I've devoted a lot of thought to this, and it's driving me crazy. Is writing an art or a craft? Is the process the craft and the end product the piece of art? But if the process is a craft, then there must be something objective about it. Certain things that ring true and separates bad craft and good craft. That's what I would be led to believe with all these books on writing the perfect screenplay, and the countless articles on the secrets of screenwriting. Endless amounts of knowledge, all it requires is a little time.

I was ecstatic. I thought that as long as I studied away for enough hours I would have a leg up on the competition, I would hold knowledge that not everyone had. Until a couple weeks ago, I had read multiple books on writing screenplays, novels, and lyrics, and I had just started reading the highly praised "Story" by Robert McKee. I was loving it, I could clearly see why this book was so highly reviewed, this man is a genius. These aren't rules, they're principles. I would be free to use my creativity using the framing Robert Mckee, and others, helped provide.

Then I watched Adaptation, 20 minutes in, then Charlie Kaufman tells his brother Donald that men like Robert Mckee are dangerous. That there are no rules to writing. This, honestly, pissed me off. This guy doesn't even know what he's talking about. Then Donald took the words right out of my mouth, they're not rules, they're principles. And I saw my credulity. From then on I watched the movie in awe as he continued to expose my ignorance, or maybe denial. That anyone could really teach me make something as personal as art by following these steps, this method, his way. I then listened to Charlie's BAFTA speech on screenwriting, about how he struggles with writing, that you need to find your own way to make your art. The way you make it, makes it you, because you made it. It's not like a lego set.

Charlie Kaufman has really made an impression on my thinking. It's almost made me want to shun reading books like "Story" because it would serve to inhibit my creativity. Instead of learning my own ways to tackle certain story problems, I would use something "that other writer" thought to take care of it. But what if I were to find a better way? But how to decide which is better in the first place? I think what would work best is whatever reflected the genuine emotion I'm trying to express, and what better way to do that than with a story device of my own creation? And yet I feel if I take that route, then I'm willfully ignoring a plethora of knowledge held by seasoned professionals. It would be stupid to ignore their advice.

My problem is this, should I allow books like "Story" influence the way I think about the act of writing, or should I stick to the literal words of Charlie Kaufman and find my own way and struggle with writing, but create something completely my own? Student or Explorer?

I hope I didn't come across as schizophrenic.

I'm not. Honest.