Mansplaining goes on in spec scripts. A lot. So as not to offend, I will call it the gender-neutral “screenplaining” instead. It is a structural problem that happens when the writer believes that readers need certain information up front to be able to properly interpret the story.
However unintentionally, screenplaining condescends by assuming that the reader will be confused if the writer doesn’t pre-answer their questions. Don’t underestimate the value of letting readers put two and two together. It’s what makes reading fun. Spelling everything out is screenplaining.
Screenplaining is not setup, which reveals characters and their unresolved conflicts with subtext and action. It reads like exposition, with the difference that sometimes exposition is a necessary evil. Screenplaining’s only function is to weaken the script.
Like an addict’s codependent SO, it sincerely wants to help, but it only perpetuates the problem. It reassures readers that the protagonist has good reasons for bad behavior, it uses dialogue to draw a map of all the conflicts in the next scene, it soothes away tension too soon by volunteering answers to important questions.
Which is bad, because…
Readers crave questions. Questions create curiosity, which creates the burning desire to turn the page. The number one curiosity killer is screenplaining. It’s a changeling, but you can find it in early flashbacks that reveal what should be central mysteries, VO narration that summarizes the plot and its themes right after FADE IN, dialogue that reveals backstory prematurely. That all exists in polar opposition to creating curiosity.
When the most compelling question is, “Why would he DO that?” the worst possible thing to do is screenplain the answer in advance.
Look twice at everything you reveal to clarify things for the reader. There is a very good chance that it is screenplaining your story away.
-ANNIE LABARBA @annelabarba