From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #521 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, November 19 2001 Volume 01 : Number 521 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:47:34 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Tasteful Ellipses Okay, y'all. Last year, the Deseret News' columnist Ann Cannon (a former = president of AML, BTW), sponsored a Utah version of the Bulwer-Lytton = contest. Edward Bulwer-Lytton, as you may recall, was the Victorian = novelist who really did begin a novel with the line "it was a dark and = stormy night," and ever since, there's been a national contest in his = memory for particularly dreadful opening sentences. Anyway, Ann is a fan = of the contest, and she decided to start a Utah version, with the winners = printed in her column in the DN. And I won. A great thrill, to be = recognized as a particularly egregious example of a terrible writer. =20 So, this year, I was hot to defend my title. Here is the sentence with = which I chose to defend it: "Oops," she pouted prettily, holding three perfectly lacquered fingernails = up to the pink-lipsticked moue of her mouth, while her other hand daintily = dropped the still flaming match, and although Lance found himself = momentarily distracted by the cascading explosions from the burning = refinery, the agonized screams of the hundreds of flaming workers, and the = hideous reeking stench of charred flesh, seeing her face illuminated by = the fireball, he couldn't help but think how she had never seemed more = desirable than at that moment." Anyway, I got a call from Ann, saying that, for the second straight year, = I'd won. That sentence was regarded as the worst one in the contest. A = great honor indeed. Only, Ann went on to warn me, they couldn't print the entire thing. Here = is how it appeared in the Deseret News yesterday: "Oops," she pouted prettily, holding three perfectly lacquered fingernails = up to the pink-lipsticked moue of her mouth, while her other hand daintily = dropped the still flaming match, and although Lance found himself = momentarily distracted by the cascading explosions from the burning = refinery . . . seeing her face illuminated by the fireball, he couldn't = help but think how she had never seemed more desirable than at that = moment." Because of the sensibilities of the times, post 9-11, we couldn't have = references to charred flesh. And thus the 'tasteful' editiing. =20 But shorn of its tastelessness, it's crass inappropriateness, the sentence = is nowhere near as wretched. Nor, I think, as funny. After all, the = mandate was to write a terrible sentence. I think abandoning all = standards of taste and propriety is the very definition of a comically = dreadful bit of writing. That's what made the sentence bad, and therefore,= IMHO, funny. And so, my sentence, compared with the other awful = sentences with which it was competing, seemed tepid, tame, lame. And my = wife, reading the six finalists, said mine, as printed, just didn't = compare. And she was right. (Check out Ann's column in the DN; there are = some great bad sentences there.) Now, when Ann asked me if they could mutilate my sentence like this, I = said okay. It didn't seem like that big a deal at the time. But now, in = retrospect, I think that this silly example says something about issues of = correlation, of self-censorship, of the way Utah (which in this context = also implies Church) culture operates. =20 I think the underlying assumption here is that audiences can't be trusted = to be grown-ups. The thought process went like this, I suspect: 'reference= s to 'charred flesh' might be offensive to some people post-9-11. We = should bend over backwards to be sensitive. It's just a bad sentence = contest, for crying out loud. We need to be responsible about this. = Let's not risk offending our readership. Let's just put in some tasteful = ellipses.' Maybe they're right. I subscribe to the Deseret News, and I read the = letters to the editor page with great interest, and it's unbelievable, the = window it opens to our little mountain universe. Truly, you wonder just = how nuts Utahns are, and you end up concluding that we're plenty kooky. = Maybe most DN readers aren't grown-ups, can't read in context, can't make = fine distinctions between a bad sentence contest (where inappropriateness = and tastelessness are what you're aiming for), and a more serious piece of = writing, where tastelessness is, at least, an aesthetic mistake, and = possibly, arguably, a moral one. =20 But I don't think so. I think most people, even in Utah, are in fact = grown-ups, and that we let the preoccupations of the tiny minority who = aren't grown-ups dictate to the grown-ups in the crowd. And so we have a = literature, that, far too often, takes the darker parts of the human = experience, unpleasant realities, and replaces them with tasteful = ellipses. (Not literally, of course. Y'all know what I mean.) =20 Look, I find myself veering badly off course, like a bat with an ear = infection, heading right into the dreaded