Features vs. Getting the Job Done?

The post "Is a featureless product in your future?" should be read by software-developers and writers alike. Yes, software-developers and writers alike! A software-developer will find an interesting insight in the "Features vs. a tool to get the job done"-area, a writer might think about Scrivener first, but this theory works for the writing itself, as well.

My gut-feeling is, that writers—not unlike software-engineers—are sometimes a victim of feature-creep. Means, adding story-lines or characters to please a certain demographic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is bad; the buyer of an application is a customer to the developer of said application, just as the reader is our customer. They expect certain things, and it's their right to do so. The similarities do not end here: Software-development and writing is an art-form and a craft, as well.

"So what has this to do with anything?", you might ask. Let's enter screen-writing (I might review this topic in regard to books at another time). There are two shows on TV which came to my mind while reading the above mentioned post: "Close to Home" and "The Closer." The latter is (IMHO, of course) a perfect example of how a show should be written; everything furthers the story, sometimes spread over a couple of shows, but that is something I don't mind, I'm all for it, actually. The former, well, this "She's also a mother, a working mother, that is!" does not seem to add to the story; granted, it allows to create obstacles along the way, but, based on what I've seen so far, it's just that, the women is a mother, as well. I might be wrong here, but it feels like this "mother-thing" was added to raise interest of a certain demographic for the show. I'm not saying this is wrong, but—for the moment—I don't see the point (yet?).

I'll keep watching, maybe there is something I missed. ;-)

Technorati Tags: Close to Home, The Closer, writing, script-writing