posted
Never having read anything by OSC I decided to take a look at Magic Street and read the first 5 chapters.
I have a question and mean no disrespect in the asking but...
I gather from his postings that he is a Latter Day Saint. If that's true then how can an LDS author justify the use of profanity and sexual innuendos?
That would seem contrary to the prinicples of the religion.
It's a good plot, I'd like to read the rest but I really don't need those verbal accentuators in it to establish a culture or location or story line. It's like adding a certain word to a movie in order to make it R rated so you can target a larger audience.
Any thoughts? Posts: 65 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean no disrespect in the asking but... Why are you posting to OSC's website if you have never read anything by him?
And... even his stuff set in the 11th and 19th, and 53rd centuries have "R rated" content. I don't know if you could really call most of it R rated, but even if you could, if you eye offends you pluck it out.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In his books, Card brings up some of the most exhaustingly painful moral dilemmas I've ever read anywhere. Some spots are so honest and close to the surface that they're hard to get through. But I've never thought of his books as R-rated.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had plenty of Mormon friends who refused to read OSC because of the "smut" in some of his novels. But then again, I've had plenty of Mormon friends who thought that Friends was perfectly innocent entertainment.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even as the old obscenities dealing with sex and excrement were unleashed upon the public, new obscenities moved from the realm of the merely indecorous to the sinful. What f* and s* (and worse words) had once been, now n* has become. And, just as there were prudes who screamed in outrage and demanded that any work containing those old bad words must be banned, so we have a new group of prudes making identical demands about works containing the new bad word.
The prudes are always with us. They are wrong to impart deep moral meanings to words themselves, regardless of context: there is no word which does not have a context in which it is not only the best word, but the only word that is right and good. But they are right to this extent: that there are words which become charged with meaning that sparks and shocks the reader no matter what the context.
posted
What really makes a person prude, though? If it is just because of some weird list of red lettered words that make you feel dirty inside, then that could be wrong. But maybe we have a well thought out rationale for feeling as we do. Is it always possible to know someone's intents from their choices?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I always take away from Card's writing is that a person's intent is rarely a bad thing. We almost always think what we are doing is correct, even if it isn't. You could take this either way, that intent is all that matters, or that intent is so arbitrary it is only outcomes that matter.
Depends on your outlook I suppose? But that is just as arbitrary....
quote:how can an LDS author justify the use of profanity and sexual innuendos?
Justification for swearing and sexual innuendo isn't hard for an author, ANY author to pull off.
The justification is, 'Would this character say 'fetch' or that other word?'
What's difficult to determine is whether or not the Lord accepts the justification. And whether or not you, as a reader, will accept the burden that his choice of characterization lays on you.
Now, OSC has never used the f-word in any of the fiction I've read of his. And he has never profaned, in the religious sense. Comparatively, then, he's got a pretty clean literary mouth. I accept the swearing in his books as justifiable, even though I rarely use it in my own writing.
What is important to me is that the books I read, and the fiction I write, portray evil as evil, and good as good. I don't see OSC out there, clamoring for the the loosening of the rigors of polite speech-- and as a fiction writer, I'm not sure that's his task. He needs to be faithful to his characters in order to tell a true tale. If the swearing works to heighten the truth of the tale, I think its permissible.
Much like the violence in the Book of Mormon, I might add. Or did you lose the bloodiness and terrible savagery of the end of Ether and Mormon amidst the high language?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you think that an R rating makes for a bigger audience, guess again. It limits the audience, which is why most (although not all) companies avoid the R rating if possible.
posted
I was just going to point out there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that would render it "R" content as well.
Why is it assumed that a religious person must write squeaky clean or religious-oriented fiction? I see so many attacks against people of faith who write "secular" stuff, as if they should only be writing religious content.
Warning - tangent ahead
This reminds me of the push for people who believe to write "religious fiction." I've felt the pressure, when people at church ask me what I'm doing I'll say I'm going to school, and doing some writing. "Writing what?" "Fiction." "Oh, Christian fiction like Author XXY?" "Ummmm...no. Not Christian fiction."
