Authoring & Playwriting

Hi, Kat Spencer. I have scenes and things that just exist in my outline. I planned on using them, but I ended up not. Knowing those things helps me write the script though. And I saved the scene and things because I might end up using them for a sequel(s) or another project.

You're welcome, Ethan Reed. And writers could save scenes and things they don't use in scripts because they might help writers pitch the scripts or explain things to producers, directors, etc. about the stories later on during pre-production, production, or post.

Totally. Some of the best things that happen between my characters never make it onto the page.

In a post-war period drama, knowing what happened in private, even if the reader never sees it, is what makes a tense look or a silence in the next scene feel true. If the writer doesn't know those invisible gaps, the characters fall flat.

I LOVE this idea. Funnily enough, there are so many scenes that never make it into my scripts or novels. BUT! I do usually write them out. For me, it just helps ground me in the story. So I like mapping them out on paper or keyboard. So I usually do write them out, even if it's just for me.

Mine is for a book. I had a whole different and much longer ending planned but ran out of time on my deadline. So I had to come up with a different ending. Surprisingly to me, that book has the most positive reviews/stars on Amazon.

Hi, @Grace. I rewrite a script a lot of times, check it for typos, then get feedback on the script.

Grace Whitmore this is such a great question! I think it's different for everyone. I love feedback throughout the process. For my novel, I'm getting developmental feedback in chunks as I go from my editor and classmates. Having feedback along the way keeps me from building things out the wrong way or spending time on side quests that don't belong. It's made my draft so much stronger. I think the most important thing isn't the point at which you get help (because I get a variety of help at different stages), it's more about not having an ego when you get feedback. Being nimble and open is so important for editing (and that doesn't mean you don't stand your ground on certain things—it just means you're really clear on the choices you're making and how the story develops because of those choices). Love this question! Thank you for asking it :)

I’ve got a little list.

If you send something rough for feedback, there may be too many problems for the reader to get a good feel for it. No sense in tripping them up from typos or something you think is clear but isn't.

I think make the script as good as you can. Then have your computer read it to you. You'll hear the missing words or typos or dialogue that needs changing. After that, send it for feedback.

A promo here and there and AMS ads are working for me. I also like Booksirens review service.

David Taylor You tagged another Michael instead of me a few comments back.

Michael Dzurak I'm not sure who is more insulted. His eyesight isn't what it used to be.

I post on my Instagram, Facebook, and website regularly plus post comments on other artists/authors postings.

Any answer depends on your goals, your budget, and how professionally your book was assembled.

Spilling and garmmar

What did you spill, David Taylor?

Michael Dzurak i like to vary my script stains, coffee, tea, beer, gin and sometimes tomato soup. Variety is key.

Wow...that's awesome guys

I see them in terms of scope, with A being the biggest and D the most specific. So, a notes mentioning A a lot, means the script has grand problems. But if they mostly just mention D, then the issue is much smaller. Each needs its own approach.

That's going to be such fun for you Lauren Hackney and for them! Give them character changes they can see. Everyone is sad. Then, they get some good news. It's great! Ask them why they are happy. Then, tell them they just learned how to develop a character. After the chatter quiets down, ask them to pick another situation, maybe the character discovers a secret or finds something. What changes? Why?

Brilliant @terri i think this is such a fun and engaging way to tackle character development! Thank you!

# I Don't Owe You a Sales Pitch

Some people seem to assume that if they like one of my posts or add me as a contact, I will eventually send them a private message explaining how to get involved.

No.

I think this is partly the result of living in an environment saturated with success-selling.

Like, comment, attend a conference, buy a book, take a course — and somehow you will eventually find yourself walking onto a Hollywood red carpet.

Sorry.

I don't sell that story.

My obligation is much narrower:

I tell you that the door exists.

After that, you have to decide whether you want to walk through it.

You can read the materials yourself.

You can use AI to help you understand them.

You can browse my personal website.

You can read the application requirements.

You can decide whether the experiment interests you.

You can submit an application.

If I accept you, I can send you an invitation to the private Discord.

And then you can look around.

You can leave at any time.

