Thursday, December 11, 2014

Sundance 2015 Episodic Story Lab Open For Submission

If you want to enter a TV writing program but have written a pilot and not a spec episode of an existing show, check out the Sundance 2015 Episodic Story Lab! The deadline is February 11, 2015.

From the program's website:
Although the opportunities are growing, there are still few training grounds for independent and diverse voices who want to work in this evolving landscape. With our Feature Film Program Labs serving as a model, the Sundance Institute Episodic Story Lab offers writers (“Fellows”) an opportunity to learn how to develop stories and characters that evolve over multiple episodes in a setting where they can hone their writing skills and gain insight into navigating the changing industry. Working with accomplished showrunners (“Creative Advisors”), as well as non-writing creative producers and studio/network executives (“Industry Mentors”), the fellows participate in one-on-one creative story meetings, pitching sessions, simulated Writers’ Rooms, and group conversations focusing on the key creative and tactical elements that are central to any television writer’s success.  
Following the Lab, the writers receive customized, year-round support including: ongoing creative and strategic advice, year-round mentors, targeted introductions to showrunners, networks, agents and other creative and business professionals, as well as opportunities to shadow working television writers, directors and producers, and visits to the Writers’ Rooms of shows currently in production.
Note: you are not eligible if your pilot was in development at a studio or network, or if you have previously sold a pilot or pitch in the past that has been produced. The submitted pilot may be original or adapted from source material.

To apply, you will need the following:

THE FIRST FIVE PAGES OF YOUR SPEC PILOT

CONTACT INFO

A NARRATIVE BIO of yourself and your co-writer, if applicable, no more than 250 words each (not a resume)

PILOT SYNOPSIS (no more than 500 words)

2-3 PAGE SERIES OVERVIEW (between 1000-1500 words) with the following elements:
  • Series title
  • A series logline: 2-4 sentences that give an overview of the premise, genre, and world of the series
  • A brief description of the central character(s)
  • A brief summary of the story and character arcs for first season. This should NOT be an episode by episode outline. Instead, we want to know, in simple and clear language, how the characters and relationships will change this season, as well as the main thrust of each storyline.
SHORT ESSAY (no more than 300 words per question) responding to the following questions:
  • Why are you interested in developing this story as a series and why is this material uniquely told in episodic form?
  • Is there a specific approach in tone, production, narrative or aesthetic that is central to the execution of this series?
$40 NON-REFUNDABLE PROCESSING FEE, payable by credit card.

For more information, go here.


Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Bitter Script Reader on his new Michael Bay Book

Friend-of-the-Blog The Bitter Script Reader has written a book: Michael F-ing Bay: The Unheralded Genius in Michael Bay's Films. I asked him 5 Questions about his inspiration, his favorite Bay film and what we can all learn from the director that people seem to love to hate.

How did you get the idea for the book?

It was born of a few things. I'd toyed with the idea of an e-book for a while, but for various reasons I really didn't want to make my debut with a "greatest-hits" compilation of material that was on my blog. I knew if I was doing an e-book - as opposed to having a big publisher who'd shoot this out to brick-and-mortor bookstores - I'd be relying on my existing fanbase to generate sales. It didn't seem either right or feasible to just repackage what they'd already gotten for free and expect them to buy it.

The idea of examining Michael Bay's career grew out of my observations of the reaction to the most recent TRANSFORMERS film. Even before it came out, I kept seeing tweets from people expressing a sentiment more or less like, "God, I hate Michael Bay. Man this movie looks bad..... Seeing it at midnight on opening night!" There's just this fascinating thing where this audience exists that despises him and still can't get enough of him. And THEN they walk out of that movie three hours later acting shocked at how much they disliked it!

I wasn't what you'd call a Michael Bay fan or a defender. Truth be told, until soon before I started this book, I probably fit more comfortably among the detractors. Seeing all the pre-hate for TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION actually made me feel a little bad for it. It seemed to have no chance of getting a fair shake, so I decided that I'd go see the film with a completely open mind. It was an experiment to see if at least some of the hatred for Bay's films comes from people see in them what they expect to find. I decided to presume that there was something meaningful buried in the movie and all I had to do was let it talk to me.