Michael Horton in his book on the Reformed faith "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace" really summed it up:
quote:Where are today's Bachs, Handels, Miltons, Rembrandts, Durers, Cranachs, Herberts, and Donnes? Some of them might be found working two or three jobs to put food on the table. Others have been intimidated by well-meaning but ill-informed brothers and sisters who are convinced that unless artists are producing something useful for the church (i.e., an evangelistic tract, shirt, or bumper sticker or a church bulletin), art is a waste of God's time.
<later in the same chapter>
When Christians begin to see that it is as godly to be a businessperson, lawyer, homemaker, artist, garbage collector, doctor, or construction worker as it is to be a missionary, evangelist, pastor, youth leader, or employee of a Christian organization, they will once again become salt and light. Once a young Christian woman realizes it is just as spiritual to sing for the Metropolitan Opera as it is to sing in the church choir, we will begin to see a new generation of liberated Christians calling attention to their Maker and Redeemer.
posted
The most irritating thing about this question is that I DON'T write dirty books. I know how, and I choose not to. Nor do I use language that I think of as bad. As far as I can remember, there's not a single "bad" word in Magic Street that I can't show you a Mormon apostle using at some time in the past 175 years.
I'm delighted if you have chosen for yourself a standard of language far "higher" than mine. I suggest that you should not read anything of mine, for I am bound to offend you. However, I also am puzzled how you are able to take part in American society at all, without being offended.
Or is it just that a MORMON wrote these words that causes you offense? Is that why you think you're entitled to judge me?
I don't write graphic sex in my books; I don't put really "bad" language in, because I have no intention of driving away readers needlessly. But I also present my characters with all appropriate candor.
Magic Street, if faithfully filmed exactly as written, would not be rated R, as long as the camera was as discreet about what it shows as I am about what I describe. If you imagine more detail than I provide, it's your mind, not my writing, that provide it.
And as for language ... well, I've already been quoted above. There are no bad words, only bad uses for words. I didn't think I was using any of them improperly; if I did, then they wouldn't be there.
So what it comes down to is this: Are you actually suggesting that I'm not a good Mormon because I have made a different choice than you would have made about what my characters will say and do in my fiction?
And if that is what you are saying, then may I suggest you remind yourself of what Apostle Reed Smoot said in the October General Conference of 1920: "The growth of the Church has not been accomplished by the idler, the fault-finder, the whiner, the mentally or physically unclean, but by the industrious, the faithful, the unselfish, the defenders of its principles ..."
You think I'm mentally unclean, but I think you're a fault-finder. <grin>
D&C 64:9: Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
Look, when I'm writing my books, I make my decisions based on my conscience. And my conscience is that of a Latter-day Saint in good standing. I take a lot of crap for my public stands on moral issues, defending the Church's position at some cost to my own reputation; do I really have to put up with this from INSIDE the church that I have so often publicly defended? Give me a break, Brother; don't make me get my butt chewed on both cheeks.
posted
"Why are you posting to OSC's website if you have never read anything by him?"
About a dozen of our more well-known posters also had never read OSC before coming onto this forum. And those are only the ones who admitted it in writing. If I were an internationally reknowned author... ...I would host a website with the intent of luring in readers unfamiliar with my work, as well as inform new fans of my other writings and old fans of new works. With the forum being a loss leader which makes the non-fan wonder why such an interestingly diverse group has a commonality in choosing to read my books. Old fans are already hooked: unless I write a series of stinkeroos, they're already gonna buy my books. And due to the "isolated pockets" nature of the science fiction community, word-of-mouth recommendations go only so far. There isn't even much of an overlap between those who read scifi and those who watch scifi; nor even between those who read read mainline scifi and those who read tv series or movie tie-in novels. Thus a forum for fans and nonfans. From curiosity arises exploration, and book sales.
In other words if I were an author with a website, Hammer would be the type of person that I would hope that (the fans on) my forum would attract.
posted
There is a yes and no to that. If the "judging" is meant to troll -- ie merely to disrupt the conversation to "prove" "top dog"hood -- then obviously it is unwelcome.
However, any opinion is a "judging". If the opinion is meant to stimulate conversation and/or thinking/rethinking, or as prelude to asking an (even unstated) honest question, then the "judging" is welcome.
