You Can't Force This Stuff

ESPN debuts a new documentary series tonight. 30 for 30 is thirty filmmakers making thirty films about sports stories that happened in the thirty years since ESPN started broadcasting--not figures, not people, not big names, but stories that are great stories.

I read an introduction to the series by Bill Simmons today and found it relevant to the way I teach writing. I guess that means this is sort of a dispatch from the Writing Center, but more a dispatch more me as a Writing teacher.

Simmons was the one who came up with the 30 for 30 concept. After the suits at ESPN gave his idea the go-ahead, he and Connor Schnell (who was involved in producing content for ESPN in some way or another) started brainstorming ideas for stories. Then they created a list of filmmakers to tackle those stories. The idea was to play matchmaker, hooking up a filmmaker with the story, finding "the 30 best matches. Period."

That was the plan. What happened* was a little different. The filmmakers already had the stories. They already loved sports in the way that people who tell stories love sports. They weren't so interested in the overwhelming sports obsession with predicting the future. Instead, they recognized what was worth looking back on with a keen eye. The filmmakers already had their matches. They made them themselves.

They just needed the forum, and Simmons and ESPN provided that. Now the stories will be told on Tuesday nights and I could not be more excited.

Here are the parallels between 30 for 30 and Writing instruction:

1. Bill Simmons and Connor Schell = Writing Teachers
They love their subject. They spend time thinking about their subject. They plan things out. They discuss what would be worthwhile for the time they are allotted. The 30 for 30 series is their class time and they want to fill it with the best possible subject matter, so they dive in and try to do the best to fill it well.

But they are not the ones doing the work.

2. The Filmmakers = Writing Students
They are the ones doing the work.

Simmons and Schell couldn't get too attached to their list of desired stories because they couldn't force professional filmmakers to do work they didn't want to do. All they could do was present the framework and let the filmmakers run where they would.

In the case of 30 for 30, the power resides in the filmmakers. This project doesn't gain steam without them. Instead, it's just a couple of guys who love sports dreaming up a show that focuses on stories. They need storytellers to make it happen, so when those storytellers change the plans, the masterminds have to go along.

In the classes, the power resides with the teachers. They give the grades, so the students have to do what the teachers want.

Despite the different loci of power, the two cases are similar in that nothing will get made without those doing the work.

Simmons and Schell loved their idea, but they held it loosely. They developed more than they needed, going so far as to choose stories that they anticipated the filmmakers would tackle. What they really needed was just the framework: the thirty years of ESPN's existence, sports, and stories that "resonated at the time but were eventually forgotten for whatever reason." That is specific enough to provide the necessary boundaries to allow those doing the work to flourish within their limits.

The big difference between the series and the classes is the experience of those doing the work. The filmmakers are professionals who were sought after because of their work. The students and their abilities are unknown.

Sort of. They are able to learn. They are able to think. They have stories buried in their heads.

Students are perfectly capable of taking a loose framework and running with it. They need the forum to tell their story and some direction to learn how that storytelling can be done. They can be guided in the work, but they can most certainly do most of the work.

*As is usually the case with Plans and What Happeneds, they were not the same.