I'm delighted to say that for the first time, in response to many requests and in conjunction with Chris Jones of the London Screenwriters' Festival, the full two-hour  film of my lecture at the London Screenwriters' Festival in 2011 is now available to purchase. And if you subscribe to my new Craft Skills Newsletter (which can do in the right hand column on this page) for a limited time you will be able to get a 20% discount.  Below is the cover blurb. 
In 2010, leading screenwriting guru Linda Aronson gave a talk at the London Screenwriters’ Festival that caused a sensation because it exploded the conventional Hollywood approach to screenwriting. The audience of scriptwriters was so anxious to hear more that they kept Linda talking for almost five hours after the lecture was finished.

What galvanized the writers were Linda Aronson’s step by step guidelines for planning and writing screenplays like 'Pulp Fiction' or 'The Usual Suspects' that use components like flashbacks, time jumps, multiple protagonists and nonlinear storylines – all elements frowned upon or actively banned by other screenwriting gurus.

In 2011 Linda Aronson came back to the London Screenwriters’ Festival and gave an expanded form of the lecture to hundreds of writers, explaining how to construct eighteen storytelling structures apart from the conventional linear, chronological one-hero model.

That historical, game-changing lecture was filmed by the London Screenwriters' Festival. For the first time it is now made publicly available by Linda Aronson in conjunction with the London Screenwriters' Festival in a special licence permitting you to view and keep on to download and own on three different digital devices.  Watch a trailer.

I had a question from a writer who wrote very kind things about my work (which was very nice) then asked me for help.  The writer explained that they had a very logical mind and found the brainstorming process I explain in The 21st Century Screenplay  (in which I get writers to switch between their lateral and vertical imagination to get ideas), very difficult because they could see a myriad of different meanings in my terminology.They wanted me to clarify my meaning since they felt that only then would they be able to proceed. They wanted the definitions absolutely correct.  Since this problem might be something that concerns others, I’ll answer in the blog.

Dear  Colleague,
I’m so pleased that my work has been useful to you.  You write to me for help about definitions of terms in the chapters on brainstorming.  I would like to help here, so I’ll give you my response. My view is not that you need to get answers on these matters of semantics  before you can brainstorm.  Not at all. What I see is a person with very impressive vertical/ logical/ analytical skills who is locked into a definitional loop which, while interesting in itself, is actually preventing proper brainstorming for creative writing purposes.  What I see here is a vertical imagination itself engaged in brainstorming – brainstorming endless alternative meanings which are intriguing philosophically but not relevant to the task at hand. It is a wonderful gift to have such powers of logic.  Congratulations. Those powers will be immensely useful to you in your writing.  But to write to your best you need to make a conscious effort to switch between vertical and lateral at the right times, otherwise you won’t get the best out of either part of your mind. At the moment you’re locked into vertical and it’s blocking your imagination. That happens to a lot of people.  The opposite also happens when people get locked into lateral and write in a kind of intoxicated way creating material that’s silly or over the top.  The trick is getting the balance, and it’s very hard at first. 

Brainstorming is simply a tool, like a pencil.  It’s simply a way to trick the suppressed lateral imagination out into the open, to force it to make new and exciting connections.  The trigger is not important in itself, it’s just way to set off original ideas.   Just as knowing the chemical constituents of graphite will not help you draw better, so troubling yourself over a range of possible alternative meanings for my terminology will not help you create better stories.   To do that, simply choose one of your definitions, then consciously put your logical vertical self to one side for the time being and give yourself permission to be illogical and silly for a little while as you free associate the connections that come to you. When you have a good long list of ideas and  fragments from your lateral side, consciously bring your vertical side back into action to filter the quality of the results. 

For people who are very vertical it can be very difficult to switch off the vertical mind because the lateral mind is so wild and crazy that the person feels out of control. But being out of control is exactly what we want in this instance. That’s exactly what we need for the brainstorming process.  It’s a dream-like mentality. Don’t worry.  It’s  only temporary.  Vertical will come into play again to filter the ideas that are weak or silly.

