Cruel to be kind

Julian Friedman has posted the second part of his interview with Kate Harwood (Controller of Series and Serials at BBC Drama) over on TwelvePoint, and it’s a must-read for anyone hoping to break into writing for TV in the UK. (You are a member, aren’t you?) Continuing the theme of the first part of the interview that had me harumphing, she goes on to make it clear in no uncertain terms that she is not interested in ideas for series, serials, or one-offs from writers who have not already been produced and have the requisite “flying hours”, no matter how great the premise. It prompted Julian to ask if writers without an established track record were wasting their time pitching series or serials, and Kate replied with a lengthy and reasoned, but nevertheless emphatic, yes.

It doesn’t matter whether you are simply sending something to the Writers Room, or you are exploiting contacts carefully nurtured over the years to have a producer take it to the Beeb, the BBC won’t make it. If you think they might, you are kidding yourself. If someone tells you they can make it happen, they are kidding you.

Kate said that unproduced writers who wanted to express their own ideas would probably be better off writing a novel or trying to fund their own film.

It’s not exactly what I was hoping to hear, but I’m grateful that somebody in her position has spoken so forthrightly. Self-delusions are an important motivator in the face of very low odds of success, but fledgling writers also need a firm grip on reality to know where best to direct their efforts.

Perhaps there are more openings elsewhere, not at Sky, I wouldn’t have thought so at ITV, maybe at Channel 4?

Now, of course, most spec scripts will never be made and serve as calling cards for potential assignments. Kate suggests that new writers should be aiming for Doctors to gain experience. But in the context of the competition for places on the Writers Academy, Ceri Meyrick was critical of would-be writers who thought of recurring series (Doctors, Holby etc.) as stepping stones to something “better”, and they wanted writers who wanted to write on such shows for their own sake.

Some snarks are disparaging about such shows. I don’t really have an opinion about their merits, because I don’t watch them. My issue with writing for something like Doctors (and let’s not kid ourselves, if I had an assignment writing on the show I’d be crowing all around the blogosphere) is that I don’t know whether I would be able to do it, frankly. There is a big difference between creating your own worlds and characters and breathing life into them, and taking on other people’s existing characters and trying to get under their skin to become a convincing mimic of them. So much for the high premium put on a writer’s original voice.

In any sphere artists have a natural range. Working within it they can be brilliant, outside it can be embarrassing. Damien Hirst may be a brilliant conceptual artist but he can’t draw bananas for shit. His genius with dots may never have been discovered if he’d been obliged to make a recognisable stab at a bowl of fruit before being allowed to graduate.

Unless I’m missing something — and please, tell me if I am — the implication is that the only real route into TV is through work on the BBC’s roster of recurring series.

Which leads me to think that my original instinct — that I would be better off directing my efforts at film — was probably correct.

Which means re-tooling the 3-part political thriller I’m currently working on into a 2-hour film. Or a book. Or a graphical novel. Or a radio play. There are opportunities out there to develop original ideas. Even if TV isn’t one of them.

If you have any thoughts, I’d love to hear them.

¹ I have no idea if either of those assertions are true. Damien Hirst used for illustrative purposes only. It might just as easily have been one of his contemporaries who confuse T-shirt logos with high art.