Bookers vs. Writers

By Scott Keith on 4 October 2015

Hi Scott,

One of the running themes of many "old-school" podcasts (Cornette, Sulivan, JR) is decrying how there aren’t bookers anymore; just writers.

I’ve always had an issue with these terms as they seem like different ways of saying tomato. Both decide what’s going to happen on the show; both decide who wins and loses, both decide who’s getting pushed.

Is there really a heavy difference between the 2 groups or is this just another way to gripe about how awful wrestling is today?

Thanks.

There’s definitely a difference. A booker lays out matches and decides who wins and loses, plus gives guys bullet points to get themselves over. Writers, like today, are there to script segments word-for-word based on what Vince/HHH decide they want to see. There’s no autonomy for anyone in "charge" any longer and no one has their own voice to get over with. If Vince has a vision that matches the person, like with John Cena, it can work, but otherwise you get a lot of Zigglers and Cesaros.