 I suggest that you practice brainstorming by using a stopwatch. At first, give yourself just thirty seconds simply to free associate from any trigger while suppressing your vertical mind.  Gradually increase that lateral time over a few days. It will be hard, but you will get there.

Imagination is a muscle. The harder you work it the stronger it gets.  Think of your lateral imagination as being a bit like muscle memory for a musician.  It’s not conscious or intellectual  but it’s absolutely vital to your performance.  Your vertical imagination is a great gift.  Just learn when to quarantine it and when to let it do its job.  I hope this helps and good luck.

I was writing a response to a question on the Linked in  Screenwriting  discussion group and I thought it might be useful to others, so I’ve put it here. A lot of people were suggesting planning, but I thought there were a few other possible issues.
The question is:
Is it a right way of approach to work on character development before working on outline/structure of the story/screenplay?
One of my friend says due to character development i couldnt able to proceed further and thats why i got stuck in the middle of my screenplay process.
But I beleive in giving importance to Character dev in scripts, so i started Developing Characters after deciding a theme for my Short...
What is ur Opinion regarding the process which i follow?
What ever the UR opinion, Comments are always welcome

And here’s my response.

Take heart from the fact that you are stuck: it's the writer in you telling you that something is wrong, and that's a good instinct. Many people would just keep writing on and on, to no purpose. Meanwhile you,by being stuck you're on the road to getting it right. Did you know Mozart wrote to his father complaining that he'd never finish Act 2 of Don Giovanni?  If Mozart had problems, there's hope for all of us!

As so many people are saying, your problem is lack of planning. It's a very common problem, so you're not alone. We've all been there. Script structure is a craft, but it’s always maddening because every script presents new structure problems. 

As  for whether to work on character before story and whether one can spend too much time on character, it’s very easy indeed to get stuck working on character or theme, then to believe that everything you know about the character and theme is in the script when in fact it's still in your head and not actually on the page.  For example, I once read a script that had a character who was supposed to be a loner.  But there were no scenes showing that character on its own, actually being a loner.   Character can only be demonstrated via action.  Your story must reveal everything that you want to say about character and theme via very specific action.  In other words, if your message 'slow and steady wins the race' you need to create a storyline like the hare and the tortoise fable, not a story about a tortoise who has some unconnected adventure. That sounds easy. It isn't. We all love writing and we can easily get dragged off the point.

So, don’t think about a character in isolation. Think about what it might do, how it might react.  Think about how the character's specific characteristics can be demonstrated in action, how the  action can put the characters in jeopardy.  For example, if your intention is to write about a miser, create a plot in which the miser has to spend money.  That way, your central character concern is at the heart of the central plot.  Don’t plan to write a film about a miser in which miserliness appears only in a couple of scenes and the rest of the film is about something completely different.

I notice that you mention that you started writing your film from theme and character.  You don’t mention story.   This is something that nobody has raised and it might be affecting you.  Often, the initial idea for a film is a theme or a character, not a story.    In other words, you might think: 'I want to write a film about  bullying’  but you don’t have a story or characters yet.  Or, your idea might be ‘I want to write about a dysfunctional family in which the son is a bully'.There, you have the characters and theme  but not a plotline.  In that situation it is very easy  just to write characters behaving characteristically. The bully acts as a bully in one way, then he acts as a bully in another way, then he acts as bully in a third way, and so on. If you’re a good writer, it’s easy to keep writing for quite a long while, but then you will stop because what you have written is repetitive. You are right to stop – or your audience will say: ‘Okay, okay, I get it that this guy is a bully– and? What now?’

To create a film rather than a character study, you need a story. You need to put the family and a bully in a situation that will permit them not only to interact, but to be different at the end  (not necessarily happy -  they could end up killing each other, the point is there must be a story).  

Can you check whether you yet have a story that properly illustrates your theme?  And whether you have characters in action rather than characters repeating their own characteristics in different ways.  This sounds insulting but it happens very easily.   Watch Mr Saturday Night – in that you have a self-destructive bullying comedian being a self-destructive bullying comedian in a million different ways. No story. Billy Crystal gives a wonderful performance but the film is boring because so much of it is just the character doing the same routine. 