I've grown tired of reading reviews written by the same people who've spent months writing stories all about production problems or studio clashes or whatnot on the same films. If someone's spent a year being snarky about the behind-the-scenes of a film, it's hard to imagine their viewing is completely untainted. Heck, maybe you could argue that they need that particular film to be bad in order to justify their pre-hate. So this really began with that one viewing experience and I found that if you're trying to find some sort of deeper meaning or metaphor in TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION, you can make a pretty good case for some theories.

The blog post that spawned quickly became one of my most-read posts ever and from there it was a short hop to "Hey, maybe there's a book to be gotten out of re-examining all of Michael Bay's films that way."

Was it hard to write a book when you're used to writing scripts? Or did it feel similar to your blog writing?

Not at all. If anything, I've been doing this style of writing a lot longer because it took me back to writing examinations of The Scarlet Letter in high school, or dissecting the buried themes of Hitchcock's work in college. I wrote a lot of papers in college, many of which were about taking a position on one critical read of an author's work -- so it was largely effortless.  And of course, as you point out, it's similar to the style I use on the blog too.

The only real challenge was the volume. In college, I'd have balked at having to write essentially 11 thesis papers over about two months. The blog was really good at training me to be able to just sit down and write, revise and know that I'd have to come back the next day and start totally fresh.  For the first half of the book, I typically gave myself a week to work on each film, but by the second half, I was turning out two essays in that time.

What's your favorite Michael Bay movie?

This is probably going to be clear to everyone who reads the book, but THE ROCK wins hands down. It's got one of the best premises that Bay's worked with, and probably his strongest cast. Sean Connery is basically doing a riff on James Bond, how do you not love that? Nicolas Cage is also the perfect counterpoint to Connery's character and there's a lot of smart writing in their dynamic. The dumb version of this would have been Connery as an unstoppable badass and Cage as the tag-along comic relief, but they're both fleshed out beyond that. It's also a stroke of genius that while Ed Harris is the antagonist, he's not a terrible person and you kind of feel sorry for the guy. There's a part of you that can really empathize with why he's taken these hostages and what he's after. It makes for a much richer story when characters aren't reduced to two-dimensions just to keep things easy on the audience.

You can definitely make a case for some of Bay's films having deeper, more profound readings, but THE ROCK is the clear favorite.

What do you think new writers can learn from Michael Bay?

Let me qualify that by saying my answer probably would be more accurately "what they can learn from Michael Bay movies." Bay definitely takes a strong hand in the development of his films and the writers are there to serve him. I don't want to minimize their contributions. Having said that, I addressed some of this talking about THE ROCK, but I think having vibrant characters is a big component. The two leads seem to be archetypes, but there's a power dynamic between them that allows the upper hand to change hands a number of times.

Oh! To relate this back to the book, I'd say that if you're trying to tell a "message" in your script, you'll probably have a better movie if you make sure it works as an entertaining story first. In discussing his films, I find that several of them have hidden meanings, such as THE ISLAND being an allegory for the Hollywood development process, or ARMAGEDDON being about man's relationship with God. I'm willing to be that not many people who saw those films would have picked up on that subtext. It's there for people who are hungry for deeper meaning, but the film doesn't beat you over the head with it.

Action movies don't have to be stupid, You can deal with bigger themes, and it's even better when you don't shove those ideas in the audience's faces. I think it leads to more interesting discussions, post-film. I loved NIGHTCRAWLER, but there's really no debate that the film is an indictment of current media culture. Try talking that over with friends after the movie and you don't have much to discuss but to point out all the well-done moments in the film.

Try starting a conversation about how PAIN & GAIN is actually a very personal confession and plea for absolution from Michael Bay and THEN you have a lively debate. It forces you to be more engaged with the film and to parse it carefully. To young writers, I'd say, "don't be afraid to make the audience work to find the meaning of your film."

Do you have any other book ideas percolating? 

We'll have to see if anyone buys this one first!

But seriously, as I was wrapping this book up, there was this little voice in the back of my head saying "And for the second book, maybe you could do Brett Ratner or McG!" Then the next I had lunch with my buddy Scott Towler, and after I told him about this book, he said "For the sequel you could do Brett Ratner!" So I get that it seems like a logical way to go.