Fluff discussion again. I don't = mean to do anything of the kind. By all means, everyone on the list = should write what their muse whispers to them, and should respect and = honor the literary tastes of their brothers and sisters. But we should = also acknowledge that we live in a culture where those of us who do like = darker material, and who like tasteless humor in certain settings, and who = genuinely prefer certain ugly/raunchy/mean/crude/unpleasant/uncomfortable = themes in the literature we consume are driven to distraction by the continuing and ongoing = proliferation of tasteful ellipses. Maybe that's what the Fluff discussion= was really about. Some of us think those ellipses are hiding something = that needn't be hidden, or perhaps even that shouldn't be hidden. =20 Okay, deep breath, it was only a bad sentence contest. No big deal. But = I've been writing plays for twenty years, and I've got a discouraging = backlog of unproduced works, plays that are too Mormon for anyone outside = Mormon population centers and too dark for Mormon audiences (though I = should say that on those occasions when someone has taken a risk and = produced those dark plays of mine, they've always done extremely well in = the box office, as, bless her wonderful heart, Marilyn Brown could = attest). And I could produce more if I were more willing to add those = tasteful ellipses. In yesterday's DN is example A of why I'm not willing = to do so. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:04:01 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Clair POULSON, _I'll Find You_ (Review) On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:32:42AM -0700, Bob Brenton wrote: > All total, I counted 17 POV changes, between three different > characters (Warren Somebody managed to poke his head in for two whole > paragraphs), in seven short pages; occasionally switching every other > paragraph. > > It made my head swim. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. Certainly an omniscient narrator has the option to peek into the head of any character, major or minor. Writing with an omniscient narrator has gone out of fashion, but still gets used occasionally. Because of the recent custom of using tight-third person narration, the first time an omniscient narrator switches heads, it jars me, but then I adjusted to the idea that I will see into the heads of every character. (For example, Tolkien writes with an omniscient point-of-view, and he often tells to the feelings of various characters in the same paragraph.) Generally when an omniscient narrator switches perspective, the narrator provides some cue that the switch has occurred, usually by naming the character: "Romeo felt his heart surge as he saw Juliet's long locks through the balcony window. Juliet spied Romeo half-concealed behind her mother's favorite rose bush, and she tried to stem a wave of nausea." Although the omniscient point-of-view Clair Poulson used clearly didn't bother me as much as it bothered Brent, Poulson almost never telegraphed his switches in narrative perspective, but eventually you got used to the idea that Poulson considered any on-stage character's head fair game. Now, I have to come back to a point that I mentioned in my review. I read _I'll Find You_ in a critical state rather than a narrative state. John Gardner describes the effect of fiction as creating a narrative dream in which the reader takes part in narrative events. Usually the first time I read a book, I exist in that narrative dream. I just want to experience the story. Later, when I reread, I can read with from a critical perspective and analyze the author's style, etc. Poulson writes in a way that prevented me from ever experiencing his story as a narrative dream. I read the entire work from a critical perspective. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a quick boost to their writer ego. I think almost anyone reading Poulson could accurately say to themself, "I can do better than this. If this guy can get published, the certainly I can too." Oh, and you can still use it as a sleep aide -- unless bad writing makes you agitated. - -- Terry L. Jeffress | Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind. South Jordan, Utah | -- Wolcott Gibbs - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:26:11 -0800 From: "Richard Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Point of View (was: Clair POULSON, _I'll Find You_, Review)) BJ Rowley wrote: > [T]he one thing that REALLY turned me off was the > constant, unexpected changes in Point of View. It was extremely > annoying--BEYOND annoying. At the end of the first chapter, I went back > with a pencil, reread the whole thing again very carefully, and wrote in > the margin whose POV applied -- just to be sure I hadn't missed > something. There were a few times when I really didn't know. Some of the > changes went from "obviously Jeri" to "who knows?" to "obviously Kate" > and back again. And there's never any advance notice. It's usually not > until halfway through any given paragraph that you realize whose head > you're in -- which most likely was not the one you thought you were in. > Like I said -- VERY annoying. > All total, I counted 17 POV changes, between three different > characters (Warren Somebody managed to poke his head in for two whole > paragraphs), in seven short pages; occasionally switching every other > paragraph. This is an extreme, but I have noticed in my reading that at least two extremely popular writers, John Grisham and Tom Clancy, pay little attention to the rules of POV that we seem to regard as sacrosanct. Yet their books sell better than ours and, frankly, what they do doesn't seem to hurt their stories. In fact, it often adds a useful dimension to the tale. Now I agree that they don't draw you into their world in as powerful a way as Orson Scott Card does, but they are pretty popular. Are we too hung up on the rules of POV? Anybody want to comment? Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:12:31 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Writers' Chat - --- Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I like the idea of a chat. I don't know how it would work on AOL > Instant > Messenger. Don't you have to join something to do that? > Just to clarify some of the technical aspects brought up by Tracie (and btw, thanks for the feedback and the description of how your childrens authors group does it): I think that it would work fine on AOL Instant Messenger because it now has a chat function that features a clean, easy interface and that is no different from any of the hosted chat rooms (like parachat, etc.) For AOL Instant Messenger you do have to sign up for an AIM account, but: 1. that doesn't mean you have to join AOL by any means. In fact all you need to give them is a valid e-mail address. Set one up with hotmail or yahoo if you don't want them to have your 'real' address. And I don't recall getting spam from AOL either even though they have my e-mail address. 2. You don't even necessarily have to download their Instant Messaging/Chat program because they have a Web based version that you can access through a web browser (Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator) i.e. that means that you don't have to clutter your hard drive with their AIM program although you do have to have a browser that can handle java scripts (and most of you probably have such a browser whether you are aware of it or not). 3. This way the AML doesn't have to sponsor or manage a chat room. [MOD: I think this may be an important consideration. I doubt AML would be willing to take the responsibility for a chat room on their site.] 4. My hope is that by having a set time, we can actually make it like a cocktail party (sorry, I can't think of a better term). In other words, this is an invitation 'make plans for it if you can' event. I just don't see an all-the-time chat room being used much by this crowd. I can post instructions on how to obtain an AIM screen name without downloading the Instant Messenger program and how to use the browser-based program, if there is interest. I'm also open to other ideas about chat programs, but from my research, this is the easiest, fastest, lowest maintainence way to do it. I'm no AOL fan, but their instant messaging service is widely-used and, imo, relatively easy to use (with apologies to any ICQ die-hards out there). So if any of you are at all interested in this idea, e-mail me privately. Simply give me a yes or maybe and any other feedback you have about the idea. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:47:53 -0600 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Point of View I want to comment. On another writing list I submitted a story that was criticized by other members of the group for it's POV switching. (You know who you are.) The result is that my rewrite is at a standstill. I'm petrified to put anything down. "Is this a POV violation? or isn't it. How do I let the reader know what's going on from different characters perspectives without putting in scene breaks every couple of paragraphs? Why can't I switch from what's going on in the scene to what's going on in my protagonists head? This whole thing has paralyzed me. Yet many times, I've read books where this was done. In the same paragraph even. Ron Carters Prelude To Glory comes to mind. I just finished reading it and that author jumps around all over the place. Far more than I did in my submission. So this has left me confused too. Am I interested in becoming a better writer? Of course. But I'm more interested in telling a good story and selling it. Frankly for me, the bottom line is the almighty dollar, as long as I don't have to sacrifice my beliefs or values. I'm sure I'll be criticized for that attitude. But with the size of my family and an ill husband, it's reality. I think what the average reader really wants (and that's who I am interested in), is a good story. Most readers don't sit down to a book and analyze POV. Most just want to be taken on a journey. Anna Wight - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #521 ******************************