This is intentional.

I am designing the public-facing process around notice, voluntary participation, risk separation, and reasonable commercial effort, rather than aggressive solicitation or promises of success.

The October 10 deadline is part of that broader legal-risk architecture. I am deliberately giving the public a window to see what I am doing before the experiment moves further.

I am not trying to hide the architecture.

I am trying to keep the boundary between an idea and social reality visible.

And please don't imagine this as one company.

Imagine an enterprise cluster.

The Risk Management Alliance is not supposed to manage one company's employees.

It manages risk across an entire chain:

an entrepreneurial idea → experiments → companies → capital → commercial expansion → potentially a business empire → potentially commercial conflict.

Different participants can operate different nodes.

The alliance exists to manage the risks between them.

That distinction matters.

Because I am not looking for people who need someone to tell them what to do.

I am looking for people whose ambition or desire to become capable is strong enough to make them investigate without being personally recruited.

You have to want something.

You have to be curious enough to read.

You have to be willing to use AI rather than wait for someone to explain everything to you.

You have to have enough courage to submit the application.

And eventually, if you enter the experiment, you have to decide whether you are willing to stop behaving like a sheep and start behaving like a wolf.

There is no cheap version of becoming capable here.

There is no:

“Buy this book and become successful.”

There is no:

“Attend this conference and enter Hollywood.”

There is no:

“Like my post and I will personally recruit you.”

There is only an intellectual battlefield.

And yes, the architecture is dangerous.

It was deliberately designed with the possibility of doing something very large.

One of the original objectives was to explore whether such an architecture could reinforce an existing hegemonic order or help dismantle one.

That is one possible objective.

It is not the only objective.

And whether it ultimately succeeds at either is not something I am going to decide in advance.

I am building the experiment.

You decide whether you want to enter it.

And if you expect me to chase you down and sell you a ticket—

you are probably looking for a completely different project.

I really like the distinction you’re making between simply starting a company and actually experimenting with institutional design. The idea of building, testing, and proving value before seeking broader recognition is especially interesting. In many ways, the hardest step really is believing you have the right to begin.

Simon Joseph # Risk Management Is Not New

Risk management is not some new invention.

It is essentially one of the core ideas taught in business schools such as Wharton.

Money is only a commodity.

A project that cannot predict, manage, and transfer its risks is not a good project simply because it has a lot of money behind it.

High risk can mean high return.

But a good project is one where the risk is sufficiently understood that you can decide:

what can be predicted,

what can be managed,

what can be transferred,

and what remains unacceptable.

People often have a strange illusion that money can make risk disappear.

It usually doesn't.

Sometimes money only makes the risk bigger.

Putting capital into a project before the risk-management structure is designed is one of the worst mistakes you can make.

That is why I am interested in building a Risk Management Alliance.

Not because risk management is new.

Because something else is new:

reverse engineering at scale.

The idea has deep roots in manufacturing. Automotive engineering helped develop increasingly sophisticated methods of measuring physical surfaces and reconstructing them digitally — including taking complex vehicle body surfaces and rebuilding them as CAD models.

Decades later, the broader principle has become much more powerful:

If something can be observed, measured, decomposed, and reconstructed, it can potentially be improved, modified, or rebuilt.

That changes the economics of intellectual property.

I don't think the future is necessarily going to be dominated by whoever owns the largest pile of patents.

It may increasingly be dominated by whoever controls the critical nodes of an open commercial ecosystem.

This is not an argument that patents are useless.

It is an observation about what happens when replication, optimization, open-source development, AI-assisted engineering, and global manufacturing make exclusive control harder.

Sometimes the better strategy is not to hide the entire system.

Publish the ecosystem. Identify the bottlenecks. Control the bottlenecks.

Think about historical trade powers.

You don't necessarily need to manufacture everything passing through your territory.

Sometimes controlling the route is enough.

Control the node.

Collect the value.

Let everyone else build around it.

That is also what I am experimenting with through my open-source science-fiction world.

The commercial paths are exposed through fiction.

The ecosystem is open.

The bottlenecks become visible.

