The 60 percent rule in the (re)writing process.

When it comes to writing in general, it's not exactly a secret that I'm not the biggest fan of rules in storytelling. Even though there are certain 'rules' that are useful in coming up with a good story, you shouldn't get too strict with your story structure and how the script is put together.

After all, if someone tells you that a specific story event has to happen on an certain page or that it needs to have a certain 'cliche' event in the script, that is usually not good advice. You shouldn't think too much of that person's storytelling expertise.

At the same time, just because there are no super strict rules in storytelling, that doesn't mean that there aren't any guidelines that you should follow. There are things about the process that you should be aware of and that knowing them will make you a better writer. 

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that lately I've been (still) doing some rewrites on my children's book. During these rewrites I've ran into challenges in the story that I didn't know were going to be as exhausting as I had thought they would be.

By that I mean is that when I started doing this rewrite, at first it wasn't that exhausting to do. Even though I had some struggles with getting the first third 'exactly' right (spent like a week on one scene), it was still mostly 'brute force' and going through different permutations.

However, when I was finally content and happy with the first half and got to the second half, rewriting the book really started to take a toll on me. When the story got past its 'fun & games' and 'midpoint' beats, things started to get considerably worse for me emotionally.

The reason for this is that when it comes to polishing your script, there is this age old '60% rule' or theory that has to do with your story's second half. Once you reach the 60% mark page-wise, especially in the rewriting process, things might get tough for you.

Psychologically speaking, the reason for this is that when your characters start to get in real trouble ('bad guys closing in', 'all is lost') in the story beats, the writer will also experience these feelings. You can sense that things are going to get worse soon.

The thing that can make these 'bad guys are closing in' scenes difficult is that if you're not feeling physically and mentally well, they will affect your writing performance. You might feel that your story doesn't have enough direction or energy and that your project is just hopeless.

Indeed, in my case, since I didn't manage to polish and fix those minor mistakes fast enough - despite having a good story structure, I felt absolutely terrible. Every mistake that I made felt like a million times worse than had I made them in the other parts of the story.

In contrast, rewriting-wise, it's so much easier to rewrite and polish when you're dealing with the first half of the story in the script. This is when the characters are - more or less - regardless of the genre having 'relatively' good time (Blake Snyder's 'fun & games'). 

After all, as I was rewriting these earlier chapters (my characters were in an amusement park), it wasn't really a problem. Even though I was stressed, fixing the mistakes wasn't that difficult to do because it was 'fun & games' structure-wise (instead of 'all is lost').

In that sense, when it comes to story structure as a whole and its certain challenges, it's safe to say that you should know that the task can be really stressing. You should know that sometimes getting yourself super exhausted is almost an inevitable part of the process.

After all, when you set your standards high as a writer and when you're trying to write stuff that is as good as possible, that will create challenges. Especially when it comes to the latter part in the script this is when your mental fortitude is being tested.

In that sense, in the end, if you ever get yourself in trouble in your rewriting process and feel like you're going to lose your mind in the latter half of the script, you shouldn't lose your hope. You shouldn't think that the task is too hard and too difficult for you.

After all, even though it's possible that you're in trouble because your story has structural problems, that is not always the case. You shouldn't give up and discount the idea that you're emotionally hitting the wall because you're tired and your characters are in trouble.

On the contrary, if that is indeed the reason, in that case you just need take a break from the rewriting process. You need to take a break from the project and not come back until you feel that your mind is clear and you feel that you're able to come up with good stuff again.

'Angels & Demons' + 'Inferno' movie reviews.

When it comes to Dan Brown's popular novels, over the last couple of weeks I've managed to watch the film adaptations of his books. I watched the movie adaptations after reading his 'Da Vinci Code' novel - the book that was the first one in the 'Robert Langdon' series.

Indeed, even though there were certain issues in the 'Da Vinci Code' as a novel, I thought that it was still worth reading. The book kept me entertained and was fairly well written, even though historically speaking it wasn't particularly accurate as a novel.

So when it comes to the film versions of these books, it has to be said that - as unfortunate as it is - 'Da Vinci Code' as a movie wasn't particularly well made. Its story (see the last article) suffered from really terrible exposition and pacing issues among other things.

Fortunately, even though Da Vinci Code as a film was a disappointment, having now seen the other two film adaptations, I can say that they were much better. Both 'Angels & Demons' and 'Inferno' managed to be a lot more entertaining and watchable than 'Da Vinci Code' was.

Indeed, when I saw 'Angels and Demons' (2009)(picture above) last week with my friend, I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly well made and turned out to be easy to follow - even though I hadn't read the book that it was based on.

In essence, the premise in the film is that Robert Langdon is brought to solve a problem in the Vatican. There's a hostage situation and unless the Illuminati conspirators are stopped, they will blow up The Vatican with their anti-mater bomb (that they stole from Cern).  

Story-wise, like in the first one, once Tom Hanks's character is taken to the place, he starts deciphering the clues about the secret society and their habits. He and his partner (a female nuclear scientist) try to figure out where the hostages and the bomb are before it's too late.

Pacing-wise, the movie works so much better than the 'Da Vinci Code' did. There aren't really any bigger exposition issues, even though in certain places it's obvious that a lot more background information was in the book (like when they go to the Vatican archives).

Not surprisingly, this same analysis also applies to 'Inferno's' film adaptation (2016). This movie more or less also has the same basic story elements and the same story beats that we in the audience have already gotten used to.

Premise-wise, the basic idea in the film is that this time we're dealing with a crazy billionaire scientist that has decided to expose the world to a virus that would fix the overpopulation problem. Hanks with his female doctor partner once again needs to prevent it from happening.

Entertainment-wise, what makes the film work is that just like in the second one, there is an imminent threat that needs to be addressed. This fairly straightforward angle (there are some convoluted twists too) is solid and has elements that keep you on the edge of your seat.

Plot-wise, when it comes the film's third act, it has to be mentioned that 'Inferno's' movie version has an ending that is significantly different from the novel. They changed it from a 'downer' ending to a more uplifting one, which honestly didn't make that much sense.

Indeed, once the movie was finished, (I haven't read the book), it was pretty obvious that the original story had a more 'daring' ending. Certain character twists were a bit awkward and were disappointing if we're being honest here (not what the audience wanted).

Still, when it comes to this film as a whole and to 'Angels & Demons', it's pretty clear that these are relatively watchable films ('Angels' is better). Compared to Da Vinci Code, there's a clear difference in favor of these later adaptations in the series. 

After all even though both of the later films in the series have their issues, it cannot be overstated how bad 'The Da Vinci Code's' film adaptation was. The exposition and the pacing in the film were completely off and really hurt its quality.

In that sense, in the end, when it comes to these movie, if you haven't seen 'Angels & Demons' or 'Inferno', you should probably give them a try at some point. You should give these movies a chance and see whether you'll be able to enjoy them. 

After all, even though neither of these films are masterpieces, that doesn't mean that they're completely worthless. You shouldn't be thinking - like some of the critics do - that Dan Brown can't write or that there's no value in watching 'fictional' stuff like this.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, these films - despite their flaws - are watchable. They're worth watching and even though they could have been better (like the 'National Treasure' films), there's more than enough good stuff here to keep you entertained.