By Mark O’Connell
“There is a certain kind of writer whose work is characterized by this shifting, repetitive pattern. And there’s something of a paradox here, too, in that often the more distinctive and original the writer, the stronger the tendency to drill down, book after book, into the same wellspring. ”
By Carissa Smith
Smith attempts to distill Moffat’s success into a pattern she’s noticed through all his shows (mysteriously neglecting Jekyll). I disagree with her second rule, that sex is a game of words. She defends the nudity and intentionally shocking aspects of Adler’s characterization in the new Sherlock. I maintain her character was only meant to shock in a needlessly desperate attempt to stay on the cutting edge. At least, I found the first series clever enough to label the nudity stunt in the second series desperate. Given the terrible episode that followed, perhaps they felt they needed something juicy.
Of course, writer’s success cannot be condensed to a three-part formula. I’ll admit that Moffat’s design and even structure are evident in much of his writing. His success doesn’t wholly depend on those two.
by E. Stephen Burnett
“Story-suspecting Christians often ask, “Of what use is story?” without defining that elusive term “use.” Without knowing it, what they’re really asking is: What is the chief end of Story?”