers and out-of-school-students, this can be incredibly daunting: they've oft-heard the 'no unsolicited submissions/agents only' bit many times before, thus massively cutting down submission options. They may also have heard that big shows won't hire writers without one, or without a track record of credits. 

Can't get work without an agent - can't get an agent without work. What a Catch-22, right?

Well, not entirely. Your options will be more limited, to be sure, but as I've mentioned many times on this blog, the industry casts a huge smokescreen around itself (mostly for legal protection). Those walls and gates can absolutely be broken through and there are people out there who will take a chance on new blood. While I cannot sell you a magic ticket, nor would I, I hope the following will serve as a roadmap as to the avenues you can explore to train and earn.

Also, for the purposes of clarity, I'm specifically talking about paying gigs, not competitions, scratch nights or short film festivals, nor am I talking about self-funding projects like an indie feature. This is about commissions.

CAN I GET TV WORK? 

Yes, but get ready for it to be slow coming. Very, VERY SLOW. TV that is more amenable to unrepped writers tend to err on the lower budget end, meaning it can take longer to make and, more importantly, fund if it's not an in-house production from a broadcaster.

One easy recommend is Children's TV: shorter lengths, simpler stories and, on the whole, lower costs than regular comedy or drama. Pre-school, in particular, can be really amenable to new talent if you have a good sample on hand and are, most importantly, enthusiastic to write for the series. 

Based on my experience, some of the things that they look for include:

• Big and colourful, something cheery (but not bubblegum - the days of Barney are long gone.)
  
• Contains an educational component (though doesn't have to be an education series persay, just simply with something that teaches kids a lesson about life or the world.)
• Diversity
• Humour - kids loves slapstick, goo and goofery. Just be careful of imitable actions (''don't try this at home, kids'')

BUT WHAT ABOUT ADULT WORK?

Sketch shows, if you pitch it right and have some cracking samples, may be willing to give you a show. Again, just bear in mind the profile: the bigger the comic, the harder it will be. Between the two, however, comedy allows for more moving about between kids and TV, so doing the above can make this a bit easier.

As for drama, the continuing dramas/soaps are seen as the 'traditional' way in, though most don't regard themselves as such (even Doctors, often treated as the beginner's show). Reaching out to the script producer is an option, though bear in mind they also work on the series and handle a variety of other responsibilities, so don't be surprised if it takes 6+ months before you get a reply. However, that's not the only way - storyliners are a job you can apply for and, even better, they tend to progress into script editors or writers, meaning there will usually be a new callout every couple of months.

WHAT OTHER WORK IS THERE?

• Radio and podcasts: The audience is smaller than film or TV, but the advantage: lower costs, allowing more risks to be taken. Yes, you can just pitch straight to a producer on radio, and maybe get your work on BBC Radio 4, without any sort of 'unsolicited' hullabaloo. If you're into comedy, Newsjack is the classic entry point. Welcome to Nightvale and Homecoming, meanwhile, are proof of how much narrative podcasts have become a force of their own, and not something to overlook if you're interested. Audible do callouts from time to time, and don't be afraid to search 'audio drama' or dig into 'BBC Sounds'.
  
• Games: While these can sometimes demand some level of experience, and you won't be right away on the next Assassin' Creed, the great thing here is an agent isn't needed, and there are fairly regular call outs for writers, or narrative designers, to work on a new game with smaller developers. Sometimes it's on a specific game, other times to join the company's writing department to work on several.
  
• Online content: web animation, often no longer than maybe 2 or 3 minutes, has been coming more into its own in recent years. The views on Youtube are, frankly, insane. These tend to be, but by no means always, part of a bigger brand and a link will usually be provided on the channel to find them. There are also jobs to write live-action Youtube videos as well, such as being a researcher or copywriter, depending on the style of show.
  

WHO DO I SPEAK TO?

Exactly the same process as I discussed in the Networking article of SSK (read here if you missed it). Producers, script editors and head writers are your ports of call. End credits and IMDB are your friends.

WHAT WILL I GET PAID?

Use the Writers Guild of Great Britain (WGGB) website to check your rates, which covers all sectors of the industry and media.

I hope this is of use. Naturally, none of this is a complete guarantee: all work is tricky and competitive. However, this should clear away what can feel like some of the impenetrable mist.