In this case, Hammer gave an opinion, asked a question, and received a variety of different takes on the matter: about whether the material is R-rated, about the popularity of R-rated material, about presenting characters' moral/immoral/amoral choices as the core in writing about morality, etc. Including an answer from OSC himself: one which OSC seems to have already been thinking about in response to similar opinions previously heard from others.
All in all, Hammer presented an interesting opinion/question leading to a good thread. Whether he chooses to give deeper thought about the answers given is his choice; as it is his choice on whether to modify his opinions. As it is for all of us who read this thread, who read this forum.
quote:D&C 64:9: Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
:mutters: Came all the way to Fredericksburg and didn't even get any Carl's frozen custard. . .
BUT I'M OVER THAT! I REALLY, REALLY, AM!!!
Really.
In any case, this topic comes at a fortunate time for me, as I explore the route that I want my writing career to take. And what that means to my integrity as a Mormon, and what my Mormon-ness will mean to my writing capability.
And my answer, to myself, is suprising. The story that has been most successful, both financially and spiritually (to me), has a main character who I find to be utterly repugnant. She lures a child into a trap, enslaves him, betrays her best friend, removes agency and will from the man she loves. . . and in the end murders the child.
The saving grace for both my story (Blackberry Witch) and OSC's fiction is that the stories don't pretend that the wickedness going on is permissable. No one, for example, is going to look at Raymo in Magic Street, and think, 'Hey, man, that guy is good. Wannabe just like him. . .' We know Raymo is a chump. We know Ceese is good. And we find satisfaction that Ceese chooses to remain good, at least for the snippets that we've read.
quote:Look, when I'm writing my books, I make my decisions based on my conscience. And my conscience is that of a Latter-day Saint in good standing.
By 'good standing,' I'm taking that to mean that OSC hasn't been disfellowshipped for anything he's written-- in other words, he's not bragging about his personal righteousness, but merely stating that he is under no official church discipline.
quote:I take a lot of crap for my public stands on moral issues, defending the Church's position at some cost to my own reputation; do I really have to put up with this from INSIDE the church that I have so often publicly defended? Give me a break, Brother; don't make me get my butt chewed on both cheeks.
Realistically, you should expect it, Scott. I mean, really: church members have conniptions when primary classrooms are changed around, you think you can let a word like 'copracephalic' go by without a sqeak?
Everyone's a critic. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't read anything by OSC either, when I came. But I didn't feel like I fit in here any less! Now I have, but that's not the point.
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm almost sorry I asked. It was intended as an honest question to what appeared to me to be a moral delimma. One that I was sure OSC had dealt with at one point or another so I asked.
I did not see my question as a double butt chewing or an attack on one's integrity, standing in the church or personal morality. Nor did it appear to me that I was rating OSCs book as R. I'm not quite that dumb. Maybe PG 13??
The point of Hollywood adding certain words, scenes etc to make it R rating is a justification to hit a larger target audience which equals more money. That's all, nothing more. It was an analogy.
I simply found OSC'c writing style "different". For example, other LDS authors have produced such works as Charly, The Work and the Glory, and The Other Side of Heaven. Therefore, I wondered how OSC approached this "dilemma" in terms of his religion.
For example, if I were teaching young men and women from the pamphlet For the Strength of Youth about language on Sunday and then on Monday write a novel with cuss words--is it justifiable?? Is it a double standard? I don't know but I sure would like to discuss it.
OSC--I don't see how you assume I am judging you for I am not. I cannot. It is not my place to do so. Nor do I consider that in my asking these questions that I am better than anyone. To me it seemed a dilemma that I wanted to ask about. I also do not see how you can assume that my language standard is higher than yours because I asked a question. That's quite an assumption and no I am not "better that thou". I've been known to speak several "foreign" languages from time to time but I'm not proud of it.
I take part in American society by trying to take the high road in what I do. There are many offensive places and things occuring in our society. I would not for example, attend an Adult Arcade or a strip bar becasue yes, I find that offensive.
Conversely I would attend a symphony orchestra concert since I find that to be uplifting (unless it's Wagner and that's heavy stuff!).
