Obviously screenplays and novels have important differences. But I found another surprising difference.

First I tried writing a screenplay, then later I wrote a novel. As I sought editorial feedback on both, I noticed the novel editors gave much higher quality feedback than the screenplay analysts. I don’t mean they liked my novel more than my screenplay (it was actually the same story, suitably adapted for each medium). What I mean is, regardless of whether the feedback was positive or negative, the quality of the editorial analysis was very different.

First, let me cover the facts: For my screenplay, I paid for critical feedback (which they call “coverage” in the industry) from The Blacklist and another service, and I entered several screenplay contests in which I paid for summary feedback — a total of 16 analysts. For my novel, I paid for developmental editors and copy editors — a total of 5 editors (more than usual due to special circumstances).

For the novel, 4 of my 5 editors gave me very insightful analysis and actionable feedback. They were scholarly and very professional, and their feedback mostly aligned with each other. They all felt to me like allies on my side to help me improve my novel.

For the screenplay, however, only 2 of the 16 analysts demonstrated a scholarly analysis. I did get some actionable feedback from maybe 7 of them, but it was mixed with a lot of questionable feedback as well, and much of their feedback contradicted each other. (For example, one analyst said my script was just humor and lacked drama, while another said the exact opposite. And they both worked for the same service!) They mostly came across to me as gatekeepers to keep me out, rather than allies to help me in.

Of course, this is just my personal experience. Perhaps others have had different experiences.

Why is there so much difference? Here are some possible clues and hypotheses:

• The book editors all had college degrees in writing or literature. I don’t know the backgrounds of most of the screenplay analysts because they’re anonymous, but my two full-coverage analysts did not list any film studies degrees or related credentials in their bios (nor did anyone else at their company).
• For the novel, I could easily choose from hundreds of editors through the Reedsy marketplace, while there seem to be fewer screenplay analysts and/or they’re harder to find. And for summary reviews like The Black List and contests, I have no choice at all; they are randomly assigned and anonymous.
• Book editors spend at least a week on each novel. Screenplay analysts spend maybe two hours for a summary review, maybe a day for full coverage.
• Book editing is a full-time career for many (and they probably earn more than authors). As far as I can tell, most screenplay analysts work as screenwriters whenever they can, then fill in the unemployment gaps by doing script coverage as gig work.
• You get what you pay for. Screenplay reviews are very cheap, about $100 on average, even less for contests. I estimate analysts make $30-$40 per hour, assuming it takes two hours and the company takes a cut. But it’s hard to concentrate on that many scripts all day everyday, so I suspect this is just gig work for people still struggling in their careers, especially if they’re young and inexperienced. For script full coverage, I paid up to $550; for novel editing I paid $600-$1650 for a 30,000 word novel.
• Novel manuscripts are easier to judge because they are the finished product: written words on the page. Screenplays are harder because they’re just a rough blueprint, so analysts must imagine how it might be potentially implemented by directors, actors, cinematographers, etc.
• Every kid in school is taught how to write stories every year. They are rarely, if ever, taught to write a script. So academic analysis for books is universally taught, while screenwriting is not.
• I know way too many people aspire to be authors and screenwriters. But I suspect that more people dream of being screenwriters, while fewer tv shows and movies are produced than books published each year. If my guesses are correct, that would mean a worse ratio of supply and demand for screenwriters, which means it’s probably hard to find enough qualified staff to review the flood of screenplays, so employers have to settle for lower-quality workers.
• Some data shows how inconsistent screenplay analyst scores are. I saw one script on The Black List with 21 analyst reviews. The average score was 8 out of 10. But one analyst gave a score of 1! Others gave a 3 and 4. Of course judging is subjective, but you’d expect quality reviews to be clustered close together, not scattered like birdseed. (Book editors do not use scores, so there’s no objective data to compare.)

Sorry to be so harsh on screenwriting coverage, but this was my personal experience. And although erratic, it was overall still helpful and interesting. Have you had a similar or different experience? Or are you an industry insider who can share some insight?

FYI

There’s another important difference between these industries. Debut authors do actually get published sometimes, plus you can self-publish. But screenplays from new screenwriters almost never get produced (maybe a low-budget indie film if you’re very lucky). The screenwriting contests are merely to get discovered for your talent to get job offers to write other people’s stories, not your own. So perhaps it’s moot whether anyone likes your specific screenplay; that’s not what they’re really seeking.

Takeaway

While it’s very difficult to succeed as either, you have a relatively higher chance of publishing a book than getting a screenplay produced. But be prepared to invest more money.