The easiest way to understand this problem is to realise that films always have firstly what I call an action line (and others call 'the main plot, for example, inThelma and Louise, the action line is the drive across country, with all its events).  Secondly, they will always have what I call ‘a relationship line’ (what others call a subplot, which is to do with characters and character interaction, and is often the love story).  In Thelma and Louise, the relationship line is about how events force two respectable women to become bandits and to kill themselves.   There is a plot for each of these storylines, and if you split them up you’ll be able to pinpoint problems and handle them much more easily.  The point here, so well illustrated in Thelma and Louise, is that in a film the action line forces the relationship line to happen.  Use that as a motto.

As I said, you need to plan.  So, you now need to go back and work out, step by step what your story is, and whether it transmits the theme by forcing the relationship line to happen, then, when you have that structure, you can write in the scenes.   Internal scene construction is hard enough to do without having to plan the movie as you go.    You ask for help. In my book The 21st Century Screenplay I have created a step by step question and answer system planning system called Script Development Strategies that help you create a linear  one hero three act structure (later in the book I also explain how to structure nonlinear and multiple storyline/protagonist scripts too , but that gets more complicated).  A lot of film schools and pros use the Script Development strategies.  Good luck!  You will get there.

BLOG.LINDAARONSON.INFO: Linda Aronson on Voice Over Linda Aronson on Voice Over
In the Screenwriting Group at LinkedIn this question was posed “We all know that voice-over narration is a crime against cinema. Or do we...? Voice-over: sin or salvation?”
I haven’t read all the responses (there were over 80 ), but the replies I read were all along the lines that VO was a valid, proven, excellent tool, with many people listing good examples (btw, it’s a good site, so check it out).  Here’s my response.

Great, we’re all agreed the technique is valid and proven over and over again to be vividly successful.   Our next step should be a careful analysis of successful and unsuccesful examples in films to establish, when, where and why VO  works, and when where and why it doesn’t.  That way we'll get guidance to how to use VO successfully.

For example, it seems to me that VO is often successfully used in a mininmal form to bookend a film, articulating ideas and themes while simultaneously  providing a hook at the start of the film and a payoff twist at the end (for example in 21 Grams).  
I would also add that it’s fascinating how often in screenwriting theory moral condemnation is attached to the  use of techniques.  For example, flashbacks are ‘lazy’ or ‘voice over is trite’.  

You can’t ascribe moral values to writing techniques any more than to a paintbrush or the the use of specific fingering by a violinist. The only issue is the degree to which the techniques achieve the intended effect.  In short (as many people  in the LinkedIn Screenwriting Group said about VO), the only issue is whether it works.

My own personal  response to the question is that VO  can indeed get out of hand because our job as scriptwriters involves condensing dialogue so as to utilise subtext.  We are always tightening dialogue!  Hence, given the chance with VO to launch into purple prose, it’s very easy to get drunk on words - rambling lyrically on, with the accompanying visuals stuck in the same plot point, stopping the film in its tracks.  This is a big problem with adaptation of novels. It’s very tempting to insert brilliant bits of the novel’s narrative while the visuals become a kind of travelogue.   

My motto is forewarned is forearmed, so, in the attempt to avoid a dose of redundant purple prose in VO ,  I would suggest that prior to  using VO, we define precisely why we want to use it and what ideas  we want to transmit.

I’d also suggest that we work out what needs to be on the screen (telling the story visually) before  composing the VO.    That way, we’ve imposed limits on ourselves and  can excel within them. 

I've had a question about how to write a fairy tale from a writer who was blocking.  He'd read my book The 21st Century Screenplay for help but was still stuck and wanted further reading. 


Okay. I don't think this person needs further reading. From the sound of it, the kind of blocking he's experiencing is usually caused by the writer being too critical too early in the problem solving process. Now, being critical is essential, but you mustn't do it too early or you'll freeze.  Being too critical too early is the result of inexperience at having to write to order. 


So,  I'd say to this writer, it sounds to me as if you don't need further theory, you need practice, specifically, you need to practice the creativity under pressure techniques I've given you in the book. 


