To examine the growing similarities between television storytelling and literary fiction—particularly their shared emphasis on complex characters and challenging themes—I recently spoke with television writer Rasheed Newson (Narcos, Chi), audience (bel-air), and novelist (There’s only one sin in Hollywood And my government means to kill me). Here is an excerpt from our conversation.
Article continues after ad
*
Spiro Skentzos: Rasheed, do you consider writing for the screen and writing novels as closely related or fundamentally different?
rashid newson:They’re fundamentally different for what I need to do. The feeling of where the story is going and the reaction you want to get from the audience don’t change: excitement is excitement, mystery is mystery, humor is humor. But it changes quite fundamentally how you go about fulfilling your intention as a writer. I think people have trouble when they move from one medium to another without considering the real differences between them. Novels depend on interiority and screenwriting depends on external visual cues.
ss: What does that level of interiority in a first-person novel allow you to do with a character that television just can’t do?
rn: When we think about the television characters we love, we’re really thinking about the experience of getting to know them over dozens of episodes and multiple seasons. If you go back and watch the first few episodes of a series, you probably don’t have that much information about the leads. With a book, the reader wants to know this person and expects certain internal things, and so you have more scope to get to know them more in a novel than in television.
Obstruction is where the art lies, right?
The other great thing about first person is that I’m not responsible for what’s in everyone’s head. In television, you have your own hero. There is always a question whether we should have a privileged view with their enemies? How valid is everyone else’s point of view for the story? When you’re in first person, you don’t have the responsibility to serve everyone else on board, which is one of the things that kills time in television.
Another element that I think is so fun about writing books is your ability, for the most part, to focus everyone’s attention on what you want to tell them about a scene. If you want to describe the color of the room and walls, you are free to do so, but you don’t have to do so. Whereas in television, everything goes on at the same time, and sometimes it becomes distracting.
ss:What kinds of devices do you use to show the interiority of a character?
rn: In television, you’re usually looking for some scene that lets the audience know that the character is uncomfortable, or that they’re lying. Again, that camera is doing a lot of the work for you, because it’s telling the audience, This is what this person is focused on, this is what they want, this is what they want. In television, we have to establish very quickly that this person can become violent at a moment’s notice, or is vain beyond comprehension. In a book, you might spend three or four pages getting ready in the morning and talking about the worries of your day.
ss: This brings us to the ‘pet the dog moment’ – that moment when the character in the TV series pets that dog on his way out the door, and we know he’s a good person.
rn:It works. People gave Tony Soprano so much credit in the first season because he cared about the ducks that landed in his pool. He is a murderer. But when those ducks stopped coming to the pool, he was really heartbroken.
ss: How do you see and overcome the obstacles in television?
rn: Obstruction is where the art lies, right? People who watch television don’t necessarily know this, but there are a lot of episodes that are dictated entirely by how many days we can work on set versus how many days we can be off. Even contract limitations with the actors prevent us from using a recurring character in this episode because we don’t have them for the entire season. Nobody’s necessarily going to cry for television writers, but I do sometimes, (laughs) when I see viewers upset about an episode, and they’re like, “That wasn’t very good.” I always want to answer, “Imagine how we feel. You spent about an hour watching this. I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning and go to Santa Clarita for a week to shoot this thing.” If we had an unlimited budget and unlimited time, we would tell these stories differently, but really it turns out it’s like a game of Jenga.
ss:And do you think the obstacle changes the type of character that can exist, or how the character appears?
rn: Oh yes. Television rewards attractive, big personalities. In a book, you can be a very quiet person. But if you’re looking for interesting things, that’s fine. In the television version of great GatsbyWe follow Gatsby hosting these parties and Nick, the narrator, lives across the street. He is not very flashy. But that works in that book. In television, Nick will be fourth on the call sheet.
ss: Dialogue in TV has to do many things simultaneously. Characters, plot, pace. How does that pressure shape the way you write dialogue in TV versus novels?
rn: What I enjoy about writing dialogue in a novel is that dialogue in a novel can be used to establish a relationship between two characters. They can feel each other out, and talk about how they see the world. It doesn’t necessarily advance the plot. Maybe what we’re telling each other won’t come in handy for the next 100 pages? The song doesn’t have to be at the same volume as the TV to get your attention. And as long as its authenticity remains intact, there is no need to rush into it. Television, very rarely can we have that kind of momentum.
ss: In imagination, you have inside access. How is it different from film/TV?
rn: I think you really have to check your math more in a novel because the reader can flip back to page 47 and say, “Wait a minute, the character contradicted himself.” On television we are sometimes searching for stories and inspirations. So, strictly speaking, someone might do something that’s a little more unforgivable, or we haven’t necessarily laid the foundation for that in television, but everyone runs with it.
