Read on Twitter
If you are reviewing a script, it's not about YOUR personal tastes.
It's about whether the writer executes on intention. If you cannot be objective & rise above your preferences, you shouldn't review.
Some reviewers for high profile sites desperately need to learn this fact.
It's about whether the writer executes on intention. If you cannot be objective & rise above your preferences, you shouldn't review.
Some reviewers for high profile sites desperately need to learn this fact.
I read a lot of scripts. While I personally am sick to the teeth of genre entertainment, I would never tell someone "Well, this script fails because it's set in outer space, and hence it's not serious writing"
To do so is a betrayal of the compact you enter into when reviewing.
To do so is a betrayal of the compact you enter into when reviewing.
...even moreso when you are paying significant amounts of money for a review.
Again... it. Is. Not. About. Your. Preferences.
Again... it. Is. Not. About. Your. Preferences.
I'm very lucky that I have good folks who read & give feedback on my work. I've never paid for a review (yet). But I see it happen a LOT where friends send in a script that is tight & polished & a reviewer is dismissive because "It's not 'X'"
When it NEVER was supposed to be X.
When it NEVER was supposed to be X.
To be clear, this isn't the same as critiquing what isn't working. If the writer is telling a story about someone rising from nothing, but it's never established that they were nothing, pointing that out is a GOOD NOTE.
Saying "there's no market for achievement stories" is NOT.
Saying "there's no market for achievement stories" is NOT.
Why does this piss me off?
Because it is difficult as fuck for underrepresented groups to get exposure. Exposure & attention that can lead to that initial 'break' where someone with the ability to say yes... to representation, to a paying gig... SEES THEM.
Because it is difficult as fuck for underrepresented groups to get exposure. Exposure & attention that can lead to that initial 'break' where someone with the ability to say yes... to representation, to a paying gig... SEES THEM.
And, because it is hard for these groups to make headway in the same way that you can if you're a straight white man, they have to aggressively look for OTHER avenues to get that exposure. To have their work stand out.
So, for many of them, it seems worth it to pay for reviews
So, for many of them, it seems worth it to pay for reviews
Especially on sites where it's all about 'raising the profile of POC/Women/LGBT writers.' For some, it may seem like the ONLY avenue.
And when these sites cost a... not trivial amount of money... to review work, the writer feels comforted that the reviewer MUST know their shit.
And when these sites cost a... not trivial amount of money... to review work, the writer feels comforted that the reviewer MUST know their shit.
So, they save up whatever extra money they can scrape together. Make the choice to live on Top Ramen for a couple of months to pay the fee. Because the compact given is YOU WILL GET A PROFESSIONAL REVIEW.
The writer is putting EVERYTHING into submitting it. It's the BIG SWING...
The writer is putting EVERYTHING into submitting it. It's the BIG SWING...
And that doesn't mean that, if the work is flawed or inadequate, is should be soft-pedalled. NOTHING is gained for the writer if there isn't honesty.
But dismissing it with shit like "Well, it's a comedy in the Gulf War, & MASH already did that" is betraying the compact.
But dismissing it with shit like "Well, it's a comedy in the Gulf War, & MASH already did that" is betraying the compact.
In a world where writers who are women, who are POC, who are LGBT are constantly shown "Your voice doesn't matter." giving a shitty review based on subject matter & saying 'there's no market for this kind of story' just reinforces the messaging
'your stories don't matter'
'your stories don't matter'
And that, my friends, is complete bullshit.
