Script Reader? Story Analyst?

The two most common titles for the position I fill are Script Reader and Story Analyst. If you ask most any executive who deals with the likes of me, they'll typically refer to "the Reader." It's a quick, familiar term that everyone understands.

But don't say that to some Readers. The argument being that "Script Reader" doesn't quite cover the true nature of the job. After all, we do more than just read scripts. We read books, manuscripts, comic books, magazine articles...pretty much anything that might have a story of interest. I know of one Reader who read a series of dinosaur trading cards to see what type of story could be culled from them. In addition, we don't just "read." We write a form known as "coverage," which is a synopsis of the material, along with a comment on the general strengths and weakness of the material. While the comment will typically refer to the plot, characters, dialogue, structure and basic idea, companies will at times specify items. Some companies want an idea of the expected budget mentioned, as the company won't want to spend time considering a potentially expensive picture that doesn't fit with their company's resources. Others won't want any consideration of the budget in the coverage, figuring a budgetary issue is for the next step of the development process. I've worked at a company that asked for mention of any "inspirational" angle to the material. So the job is more than just "reading a script."

However, "Story Analyst" is also a bit limiting. This is usually the title that experienced Readers want, as it conveys that a company is getting analysis of the material, rather than just a read with an opinion. Of course, "Project Analyst" or "Material Analyst" would be more appropriate, but also have the vagueness that makes those titles fitting for a construction position, too. Maybe "Script Development Consultant" would be best.

The problem with creating a hierarchy with titles is that there has to be criteria. In the present world, anyone can label themselves "Story Analyst" whether they have any experience beyond doing coverage or not. I've seen two books on script reading and the author notes on one boasted that the writer had read "hundreds" of scripts. To me, that confirmed that the author was an inexperienced Reader and probably had nothing of worth for me. The other one was more insulting, with just the vague statement that the writer had (and this is a paraphrase, but is close to the spirit of the note) "read enough scripts to know what he is talking about." I imagine a guy who did an internship at a company, read a couple dozen scripts, decided the job was easy and knew someone in publishing who would publish a quickie book for him.

Or maybe the guy was a genius with tons of experience. I didn't read the book, his author's note put me off.

Then there is the Reader who was running a writer's club whose monthly meeting I attended once to see if I might want to join. I introduced myself at the end of the meeting, mentioning that she and I were in the same profession, that we were both "Readers." "No, I'm a Story Analyst," was her reply. In the brief conversation that ensued about what we do, it turned out that I had years more experience than her, so I told her I must be a "Senior Story Analyst."

She didn't speak to me after that.

My choice is always to take the simple road. In Hollywood, everyone knows what a "Reader" does and I can always expand on my abilities in conversation. To me, it's preferable to explaining what a "Story Analyst" is and getting the inevitable response, "Oh, you're a Reader" anyhow.