If the Risk Management Alliance is eventually established, the chartered consortium can focus its resources on the nodes where risk, capital, technology, law, distribution, or infrastructure actually create defensible value.

I am also watching the emergence of what some people might call a new form of American state capitalism as national capital becomes increasingly involved in strategic industries.

Whether that model can actually work within America's existing institutional structure is something I am not predicting.

The institutional mismatch may be significant.

I simply want to see what happens.

And there is another reason the Risk Management Alliance cannot be built around one project.

One project does not justify a risk-management alliance.

You don't build an entire risk-management infrastructure because you have one objective.

You build it when objectives can keep appearing.

A project succeeds.

Revenue appears.

People gain experience.

New risks become visible.

New capabilities emerge.

Then another project becomes possible.

So the real structure is not:

Purpose → Company → Project

It is closer to:

Risk Infrastructure → Capability Pool → Project → Revenue → New Objective → New Project → ...

The company becomes an execution vehicle.

The project can die.

The infrastructure survives.

And the next objective can begin.

That, to me, is the interesting part.

The Risk Management Alliance is not a new theory of risk.

It is an attempt to take something old — the risk discipline of serious business, old capital, lawyers, insurers, engineers, and business schools — and make it scalable, modular, repeatable, and capable of generating new projects continuously.

Money comes later.

First, make the risk legible.

# Risk Management Alliance vs. State Capitalism

People may ask:

If governments are already building national strategic industries, why do we still need a Risk Management Alliance?

Because I think they are solving fundamentally different problems.

State capitalism is a form of institutional design.

It concentrates strategic resources around the state and uses public institutions, national capital, strategic industries, and long-term policy to pursue national objectives.

In my own conceptual model, this architecture is strongly connected to a settled-civilization logic:

Build the territory.

Build the institutions.

Accumulate capital.

Protect the infrastructure.

Preserve the system.

Develop the nation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But the Risk Management Alliance starts from a different cultural operating system.

It is strongly connected to a nomadic logic:

Find the opportunity.

Find the people.

Assess the danger.

Move resources.

Build a temporary vehicle.

Enter the market.

Leave when necessary.

Keep the network alive.

The company is not the tribe.

The project is not the civilization.

The project can die.

The people can move.

The capital can move.

The next objective can appear somewhere else.

That is why I don't see the Risk Management Alliance as a private-sector imitation of the state.

It is almost the opposite.

The state asks:

What should we build for the nation?

The Risk Management Alliance asks:

What can we build, who wants to build it, what are the risks, and how can the people involved remain capable of moving afterward?

That difference becomes much more important in the age of AI.

AI can dramatically increase the ability of individuals and small groups to analyze information, design systems, coordinate people, develop technology, and create businesses.

But there is another possible future.

People could decide that AI is so powerful and society is so complicated that they should simply delegate increasingly large portions of institutional design to whoever claims to know the answer.

The new priest.

The new prophet.

The new messiah.

The new technocratic philosopher-king.

“Give us the problem. We will build the perfect society for you.”

That is one possible direction.

The other is much less comfortable.

Teach people enough to build their own institutions.

Let them disagree.

Let them experiment.

Let them fail.

Let them leave.

Let different organizational systems compete.

Let people choose which systems they want to live and work inside.

That is why I think the real competition in the AI era may not simply be between companies, technologies, or governments.

It may eventually become a competition over something more fundamental:

Who gets to define the role of the individual in the new system?

Do we want AI to make individuals more capable of exercising autonomy?

Or do we want AI to make it easier for individuals to delegate autonomy to someone who claims to know what humanity needs?

I don't know which direction the world will choose.

I am not predicting it.

I am building one small experiment on the first side.

Risk Management Alliance = risk infrastructure for autonomous people.

Not a government.

Not a company that owns everyone underneath it.

Not a church.

Not a political party.

Not a promise of paradise.

Just an architecture designed to let people move, build, take risks, create value, and remain capable of choosing again.

Perhaps that is the oldest lesson of nomadic civilization:

You don't need to own the whole world to survive in it.

Sometimes you only need to know when to move.

