JMS as Writer - Strengths and Weaknesses

[Jan]

Over on the 'change one thing thread, Ubik wrote:

I always think the reason B5 endures is because of the series long story arcs.

And while I agree that that's part of it, overall I have to disagree. Story arcs are meaningless if you don't have characters that you want to follow through those arcs. I think that's by far JMS' greatest strength as a writer, and not in B5 alone.

I've seen him take over a character I'd barely ever heard of and knew nothing about and make me sad when that character died (Silver Surfer: Requiem). And even if you haven't experienced much of his other projects, would t really have been B5 if you hadn't really cared about Londo's descent and struggle for redemption?

Other things I think are strengths are:
- being willing to experiment. I've loved most all of his off-format episodes.
- being able to create his characters and universes using everyday language. For contrast, much as I love Harlan Ellison and some of his work, I never really get immersed in his stories because I'm having to reach for the dictionary so often.
- taking time for the 'moments', whether it's Peter Parker making sure the popcorn he's been offered is just the way he likes it or watching Londo walk alone to his coronation with only the tolling of bells.

Which (though it may surprise some), doesn't mean I think he's perfect.
- Sometimes he's kind of repetitive. This is probably only noticable to those of us who've seen a lot of his work. But "Never start a fight. but always finish it" could be part of his coat of arms, I think. Thankfully most of what he repeats really does bear hearing often.
- Similarly, there seem to be sounds and names that JMS is very fond of. Can't remember the name of a race or ship? Try Enfilli or Enfalli. Name of a character? David or some form of Elizabeth are likely for first names. Man- or Janowski.

All in all, pretty minor 'flaws', but sometimes a bit distracting.

Anybody else?
Jan

[Ubik]

I always think the reason B5 endures is because of the series long story arcs.

The 'series long arcs' (for me) also encompasses the characters and their individual journeys. Jan, you are of course absolutely right that without those journeys, the grand galaxy changing events would suddenly ring very hollow. We have to be invested in the people on screen to appreciate the events that overtake them.

That's why the above sentence was immediately followed by...

It's those gradual shifts in characters, the rise and fall of empires and the small details that come to fruition further on down the line.

I was just trying to make the point that the self contained nature of TLT was what let it down when compared to B5. Although, it's hard to make the comparison when we got so little of TLT.

But, before I get off topic... Let me say that I think this is a great springboard for discussion. I'll post more when I get the time to write it!

I will devise a list of JMS Pros and Cons.

[Ubik]

Okay... here goes...

Strengths:

-A work ethic that puts other writers to shame. I am still astounded at the volume of scripts JMS produced for B5, and to a fairly consistent standard. He continues to take on more work than any other creator I'm aware of.

-Foreshadowing, overarching plotting and attention to detail. His work on B5 is obsessively detailed when it comes to the story as a whole. I always get a kick out of re-watching Season 1 episodes of B5 because of this.

-As Jan already mentioned, great character work. His characters are human, more to the point they're flawed, and therefore believable. Things are not black and white, but all the shades in between. People make mistakes. There are no perfect heroes. Londo and G'Kar are two of my all time favourite on screen creations.

-Some really stirring monologues.

Weaknesses:

-The humour in his writing sometimes falls flat for me. That's probably just a matter of personal taste. I sometimes find it a bit too silly. A lot of the Ivanova 'funny' stuff just never worked for me.

-As mentioned above, even though I dearly love monologues, JMS has a tendency towards writing long chunks of dialogue which does not always lend itself well to naturalistic dialogue. Some conversations feel too 'staged' because sentences get over long, in ways that you'd very rarely hear in everyday conversation. I feel the rhythm is sometimes off because of this. Maybe this is occasionally down to how an actor delivers the lines too.

-Repetition of certain phrases... "just one more thing..." is a bit over used in B5. There could be a B5 drinking game around that one. Perhaps one to add to the Season 1 'raiders' drinking game.

[Jan]

Weaknesses:

-The humour in his writing sometimes falls flat for me. That's probably just a matter of personal taste. I sometimes find it a bit too silly. A lot of the Ivanova 'funny' stuff just never worked for me.

That's always a possible danger. Mostly I loved the quips that would find their way into tense situations because I'm very much the same way. Lochley didn't seem to handle humor very well to my taste.

-As mentioned above, even though I dearly love monologues, JMS has a tendency towards writing long chunks of dialogue which does not always lend itself well to naturalistic dialogue. Some conversations feel too 'staged' because sentences get over long, in ways that you'd very rarely hear in everyday conversation. I feel the rhythm is sometimes off because of this. Maybe this is occasionally down to how an actor delivers the lines too.

That might be part of it but I think in B5 it was exaggerated due to JMS wanting each episode to be self-contained. There was way too much 'of course, we all remember blah-blah...' since there were no 'previously on...' segments in B5. Have you watched 'Jeremiah'? I think that was far more natural-sounding.

Jan

[Ubik]

That might be part of it but I think in B5 it was exaggerated due to JMS wanting each episode to be self-contained. There was way too much 'of course, we all remember blah-blah...' since there were no 'previously on...' segments in B5. Have you watched 'Jeremiah'? I think that was far more natural-sounding.