However, in doing research I realized that Bay is the second most-successful director of all-time, if you go by domestic box office. In fact, five of the top six directors in that category also have Oscars for Best Director. Bay is the lone exception. So there's at least some correlation between box office success and artistic recognition. At the very least, it draws a distinction between the sorts of movie Bay makes and the films Ratner and McG makes. If big, loud action was an automatic ticket to huge sucecss, those two men would be up there with Bay. But they're not, and Bay's in the company of Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron, Peter Jackson and Ron Howard.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Bay IS as gifted as those other men... but it does make a case that Spielberg, Cameron, Zemeckis and such are more accurately Bay's peers than other purveyors of loud, dumb action. So that's a roundabout way of saying I wouldn't really expect to find the sort of depth in Ratner's work as I did in Bays. If I did write another book, it probably wouldn't be about finding depth in another director's action films. Bay's one of a kind.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Writer Roundtable: Gillian Flynn, Jonathan Nolan, Jon Favreau, Chris Rock, Graham Moore & Anthony McCarten

One of the best things about Oscar season is the roundtables with awesome writers, directors and actors. In this Hollywood Reporter roundtable, Gillian Flynn (GONE GIRL), Jonathan Nolan (INTERSTELLAR), Jon Favreau (CHEF), Chris Rock (TOP 5), Graham Moore (THE IMITATION GAME) and Anthony McCarten (THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) discuss inpsiration, writer's block, bad reviews, likability and happy endings.

Monday, October 27, 2014

5 Questions w/ Caitlin Duffy, Writers' Assistant on Chicago P.D.

Caitlin Duffy is the writers' assistant for Chicago P.D., which airs Wednesdays at 10pm on NBC. On Twitter, she's @duffosaurus_rex . She was kind enough to answer five questions about her job:
 
What's your background?

I've been writing since I can remember, whether it was short stories, terrible poetry, or even more terrible fan fiction, but for a while it was nothing more than a hobby. I went to a liberal arts college, completely unsure of what I wanted to do with my life. After taking an Intro to Film class, I liked what I saw and wanted to work in the entertainment industry. So I decided to major in Film Studies, and a month or two after graduation, I bought a one way ticket to LA!

What was your first industry job?

Of course, I moved out to LA in the fall of 2007, right on the verge of the writer's strike. After 6 months of unpaid internships in film production, I landed my first paid gig through a friend of a friend as an office PA on a pilot. Connections on the pilot got me a reality PA job, and for the next two years, I bounced around different, short-lived reality shows, doing everything from PA work to craft service to transpo.

How did you become a writers' assistant?

I got my first writers' assistant job through a combination of dumb luck and determination. While working in reality, I had signed up for email groups that posted industry job openings and had been actively submitting my resume to any job in scripted for over a year. Finally, the TV gods smiled down upon me and I got an interview on the show Bones. They hired me as an office PA, and I worked in that position for a year. A friend I'd made on the show had heard an executive assistant position was opening on a new show called Breakout Kings. She submitted my resume and I got an interview. Later, they called to say the executive assistant position had been filled, but asked if I wanted the writer's assistant job instead. I've been a WA ever since!

What is a normal day at your job like?

The writers' assistant job can vary a bit from show to show, but in my personal experience, a large bulk of the day is spent in the Writers Room, taking notes, and updating story boards and episode breakdowns on the white boards. The writers will often take breaks from the room to work alone on their personal episodes. During that time, I'll be doing episode research, taking notes on network calls and proofing scripts and outlines. I also handle a lot of random odds and ends, like writer contracts, legal forms, submitting loglines and guest casts to the network, and keeping track of script and outline assignments and submission dates.

What's something you've learned from your job? 

The phrase I always hear repeated is "keep writing!" This is true, not only to keep your portfolio nice and full, but to keep your brain fresh. The more you write, the better you'll get at story telling and problem solving. It can be difficult to keep writing (I often fall off the wagon myself), but important you get back on. Write down any idea you have, no matter how small. Sometimes it's the littlest ideas that grow into something big.

Another piece of advice that I've never been explicitly told, but have observed in my years out here, is that personality goes a long way. People want to hire people they can spend 8-10 hours a day in a writers room with. You can practice writing day in and day out, but if you're stand-offish, bossy, won't take notes or criticisms, or are generally not terribly pleasant to be around, you'll be hard pressed to land a job in a writers room. So, in addition to your writing, work on your collaboration skills too!