You forgive a lot on television, whereas I think in a book you, your reader, would want to examine harder. It also depends on the way these things are consumed. People will sit down and read a book, sometimes from the beginning to the end of a day or weekend. And everything is fresh in their mind. There’s a lot we may forget because of a story being told on television for years.
The stories I’m writing in these books are stories that I think are essentially exactly the same books.
Aaron Spelling was a writer on the show who I worked with years later. And they told a story where four or five episodes into the season, they introduced this actor as a very important character. And they say, “What are we going to do?” And he came up with this brilliant idea. The show always started with “Already On”. So, they shot “in advance” with the new actor, having him with his wife and his family doing the same things that had been done in the previous scenes. So you saw him in the earlier scenes, and then he was just playing that character. And barely a peep was heard on the show.
ss:In third-person fiction, interiority is available, but it is still framed externally. Do you think it’s closer to TV in its execution than a first-person novel?
rn:I’m working on a third-person novel now. Partly because I want to keep the audience inside the mind of my main protagonist, and I need to be able to get into the mind of a serial killer. I need to be able to change POV. It feels more like television, but I still have a lot of control over the focus, and who we’re paying attention to as we tell the story. I’ve been in these group shows, (Army Wives, bel-air) where we have the breakfast scene, and it was always hard to write the big group scenes, because all the actors go through hair and makeup and you can’t just give one line to one actor. you will hear: “You brought me in and I just said, ‘Would you like some orange juice?'” I have to figure out how to cater to everyone’s dynamics at breakfast. But in a third-person novel, you don’t have that. Like, he goes to the bar with his friends, they’re there, but I don’t need to blow my horn and make sure everyone has something to say.
ss:How has writing for television changed your approach to your characters in the novels, especially in terms of scene construction or restraint?
rn:I write chapters episodically, so even though I tell a larger story, there is a beginning, middle, and end. I hope that television has given me an understanding of the story so that when people are reading it, not only do they feel the rise and fall of the action throughout the book, but they feel it chapter by chapter. Also, television gives me the idea of set pieces. I don’t necessarily want to play all of these chapters in the same living room. There are definitely books that you never leave the house without knowing about them. But usually, if I realize, “Oh, we’re going to have a ceremony at the Beverly Hilton I get excited.”
ss: Do you think there are techniques that work well in fiction, especially first person, that resist translation to the screen?
rn: Due to time constraints, television wants us to get as close to the action as possible. We wouldn’t start the story with someone getting fired from their job and then going to a bar, and then talking about needing money, and then deciding that they’re going to team up with this person and rob a bank. We’ll probably get in the car before they go in and rob the bank. And maybe, in flashbacks, we’ll be shown those other storylines, or it may never be compelling enough to make it to the screen. Unlike television, in books, you are allowed a longer warm-up period.
ss: Do you think writing in media has made you more conscious or more ambivalent about the character?
rn:The stories I’m writing in these books are stories that I feel have been served up as books that are essentially exactly that. In television and film, I have to think about the fact that I will be collaborating and that I will have to give up some of this control that I enjoy so much. Television is a collaborative art. You have to play with everyone else in the class.
Now as much as I like control in my novels, in television, I also like that I don’t have to think about everything. If there’s a line that isn’t the best, I know this actor will sell it. If a scene is heavily performed, the wardrobe department may dress the actors in extra fancy clothes and the audience’s eyes will remain focused on the clothes. You may be saved by your colleagues in television.
__________________________________
There’s only one sin in Hollywood by Rasheed Newson is available from Flatiron Books.