Jan

Yep, I watched Jeremiah many many years ago and I do remember the dialogue being good. I think JMS comics output proves he has improved in that department.

[cornholio1980]

I do believe that whenever someone says that the arc is B5s biggest strength, he/she doesn't mean that it's good because it has an arc, but rather that the arc itself is good. I know I do! .

As far as his strenghts and weaknesses go, I couldn't really say, since I still know mostly only his B5 work. I plan to check out his other stuff for years now, but so far didn'T find the time. Thus, I don't really feel qualified to answer, especially since with a show like B5, there are always compromises.

[Ubik]

I do believe that whenever someone says that the arc is B5s biggest strength, he/she doesn't mean that it's good because it has an arc, but rather that the arc itself is good. I know I do! ..

Agreed, there are so many aspect to the 'arc' that have a bearing on the show.

As far as his strenghts and weaknesses go, I couldn't really say, since I still know mostly only his B5 work. I plan to check out his other stuff for years now, but so far didn'T find the time. Thus, I don't really feel qualified to answer, especially since with a show like B5, there are always compromises.

I'd be perfectly happy for your answer to be based solely on B5. There must be things you absolutely loved, and also things that didn't quite work for you about JMS' writing.

Go on...

[sarthaz]

I would agree that character arcs are his biggest strengths. I don't think he should be allowed to write anything unless given a long period of time to establish the character.

I would also agree that repetitiveness is a weakness, and sadly it diminishes his characters as a whole when one from another universe gives the same speech or shares the same backstory. Now when I watch John and his dad, I'm thinking of everyone else who's been taught to finish fights, and I can't help but wonder what kind of crappy father would make that the first lesson to his young child. This isn't a unique problem to him, though, and the more exposure you have to writers the more you notice this in all of them. If you watched Felicity or Alias, you've seen JJ's bag of tricks already. A Few Good Men and Sports Night are repeated over and over by Sorkin. Whedon rehashes Buffy. And on and on. The guys are at the top of their field, and they can't avoid it. And on some level it's good, because not everyone has seen the early work. But for those who have, it's a bit annoying. It's not an Abrhams project without a tied-up flashback or a big red Maguffin orb. And what Sorkin project would be complete without someone's parents divorcing after 30+ years? Anyway, I'm getting off topic ...

Joe ... what would we do without JMS creating a Messianic character with the initials JS? Jeffrey Sinclair, John Sheridan, John Simon (a writer)? Well, they can't ALL be JS, and that's why we have the name David: David Sheridan, David Grey, David Martel. But those can be forgiven, because there are lots of Johns and Davids in the world. But how many Laurels do you really know? In real life? Who are badasses? Takashima, Darkhaven, and the girl from Midnight Nation don't count.

Jan, don't forget Nafeel and Na'Feel

[cornholio1980]

I'd be perfectly happy for your answer to be based solely on B5. There must be things you absolutely loved, and also things that didn't quite work for you about JMS' writing.

Well, I should rephrase: I know some of his movie stuff. Most of it, actually (however, it's a little difficult to assert his strenghts and weaknesses going by that, given that usually you have more than one writer working on a script). But none of his comics, and not "Jeremiah", and I only read one of his novels so far (demon night), and that was far too long ago for me to remember anything about it .

Hmm... well, obviously, planning out a story arc. It helps so much when yuo already know where you're going, you can put in some foreshadowing, feature things very early with a pay-off thats coming way later, and so on. Also, the character can grow more naturally, I think. His characters definitely are another great strength, because they very rarely are black and white, but all shades of grey. I definitely like that.

Weakness. Well... I mean I like them, but his monologues can go on for some time. And as much as I might enjoy them, those and his dialogue in generel can sometimes feel a little "staged", and not very natural. There are a couple of conversations where you might think "no one talks like that". On the other hand, he has a knack for featuring very natural dialogue too, things that feel real, but that you usually don't get because it has got nothing to do with the story itself. Like "fasten, zip".

I love his sense of humor, and think thats one of his strengths that maybe gets overlooked sometimes.

Probably his biggest... well, I wouldn't say weakness, because its a matter of perspective. And it probably has more to to with the production than the writer-side of things. But: I get the feeling that when you force something (or a character) on him, he has the tendency to f*ck it up (I'm not necesarrily saying he does it on purpose), almost as if he'd look at the offending party and asking "Happy now?". Like Keffer. Like the forced Crusade-pilot. Or the "more sex and violence"-memos (also Crusade). Anyway, when this happens, I sometimes get the feeling that he doesn't do the best he can to still make it work. However, that might very well be a misconception.

And IMHO, he's definitely better with longer story arcs than with shorter, stand-alone stories.

Anyway, for better or worse, that's how I see it. Don't blame me, blame Ubik! He demanded to know!

EDIT: "no one talks like that" probably was too harsh. I didn't really mean it like that, but more, that a certain conversation - or monologue - doesn't feel 100% natural and realistic. Like, for example, you would expect the counterpart to chime in sooner. And occasionally, his dialogue, while beautiful to listen to, may be a little too clever for its own good. However, it's not even remotely as bad as with Aaron Sorkin .