Also, please remember there's no one "right" way to get into the industry or find success in it. Some people are in the right place at the right time, or know the right person, and nab their dream job in a heartbeat. Other people take years to gradually climb up the ladder. Some will toil for years then suddenly get find success seemingly overnight. Someone else will be on top of the world until their show gets cancelled, then will flounder in unemployment. Everyone is different, so dwelling on how your current success compares to your peers isn't helpful. You, and those around you, will likely fluctuate between rising and falling. If you are mindful of that and don't let it deter your focus, you'll be OK.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Universal Emerging Writers Program now accepting submissions

Attention feature writers! The Universal Emerging Writers Program, now in its second year, is open for submissions.

From the program's website:
The Emerging Writers Fellowship is an exciting program at Universal Pictures that is designed to identify and cultivate new and unique voices with a passion for storytelling. We are looking for talented screenwriters who have the potential to thrive, but don’t have access to or visibility within the industry. 
Emerging writers who are chosen to participate in the program will work exclusively with the studio over the course of a year to hone their skills. During this program, fellows will be given the opportunity to work on current Universal projects as well as pitch original story ideas. In addition to working on writing assignments, the fellows will receive industry exposure by: 
- Participating in filmmaking workshops and studio seminars
- Receiving mentoring from established filmmakers
- Networking with top literary agents and managers
- Meeting with production development executives
- Attending screenings and premieres 
Fellows admitted into the program will be hired under a writing service agreement and must be committed to working full-time for one year. Additionally, Universal Pictures has the option to extend a fellows’ contract for a second year.

To be eligible for the program, you must be 18 years of age or older and a U.S. citizen or permanent resident without professional produced credits or attachmnt to third-party projects in development.

You must submit an original feature screenplay (no adaptations, biopics or scripts based on underlying materials), an application, release form, statement of purpose, resume and two letters of recommendation from industry professionals.

For more information, click here. You can also follow the program on Twitter and check out its FAQ. Good luck!

Friday, September 26, 2014

Is Relatability Important in a Script?


At some point, we've all gotten notes about "relatablity." That is, how well audiences can identify with the characters, settings, and events in our scripts. To hear many talk about it, it's a make-or-break deal for screenplays: unrelatable ones are "unsellable" or, arguably worse, just flat out unsatisfying slogs to read.

But do characters and stories really need to be relatable?

In the last few years, we've begun to see refutations of the notion that relatability is actually an essential part of storytelling. Rebecca Mead of the New Yorker tracks the (surprisingly) brief history of the word itself and how reductive and dismissive its demand on creative works can actually be. According to Mead, not even storytelling hero Ira Glass is excused from thoughtlessly using the word.

Film Crit Hulk's 2013 Screenwriting 101 also posits that screenwriting theory's obsession with relatability is a distraction from creating genuine empathy-- that the primal, emotional connection between characters is the actual essential part, rather than the depiction of specific circumstances relatability implies. You can jump into FCH's enthusiasm for emphatic screenwriting in section 7 of this excerpt.

Less about straight relatability and more about taking risks with your audience, Black List favorite producer and speaker Lindsay Doran has earned attention and plaudits from the screenwriting community for spinning principles of positive psychology into storytelling insight. They're too many to detail here, but her take on defying our reliance on happy movie endings is particularly resonant with writers, creatives, and, if you trust her examples of successful movies, audiences. The New York Times detailed Doran's career and philosophies in 2012 and she continues to produce films and speak about the power of giving audiences the ending they didn't know they wanted.

We can probably all agree the characters need to be interesting, and that we need to care about whether they succeed or fail -- but not necessarily because we personally have experienced what they've gone through, or because we "like" them ("likable" has become even more of a dirty word than "relatable" in the screenwriting world).

Then again, maybe "relatable" doesn't have to be an idea that boxes us in as writers. In a recent interview, HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER creator Peter Nowalk said of hatching the show, "I’m always coming up with ideas — maybe it’s because I’m unoriginal — where it’s a normal person caught in an extreme circumstance. There’s so much good TV on right now, I just wanted it to be loud and extreme and relatable. I was like, 'What [would happen] if I murdered someone?' It started there and then I wanted to do something with a procedural element." So perhaps an idea can be high-concept and exciting but also relatable, if you approach it from the place of putting a regular person in an extreme situation. Doesn't BREAKING BAD's Walter White also start out as a regular person before making extreme choices and putting himself in extreme situations?