If I can say this as a chuckle without getting anyone's blood pressure up, the comment
"I don't put really "bad" language in... "
reminds me of a story of a man whose kids wanted to be able to see R rated movies. They justified it by saying that there's just a little bad stuff in it but it doesn't affect them.
The father made a batch of brownies and called in his children.
"I thought you might like some fresh brownies. They're R rated. The ingredients are all wonderful except I put just a little manure in them. It doesn't really affect the outcome of the brownie, it probably won't affecy you after all, it's only a little bad ingredients. Want some?"
Of course they did not thus the lesson was taught.
OK, that was a story to use as an example. It was not a judgment, it was not an offesne, it was not a holier than thou. I thought it was a cute story and OSC's line reminded me of it.
OSC stated:
"So what it comes down to is this: Are you actually suggesting that I'm not a good Mormon because I have made a different choice than you would have made about what my characters will say and do in my fiction?"
No. If anyone questions why you used any literary tool are they attacking your religion? In this case, you choose to let the world know through this site that you are a Mormon. That in and of itself will generate questions, we both know that. Additionaly it implies a certain set of standards that will definitly generate discussions!
OSC quoted Reed Smoot: "The growth of the Church has not been accomplished by the idler, the fault-finder, the whiner, the mentally or physically unclean, but by the industrious, the faithful, the unselfish, the defenders of its principles ..."
You think I'm mentally unclean, but I think you're a fault-finder. <grin>"
OK, I can search too. Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “What I fear from these reports is that the prevalent use of foul language has become an acceptable pattern in the schools, probably due in large part to the influence of TV and the general permissiveness in our society. Whatever the cause, I hope that some additional emphasis might be made to curb it, to help our youth appreciate the importance of proper language.”
OSC asked: "do I really have to put up with this from INSIDE the church that I have so often publicly defended?"
My hat is off to you for defending what you believe in. That alone speaks volumes of your integrity. However, you wrote the book and in so doing you place yourself in a position of answering questions people may have both in and out of the Church.
I hope someday to meet you personally and shake your hand in friendship knowing that we can have meaningful discussions , exchanges of ideas, intelligent conversations, thoughts etc. If we can't ask and deal with difficult questions then what are these forums and chat sessions for?
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond openly.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point of Hollywood adding certain words, scenes etc to make it R rating is a justification to hit a larger target audience which equals more money. That's all, nothing more. It was an analogy.
It was a poor one, because in fact the opposite happens....they have a restricted audience, resulting in a lower profit. If you want to use an analogy, make sure it is backed up by reality, not by your assumptions alone.
quote:I gather from his postings that he is a Latter Day Saint. If that's true then how can an LDS author justify the use of profanity and sexual innuendos?
That would seem contrary to the principles of the religion.
How is that NOT attacking either his faith or his intelligence again? Nice try, but it was fairly obvious what you meant form the beginning.
quote:I take part in American society by trying to take the high road in what I do.
You, of course, have the right to do as you wish. However, that sentence is a prime example of what was wrong with your entire attitude...not with the questions you asked, but the manner in which you did so. Not to mention the assumptions you brought into the conversation, which BTW were most definitely showing.....
I see your points, no matter how condescendingly phrased, but it was condescending, even if that isn't what you intended. You implied that he either didn't realize his works could be considered profane, which slighted his intelligence, or that you had a better (higher) standard of behavior that he should care about, that he somehow wasn't living up to.
BTW, I go to classical concerts, and play more than a few instruments .... and play video games, and so far the hellfire hasn't smitten me. You are free to hold yourself to what ever standard you want, and even call it a higher one, but that doesn't mean you have a lock on what is appropriate for me or mine.
If you think you do, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.
quote: If anyone questions why you used any literary tool are they attacking your religion?
But you didn't question a literary tool-- you questioned whether or not OSC was being a good Mormon.
And quite simply, that's not your place.
quote:“What I fear from these reports is that the prevalent use of foul language has become an acceptable pattern in the schools, probably due in large part to the influence of TV and the general permissiveness in our society. Whatever the cause, I hope that some additional emphasis might be made to curb it, to help our youth appreciate the importance of proper language.”