There Is No One “Up There”

People sometimes look at what I am building and imagine that there must be someone above everyone else.

Some elite group.

Some group of American families.

Some group of people who already understand everything.

And perhaps I am simply trying to recruit the best people into that group.

No.

There is nobody up there.

If there were someone above you in this project, I would probably be interviewing or recruiting them.

What I am actually trying to do is different.

I am trying to give ambitious people the ability to pursue their own ambitions.

That is not exactly talent selection.

It is closer to talent development.

And there is an important reason for that.

Don't assume that because you cannot think across disciplines, the people at the top automatically can.

They can't.

The cognitive barriers are largely shared.

A lawyer cannot automatically understand engineering.

An engineer cannot automatically understand monetary policy.

A producer cannot automatically understand institutional design.

A politician cannot automatically understand every commercial system.

A billionaire does not suddenly acquire a complete map of human knowledge because they have more money.

Nobody has that brain.

There is no human being who can remember everything, understand everything, and instantly connect everything.

If you tried to put the entire world into one human brain, the brain would probably become the bottleneck.

So what actually happens?

Some people discover ways to work around the cognitive barrier.

They build teams.

They build libraries.

They build institutions.

They learn how to ask specialists.

They use search engines.

They use computers.

And now they use AI.

Some families have been doing versions of this for generations.

They may not be making their children omniscient.

They are teaching them how to navigate knowledge they do not personally possess.

That distinction is enormous.

The advantage is not necessarily:

“I know everything.”

It may be:

“I know how to find the person, document, tool, institution, or machine that knows what I don't know.”

That is a completely different kind of intelligence.

And this is why I am suspicious of cognitive outsourcing to a strongman.

If you tell me:

“I don't understand how to build this. I'll find a powerful person to do it for me.”

Fine.

But how do you know that person can actually cross the cognitive barriers required to accomplish your ambition?

Because they have money?

Because they have a title?

Because other people call them a genius?

Because they speak confidently?

Do they have perfect memory?

Of course not.

They have the same fundamental human limitation.

They simply may have developed better ways of navigating around it.

So my objective is not to become the person who knows everything for everyone else.

That would reproduce exactly the dependency I am trying to avoid.

I would rather build an environment where you become increasingly capable of navigating what you don't know.

Read across disciplines.

Use AI.

Ask better questions.

Find people who know what you don't.

Understand enough of their language to challenge them.

Connect ideas that normally live in separate professional silos.

Then build something.

And if you eventually become capable enough to tell me:

“You're wrong. Here's a better way.”

Good.

That's not a failure of the system.

That's the point.

There is no throne at the top waiting for you.

There is no omniscient elite waiting to solve your life.

There is no human messiah with perfect memory.

There are only people who have learned different ways to navigate the same cognitive limitations.

The real question is therefore not:

“Who is powerful enough to build my future for me?”

It is:

“How much of the ability to build my own future can I develop?”

That is the experiment.

And AI makes that experiment much more interesting than it was before.

Kat Spencer For the longest time, I avoided admitting how much of myself ended up in Eli, the main character of my animated feature. The more I've expanded the world, though, the more obvious it's become. So honestly, eating alone with Eli might be the ultimate comfortability test. LOL

Although he is an ANT... so having him—or a swarm of his friends—show up during dinner might be a little off-putting.

That’s an excellent question… for me it would have to be Hespera. Definitely, definitely wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a broken-hearted fallen angel with a flaming sword lol

Tonny Mersh Solid pitch, Tonny "old-school tactics against high-tech killers" is a great hook because it immediately tells me the conflict isn't just physical, it's philosophical (analog vs. digital), which usually makes for a stronger antagonist dynamic than a straight muscle-vs-muscle setup.

The comps make sense too John Wick and The Equalizer both work because the protagonist's skill set feels earned and specific rather than generic "trained operative." If Kai's tactics in PROTECTOR have that same specificity, that's usually what makes producers lean in during a read.

The AI-encryption-key stakes also feels timely without tipping into gimmick, which is a hard balance to strike in this genre right now. Wishing you luck finding the right producer sounds like a strong package for the mid-range action space.