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY writer Nicole Perlman suggested in an interview that relatability might be especially important for non-human characters or sci-fi worlds. When asked about keeping characters like Rocket and Groot relatable, she said, "I would say that it’s just like any other science fiction movie – the tree and the raccoon are either aliens or they’ve been subjected to experimentation, and there’s no reason why they’re unusual for a science fiction film. But I do think that what makes them relatable is that they’re going through real emotions, and they have real feelings for each other as friends, and that’s extremely universal."

"It’s funny, Rocket ended up being my favorite character of the group. And even though he’s a raccoon, he’s the most human in the group, in a lot of ways," she continued. "He’s been through a lot, he’s distrustful of people and slow to warm up, but he’s really loyal to his friend Groot and there are all these very human elements to him. So I think in some ways he’s the most relatable character in the entire movie."

Perhaps relatability has more to do with the essentials of humanity than any particular situation or plot choice. What does it mean to you?

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Interview: Screenwriter Dan Schoffer of Starz's THE CHAIR

Screenwriter Dan Schoffer has an interesting credit on his resume: he wrote a feature script that's been made into two different movies, NOT COOL and HOLLIDAYSBURG, each directed by two separate directors. Then, the whole experience was filmed for the reality show THE CHAIR, which airs Saturday nights on Starz.

The two movies are currently playing in theaters in NYC and LA through next week. They're also available on iTunes, Amazon Instant Video and other OnDemand platforms.

On Twitter, he's @danschoffer.

I talked with Dan about his experience with the THE CHAIR, finding a manager, "write what you know" and how a blind email query (!!!) led to the career he has now.

What's your background? How'd you get started in screenwriting?

I grew up in Margate, NJ and went to college at the University of Pennsylvania, where I double-majored in English and Theatre Arts. While I realize that the practical merits of these two majors are easy to poke fun at, the truth is that my liberal arts education absolutely prepared me for being a screenwriter. Turning in papers on their due dates is pretty much what I'm still doing today.

College was also where I took my first and only class in screenwriting. It was a one semester "Intro to Screenwriting" course, and it was exactly what my 20 year-old self needed. I had always been a film buff throughout my childhood, but I knew nothing of the nuts and bolts of the screenplay form. The internet was a different place in the late 90's/early 00's -- we didn't have access to every script ever written -- all we had was Drew's Script-O-Rama, which was basically just transcripts. And so this intro course was a real eye-opener, introducing me to actual scripts and to the world of sluglines, Final Draft, and Courier 12.

How did you get involved with THE CHAIR?

Like many of the other breaks in my career, this opportunity came through producer Josh Shader. I've been lucky enough to work with Josh for nearly 6 years now, and in many ways, my "first break" was his returning my blind query email in the fall of 2008. Thankfully, Josh saw some potential in my writing (an ENTOURAGE spec, of all things), and we began collaborating on feature ideas from scratch. After a failed crack at a high-concept rom-com, I pitched him my idea for an ensemble movie about college freshmen who return home for Thanksgiving break weekend. I remember Josh (rightfully) saying that the bullseye on an idea like this was miniscule, but I think he sensed my passion for the concept and he encouraged me to stick with it. Characters and ideas started flowing, and I fell in love with the innate timeframe of freshmen returning home on a Wednesday and going back to school on Sunday. This idea ultimately became the screenplay HOW SOON IS NOW, which we sold to MTV in 2011. They ended up not making the movie over at MTV, but were gracious enough to grant us back the rights to shop around. For the next year or so, we came close with independent financing at a few places, but we just couldn't get over the hurdle. This is where Chris Moore comes into the picture...

Josh and Chris had worked together on the AMERICAN PIE franchise, and had begun collaborating on another project when Chris told him about his concept for THE CHAIR. At this point, Chris was still searching for the right screenplay to bring his crazy concept to reality. I've been told that Chris read some 150 scripts by the time Josh slipped him HOW SOON IS NOW. Maybe it was just fatigue on Chris's part, but I feel fortunate that his search stopped there.

What was the notes process like on THE CHAIR? 

The notes process was the most insane three months of my life. I was rewriting both Shane's and Anna's movies at the same time last fall. Sometimes working on one script in the morning, and the other in the afternoon. And per Chris Moore's instructions, all the main characters had to keep their original names, meaning I had to keep straight multiple versions of Scott and Tori and Heather etc. It was a logistical nightmare. But it was also the most exhilarating few months of my life.

