i am not a writer

just read this interview with nicholas meyer (he of the even-numbered star trek films).  in it he describes himself this way:

It’s very rare that I get an original idea that I really like, although occasionally I do get one that’s a doozy.  I’ve discovered that I’m a born recycler, not just of paper and garbage.  I like working material like it’s a Rubik’s cube – reworking, rethinking, redoing.  It’s what you owe to a great novel, story or play.  It’s also interesting what you can do with a bad one where you owe much less.  Handel was once accused of stealing someone’s tune and his answer was, “It’s true; he did not know what to do with it; I showed him.”

i really identify with this identification.  one of my struggles has been that as much as i want to be the most original and inventive creator/writer/whatever, i don't seem to be.  my skill set seems most powerfully applied when i have raw material to start with.  i can't enumerate how many times i've watched a film, read a book, heard a band - and thought of how the experience, the realization of that piece of work could have been enhanced, improved or just downright fixed.  it's entirely possible that i'm just a legend in my own mind, but it's a least more pleasing to think i might just be more of an innovator versus an inventor. 

along those lines i discovered a draft of an older post i had intended to put up about my process as identifying as a writer and failing.  as some kind of context to the above, here it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i've finally given up on identifying myself as a writer. and i must say my immediate reaction upon consciously making this choice was one of relief.

i've written all my life, both non-fiction and fiction. i've wanted to tell stories all my life. but writing fiction - specifically screenplays as i've done little short story writing and no novels - has always been very difficult, painful and not a process i would ever describe as one i enjoyed.

of course i understand that this is the experience of many writers and by no means do i wish to belittle that.

but there have been some interesting discoveries i've made about myself as a result of this choice. for one, i already feel more free and creative. my style of creativity doesn't seem to work well with the linear, specific, detailed manner it takes to be a writer. writing something is all about details and specifics. i've always been a wholistic big-view non-linear lateral thinking type.

i can be a specific detail-driven thinker, but i find it incredibly difficult to do that - to think from a critical perspective, and also be creative. i found my writing always tended towards the more realistic and concrete - and yet what im interested in is fantastic and non-literal. i love science fiction and action-adventure. i do want some verisimilitude in my entertainment, just enough to help my suspension of disbelief, but not as much as the wire (although having seen only the first three episodes of that show i can't yet say i don't like it).

it's been very freeing to return to simply conceive of ideas, to let my mind loose and not worry specifically about plots or character arcs. to think more about cool ideas or interesting situations. that's more my style.

and so i learned a second thing: that ultimately i don't care about story, plot or character. all the discussions on the internet that i've either participated in or observed about these things are uninteresting - except as they lead to one thing: an entertaining experience.

originally as i discussed with my friend sean, when i made the disassociation with being a writer, i was surprised to find myself discovering an affinity with those directors that seem more concerned with a cool way of realizing a scene than the story. i found myself fantasizing about angles, set pieces and color. more abstract constructions. it's easy to get seduced by those pretty things.

but following that allure i realized that im not interested in story or acts or even structure. im only interested in creating a fun experience. a ride. i want a film to draw me in, transport me to somewhere new and fascinating, and take me on a ride. it's that simple. if story does that, if plot or character or act breaks do that, then im all for them. but if they don't, or worse yet, get in the way, then i have no need or desire for them. the end result of an entertaining ride of some sort is the only guide. so if a film can give me that without a real story - with simply a chase or a fascinating setting - then that's valid. sure, it won't pass any screenwriting vetting or win any story awards - but i don't care.