Please point out how OSC is encouraging young people to use obscenities. The very fact that he used the word 'copracephalic' in the first place shows that at least one character knows what it means to guard children against curse words. And its one of the characters we're meant to sympathise with and support, and love.
The prophets have encouraged us to read good books, to support good art, to partake in things that uplift and raise our minds.
OSC's works qualify, even with their rough edges.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't agree with that, that is fine....you have every right to not read it.
You don't have to be a fan of his works to post here, but if you plan on sticking around just to criticize those works, well, that means you are in for a rough stay.
If you really wanted to ask that question to get an answer (BTW< you did get one here, and a better answer than you would have gotten at most authors web sites....keep that in mind please... ) you might have worded it better, perhaps less accusingly.
It IS a good question, really....and it is one that he has had to face before, as any good web search could have found out.
If you really cared to know.
I know just from my own reading, not even trying to Google it, that he has been asked that very question many, many times.....and usually there is a lot of the accusing tone I noticed in your post.
Perhaps THAT is why we came down so hard on you here, fair or not.
Also, I noticed that you thanked OSC for allowing the discussion to continue, and allowing you to have this in an open discussion. As long as that is what it is, I would bet that he will continue to do so. I have seen people post a lot more derogatory comments than anything here, and the discussions were allowed and even encouraged at times.
If I misread your intent then I am sorry, but trust me on this....regardless of your intent, you did came across as having something of an agenda on this matter. I am not the only one to have seen it, or reacted to it, so it can't have been all me, or just my mistake. When dealing with very personal issues like this, it is usually better to error on the side of caution when discussing them.
quote: It's a good plot, I'd like to read the rest but I really don't need those verbal accentuators in it to establish a culture or location or story line. It's like adding a certain word to a movie in order to make it R rated so you can target a larger audience.
Any thoughts?
Yes, I have a thought. Thicken up the skin.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To some friends, I'm almost hopelessly prudish. To my grandmother, I'm one step from apostasy. I think getting it from both sides is always going to happen as soon as you open your mouth.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To some friends, I'm almost hopelessly prudish. To my grandmother, I'm one step from apostasy. I think getting it from both sides is always going to happen as soon as you open your mouth
OSC has written elsewhere that he gets it from both sides of churchgoers, half of them saying that he's way too conservative and uptight, the other half saying that his writing is "so obviously heretical". He wrote that as long as he keeps the balance fairly even on both sides, he's doing ok. I tend to agree.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Welcome to the `Rack:) Yours is a question I've thought, too-I've never read anything of Card's . That I viewed as being heretical or anti-Mormon, nothing that contradicts what I now know to be his religion (by that I mean that when I started reading him, I did not know he was a Mormon). But when I did realize he was a Mormon man, I recognized many opinions his characters took and words they used that contradicted the Mormon 'stereotype' I had, that of a church whose members were quite strict on profanity and sexuality.
Actually, every church and society is quite strict on profanity and sexuality, once you get past their respective borders for that culture. But once I learned he was Mormon, and especially after I joined the LDS church, many times I could not imagine the people in it speaking or acting the way he wrote, and often I could imagine them being offended by something in his stories. But then again, that isn't surprising. Read Lost Boys if you're game for lots of heartache and Card's telling of how Mormons act amongst themselves and towards others, I say.
But I recognized that as something more telling about me than him-his writing did not fit what I thought of as 'Mormon'. In my defense, though, I recognized at the time that I had only a stereotype, and very, very uninformed and vague one at that of what Mormon culture is like. And I have to say, you appear to be saying two things here in this thread.
quote:It's a good plot, I'd like to read the rest but I really don't need those verbal accentuators in it to establish a culture or location or story line. It's like adding a certain word to a movie in order to make it R rated so you can target a larger audience.
Obviously you do not approve of the language. That is certainly your right, and I applaud your willingness to commit to strong standards. But given that you disapprove of the language, you obviously disapprove of someone writing it into a story, and then you liken it to someone cheapening their work to make more money. You have accused OSC of prostituting himself, basically. Selling his integrity and his morality for a few more dollars.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you meant to imply, but that's certainly the way it came off to me. You are judging OSC on many levels here, moral, religious, and professional.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I decided to take a look at Magic Street and read the first 5 chapters.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi Katie!
