Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68189/

Do you agree with Azriel that the ethics of the situation are obvious?

I don't agree that Azriel was saying the situation was obvious, only that the person asking the questions knows more about the situation and more about whether or not it is "okay." Either way, I don't think the ethics of the situation are obvious.

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68189/

Do you agree with Azriel that the ethics of this situation are obvious?

Is that what Azriel is saying, or is she just saying, "You have a conscience—follow it."

For the asker of the question, should you ever come to this forum: The question of appropriate art (in this case, literature and film) has been hashed over so many times on the Board, on this forum, and all over the world since history began, so I'm not going to try to sum it up for you here, but here's my two cents—be true to your artistic intuition, and write what you love. If you don't, it's going to be garbage. It might be garbage anyway, but you have a better chance if it resonates with you. My very favorite movies and my very favorite books are all r-rated, and it's because they're challenging and they're genuine. And lots and lots of good Mormons watch R-rated movies. Heck, have you ever read an Orson Scott Card book? His short stories? Pick up a copy of Maps in the Mirror if you want to see something really dark and gritty and disturbing...from a good Mormon. As you learn in Intro to Film...at BYU..."Something portrayed does not mean something advocated." Really good, honest art can be really hard to swallow sometimes, and I think that good Mormons should be producing really good art.

"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and wrong."--H. L. Mencken
Edit: And a day later, the quote, with different wording, is the Board's banner quote. Awesome! Even though I'm quite sure I had nothing to do with it.

That is why I'm generally not a fan of a blanket ban on R-rated movies. Do I think most R-rated movies are worth watching? No. I've only seen one, and I wouldn't watch it again. It really depends on the purpose. Is the violence meant to be thought-provoking or just entertaining? Is the swearing included as a necessary element of realism or for the shock value? Speaking personally, if a book or movie contains a lot of violations of commandments and serves no purpose beyond pure entertainment, I'm not going to read/watch it because I can get perfectly good entertainment elsewhere. But two of my favorite movies of all time definitely violate a lot of commandments--Persepolis includes several Law of Chastity violations, and Machuca has some of the most foul-mouthed kids I have ever been exposed to in media (especially since I know Chilean Spanish and all the local profanities they use), but both are outstanding movies that I'd absolutely recommend to mature audiences, because they deal with real issues and helped me understand real people. Honestly, International Cinema (which I can thank for both of those movies) contains a lot of stuff that wouldn't be appropriate for pure entertainment, but because it serves a higher purpose, it's absolutely worth watching.

And now I'm starting to just ramble. So really, the answer to the question is another question that only the author can answer: "does the content serve a purpose?" If he/she honestly thinks it does, and can feel good about writing it, then I'd say go for it.

Also, books can definitely get away with a lot more than movies. They give the reader a lot more leeway in visualizing what's written.

I have also wondered if I am a bad Mormon for the things I write. Eventually I decided that if that's the way the story is supposed to go, then that's what I'm going to write. And since I write about adults and do not at this point include religion in my stories at all, relationships naturally develop to a point where sex is at least an option. I feel fine about this. I also feel fine about the occasional violence, swearing, and dark themes.

I have to admit that I avoid basically all Deseret Book-type literature. Too syrupy/distanced from reality. I would rather write (or support with my monies) something that is real and honest and might offend people than something even the most conservative and orthodox Mormon can completely enjoy. And the same goes for movies. I've seen a lot more R-rated movies lately than I ever thought possible, and I have enjoyed almost all of them.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:I have to admit that I avoid basically all Deseret Book-type literature.

How would you define "Deseret Book-type literature"? (I know what you're getting at, but I'm curious to hear your specific definition, because this is a topic that interests me.)

I don't think Azriel was saying there was an obvious moral answer.

But I also think the board has delved into many, many "controversial" subjects with a lot of moral questions, and so Azriel's response comes off as sanctimoniously disingenuous.

I'll have more to say about the actual subject at hand shortly.

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:I have to admit that I avoid basically all Deseret Book-type literature.

How would you define "Deseret Book-type literature"? (I know what you're getting at, but I'm curious to hear your specific definition, because this is a topic that interests me.)

Syrupy, cheesy, lacking in substance, only has a market because some people will buy anything that's "Mormon," occasionally okay but not ever really interesting. Also, any fiction in which a huge part of the story is that everyone is Mormon (except for possibly one guy/girl who isn't and he/she is slowly converted through love or something) and nothing interesting ever happens because people are too busy being Mormon and praying and going to church. This might just be a block on my part, I do not find fiction written by Mormons for Mormons to be at all enlightening or entertaining.

This coming from a girl who loves Disney.

I choose to take that as a remark on how truly lifeless and insipid the majority of Mormon fiction is. (Also, I don't love all Disney. Gosh.)

Marduk wrote:I don't think Azriel was saying there was an obvious moral answer.

Yeah, it sounds like most people read her statement differently (and more generously) than I did.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:I have to admit that I avoid basically all Deseret Book-type literature.

How would you define "Deseret Book-type literature"? (I know what you're getting at, but I'm curious to hear your specific definition, because this is a topic that interests me.)

Syrupy, cheesy, lacking in substance, only has a market because some people will buy anything that's "Mormon," occasionally okay but not ever really interesting. Also, any fiction in which a huge part of the story is that everyone is Mormon (except for possibly one guy/girl who isn't and he/she is slowly converted through love or something) and nothing interesting ever happens because people are too busy being Mormon and praying and going to church. This might just be a block on my part, I do not find fiction written by Mormons for Mormons to be at all enlightening or entertaining.

I would love it if you would read Bound on Earth by Angela Hallstrom and tell me if you like it. For my money, it's one of the best "by Mormons for Mormons" books I've ever read.

I'll have to see if I can get a hold of a copy. I wonder if I still have a fine on my library card...

Has anyone read A Short Stay in Hell?

Portia wrote:Has anyone read A Short Stay in Hell?

I did. That was a really interesting read. Rather disturbing, to be honest. Just the idea of spending that much time flipping through books and finding meaningless gibberish, with no hope of a systematic search that would have results, just creeped me out somehow.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:

Portia wrote:Has anyone read A Short Stay in Hell?

I did. That was a really interesting read. Rather disturbing, to be honest. Just the idea of spending that much time flipping through books and finding meaningless gibberish, with no hope of a systematic search that would have results, just creeped me out somehow.

Every review I've read has said that he is far from saccharine or one-dimensional. Would you say he's a Mormon writing for a general audience?

Portia wrote:Every review I've read has said that he is far from saccharine or one-dimensional. Would you say he's a Mormon writing for a general audience?

I definitely wouldn't say Peck is a Mormon writing for Mormons (with the caveat that I'm basing that on reviews, since I haven't read the book).

haven't read a Short Stay in Hell yet but I loved his Moab book. I'm a fan, but a lazy one.