出版与作家生涯2018vanityfair.com编辑精选
电视编剧室的终结？
The End of the TV Writers’ Room?
导读
这篇报道讨论电视编剧室是否正在走向终结，并借英美剧在产量与编剧配置上的差异，反思工业化量产对故事创作的影响。对写作者来说，它值得读，因为篇幅、团队结构和资助模式不只是行业八卦，它们会直接决定故事能保留多少作者视野、密度和试验空间。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
少写一点、缩短篇幅，能腾出空间尝试更多不同想法，而不是把每个点子都硬做成22集。
- 02
给故事一个贯穿始终的作者视野，避免多人拼接造成主线松散、气质割裂。
- 03
删掉只为凑时长的B/C支线，按内容需要决定篇幅，故事会更紧凑。
- 04
把制作和发表机制也当作写作变量：只为规模和点击优化，会反向塑造你能写出的故事。
HN 评论精选
英国模式以更少集数和更少编剧换取试验空间与创意多样性。
听起来美国电视网正在试水英国式编剧。英版《办公室》只播了14集，完全由两个人编写；美版则有201集、40位署名编剧。原版《纸牌屋》只播了四集。即便是长寿剧，产量也往往小得多，因为常规是一季六集而不是22集。每样东西少做一点，就能尝试更广泛的想法。它不会立刻那么赚钱，但其中一些想法会成为海外爆款。不是每个节目都需要批量生产。
jdietrich查看英文原文
It sounds like American networks are flirting with the British way of writing TV. The British version of The Office only ran for 14 episodes and was wholly written by two people, versus 201 episodes and 40 credited writers for the American version. The original House of Cards only ran for four episodes. Even long-running series tend to be produced in much smaller quantities, because the norm is six episodes per season rather than 22. You can try out a much wider range of ideas if you just make less of each thing. It isn't as immediately profitable, but some of those ideas will become export hits. Not every programme needs to be mass produced.
单一作者愿景、按内容定篇幅、删填充支线，能提升整体质量。
早该如此。我看过的最好的电视节目，都是由一位编剧带着愿景、用一个贯穿数季的完整故事来策划执行的。我看过最好的剧甚至不在乎标准集长，会根据每周内容需要在15到45分钟之间变化。事实证明，去掉填充用的B线或C线，整部剧会好得多。
henrikschroder查看英文原文
Good riddance. Some of the absolute best television shows I have ever seen have all been planned and executed by a single script writer with a vision and an idea for a single story spanning over X seasons. And the absolute best tv series I have ever seen didn't even bother with standard length episodes, they vary between 15 and 45 minutes depending on the content that needs to go into the episode that week. Turns out that if you get rid of filler B-plots or C-plots, the entire series becomes much better.
担心新制作模式削弱编剧议价权，重演VFX行业被制片厂压榨的局面。
任何增强制片厂剥削人才能力的做法都让我警惕——这看起来很像让他们像控制VFX行业那样拿捏编剧。做《少年派》CGI的公司拿了最佳视觉效果奖，随后就倒闭了，而这在大项目中的VFX公司很典型，因为制片厂掌握所有筹码。他们会找到新的、绝望的公司，接受荒谬合同和无限修改。编剧有强大的工会，希望他们确保这不会变成写作人才的逐底竞争。
lsmarigo查看英文原文
I'm weary of anything that enhances studios ability to exploit talent - this seems like a great way to get writers by the balls the way they have they've got the VFX industry. The company that did the CGI for Life of Pi (won best visual effects) promptly went out of business and that's typical for VFX firms on major projects because studios hold all the cards. They'll find a new/desperate shop that will agree to an absurd contract with infinite revisions. Writers have a strong guild though so hopefully they make sure this doesn't turn into a race to the bottom from writing talent.
以规模和收益为导向的商业模式难以稳定产出高质量多元内容，需要改变资助机制。
无论制作还是购买内容，相关方在现有约束下——每档节目要百万观众、要赚很多钱——其实不知道如何把节目做得更好。他们找到的是优化能赚钱节目的办法：尽可能压缩效率。只要人们继续支持这种商业模式，它就会继续。你很难稳定获得大量高质量、不流行、艺术性强、惊艳的节目，因为那不是商业模式。要改变，就得资助不同商业模式和新的内容开发平台，把钱分给不会赚大钱但能创造更多元内容的作品。我认为对高质量内容感兴趣的人不够多，不狠狠压缩预算就行不通，所以我觉得不会发生。除非有人颠覆内容创作，所有人仍要受制于能付钱买内容的人。
peterwwillis查看英文原文
Whether you're producing content or buying it, those involved literally don't know how to make shows any better, given the constraints they have (get millions of viewers per show, make lots of money). They've found a way to optimize producing the shows that will make money: squeeze efficiency where you can. And that will continue as long as people contribute to their business model, which is the most money and the most eyeballs. You will never get a reliable stream of quality, unpopular, arty, amazing shows, because they aren't the business model. How do we change this? Fund different business models. Fund a whole new content development platform that distributes funds to productions that won't make much money or get many eyeballs, but will create more diverse content. As those become more popular, do deals with content distributors to help fund it. I don't think there's enough people interested in quality content for this to work without serious budget-pinching, so I don't think it'll happen. You could try to create the platform and just hope the viewers/funders will come. But unless someone disrupts content creation, everyone will continue to be beholden to whomever can pay for content. Another alternative is we stop paying millions to stars of hit shows, or some other production change, but that seems even less likely...
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选