These techniques are not easy the first few times you use them because you need to stand back and ponder the problem - when what you long for is an idea now, instantly, fully formed out of the blue!  It rarely works like that. 


When you are working to order, you get ideas methodically, by throwing the right triggers at your imagination. Don't expect flashes of inspiration instantly. Sometimes you'll get them, but normally you will get your brilliant ideas only when you've given yourself useful triggers and done a bit of brainstorming. The method takes time but it does get easier the more you do it.  


What people find hard is getting the triggers.  You get the triggers by defining very precisely for yourself what you are being asked to do. THat's hard, but let's look at it.   So, what is 'a fairy tale?'  Use my Genre Equation from The 21st Century Screenplay.  The genre equation is a little recipe for the ingredients of any genre.  It is


genre = relevant emotion + specific components of the genre + real plus unusual


applied to the fairy tale this is:


Fairy Tale  = the relevant emotion you want to create in the audience with a fairy tale (DEFINE, THEN INSERT THESE) + the specific components in term of plot and characters of  a fairy tale  (WHAT DO YOU ALWAY FIND IN A FAIRY TALE IN TERMS OF PLOT AND CHARACTER? INSERT THESE) + real (keep your answers real) + unusual (don't make the mistake of thinking that genre means 'do everything I've seen done before'. You have to put a spin on the formula, so be unusual)


The components you always find are:

1. magic, good or bad, usually happening to a deserving person;
   
   
2. force of evil (usually an evil person) trying to cause harm; 
   
   
   
3. protagonist triumphing by magic intervention or saviour figure or common sense. 
   
   
   

Now, calmly brainstorm different versions of all of these, giving yourself permission to be less than brilliant, even downright awful. That way you won't block yourself.  Usually your first ideas will be a bit cliched (not always) but then you'll get better ones.  CHoose the best.

Still stuck?

Okay, fiendish Aronson trick for easier brain storming. I devised this focus trick for schoolkids faced with writing a short story in exam conditions (it's in a little book I wrote for school kids called Writing with Imagination', but the method's just as useful for screenwriters and novelists)

The trick   
Write down points 1-3 above. Circle or highlight each noun  (that is, circle or highlight ‘magic’ ‘deserving person’  ‘force of evil’ ‘harm’ ‘magic intervention’ 'saviour figure' ‘common sense' )
Now brainstorm many real but unusual versions of each noun.  Choose the best  and start to put together the story. 

Structure of a fairy tale
The brainstorming should give you lots of ideas, but we need to look now at structure. Fairy tales are usually linear with one protagonist. There is normally a shocking/surprising/wonderful change as the first act turning point (eg fairy godmother figure, appearance of beanstalk whatever).  This will usually be the ‘magic good or bad’. 

Use your first act turning point to go forward to work out your climax and to go backwards to work out your normality. Make your second act turning point the protagonist's worst moment - where all hope seems lost.  Then make your protagonist (or their saviour) fight back for your last act. 

And it all ends happily ever after (because that's part of the formula too)

I hope this helps.  To summarise, start practising.  Don't worry if it feels hard and counterintuitive at first. 

The Descendants.  A fine film. A rear tear jerker! 


It's a linear one hero on a single journey film.  At first sight, I thought it  didn’t seem to have a fight back in the third act.   But on second thoughts, the pursuit of Brian, and the involvement with Brian and his problems was a form of fighting back.  The search for Brian became a quest. 


Often the best way to see the function of a section of a film is to ask what would be lost if it were removed.  Remove the quest to find Brian and the impact on his family when he’s found, its ramifications and the film would have been circling around the conflict between the father and his daughters.  

It would have become all relationship line.  It would have slowed right down.  The revelation about Brian and the search for Brian not only inserted a powerful emotional charge, forcing the George Clooney character into emotional turmoil and lifting the emotional stakes, it also inserted physical action and a goal to pursue. 


The result for the audience was an increase in empathy and suspense.Clever.

By the way, was anyone else puzzled that it was described in publicity as a comedy-drama?  Comedy?