My biggest frustration was the realization that neither director wanted to film the movie I saw in my head. They viewed my script as the jumping off point to fulfill their creative desires. And while it's for the TV show's benefit that Chris Moore chose two directors who would deliver wildly different movies, for me, it was really hard at first. I loved my original script. I spent 4 years working on countless drafts and I wanted to see that movie made. But after meeting Shane and Anna, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. Film is a director's medium. And once a director comes on board, the screenwriter (even in the case of an original screenplay) is there to serve the director's wishes. If you don't do that, you get fired.

Would you consider directing your own work in the future?

Absolutely. I'm dying to direct to my own work. Although... I did see someone on Twitter suggest that for season two of THE CHAIR I direct one of Shane's or Anna's scripts. I wouldn't be opposed to something insane like that, either.

How did you get your manager?

Once again, through Josh Shader. After pitching Josh the idea for HOW SOON IS NOW in fall 2009, it took a full nine months before we got the script to a place where he was ready to show it to anyone. And that nine month period was tough for me. I was a 25-year-old wannabe screenwriter with no industry connections of my own. Josh was the first person to take a chance on me, yet he made no promise that he would ever show the script to anyone. He wasn't going to tarnish his reputation by sending a shitty script around town. So I had to prove myself with my writing. Ultimately, around June 2010, Josh sent the script to a few managers he respected. We got lots of positive feedback and interest, but the most passionate group by far was over at Magnet Management. I signed with them that summer and am still with them today. I feel so lucky to have landed with managers who believe in my writing and support me so thoroughly. Young writers get obsessed with finding agents, but I firmly believe that a good manager is the most crucial first step in building a career. In my opinion, a great manager is someone who let's you know they're in it for the long haul, and then backs that up by developing you when they know full-well it's going to be a couple years before they get any return on their investment. That's what I found with Magnet.

What's something you've learned or how have you changed since moving to LA in 2007?

I've learned to have patience. Lots and lots of patience. The film industry moves at a snail's pace. It takes forever to get a read. And even longer to get a response. And usually that response is going to be "no." But this is where patience comes in...because it only takes one person to say "yes." As writers, we dream of bidding wars for our original screenplays. But that almost never happens. Instead, it's usually one person taking a chance on your script and saying "yes." But that's hard to find. And to actually get a movie made, you'll need multiple people to say "yes" at multiple stages of development. As I've said, the idea for what became NOT COOL and HOLLIDAYSBURG came way back in 2009. At this time, I'm currently rewriting an original script for Dimension Films that I first started working on back in 2010. These timelines are par for the course. If you're expecting to write a screenplay, sell it overnight, and have it made right away, you're in the wrong profession.

What's the best or worst writing or industry advice you've ever gotten?

I think the worst writing advice is the old "write what you know." While there is certainly some truth to that adage -- mainly that you should trust that what interests you will interest other people -- I don't think "writing what you know" is something you should actively seek out. Because you're going to do it anyway. We can't help but write what we know. It's called "voice," and it seeps through everything we put on the page. A couple years ago, those Aaron Sorkin supercuts came out on YouTube and everyone started complaining that he re-used the same dialogue/patterns/jokes over and over. He was suddenly being derided, when his only crime was being prolific. We don't complain about a Neil Young guitar lick sounding too much like a Neil Young guitar lick, so why should we complain about a writer sounding like himself. Meanwhile, Sorkin won an Oscar for a screenplay about Facebook, after publicly admitting that he had never even been on Facebook. I love that script so much. And it's a perfect example of a writer using their voice to write about something they originally knew nothing about.

As far as industry advice goes, it's probably the advice my dad gave me when I was playing sports as a kid: "keep your head up." Just like you can't let striking out at the plate get in your head for your next at-bat, you can't let yourself get down on your writing because someone else doesn't like it. It's such simple advice, yet it's so hard to apply. And I struggle with it every day. Whenever someone passes on or criticizes my work, I can't help but take it personally. Because it is personal. It's your work being judged.  And it hurts when people don't like it. But you can't let every pass or criticism feel like an indictment of your talent. As I said before, it only takes one person to say "yes."