Royal Skousen has spent decades researching the original and earliest sources (and for that matter, eventually all major printed editions) of the Book of Mormon, and he has discovered thousands of errors and alterations transmitted through various editions from the original manuscripts to subsequent editions. None of these errors or alterations change the meaning of the text substantially, but there are numerous cases where relatively small meanings didn’t come through. One example is the final verse of the book, where the original manuscript, it has been discovered, read “..pleading bar of the great Jehovah”, but the first printed edition (and all subsequent editions) mistook this as “..pleasing bar of the great Jehovah”. (Incidentally, I’ve always found that mistaken word a bit jarring and puzzling – now I’ve learned why. That’s not how it was intended to read!)

My main reason for this is that for some time I’ve wanted to orate a “podcast” of the Book of Mormon, as I really don’t prefer any of the existing audio versions of this book; so while I’m doing that, why not do it with a text truer to the original manuscript?

Initially I even contacted Dr. Skousen himself, seeking permission. He seemed open to it, but deferred to Yale Press, forwarding my request there. Yale Press denied permission on the basis that they would want to authorize and organize such an effort through an established publisher. (I predict they never do.)

Nevertheless remaining curious, I got my own copy of The Earliest Text from Deseret Book. I was both very pleased and disappointed. The disappointment stems from decisions necessary to remain true to forming a “critical text”. This means a text reproducing the original manuscripts as faithfully as possible – right down to some of the weirder grammar – such as “if there be fault, it be the mistake of men” in the original title page – which, incidentally, I think is a perfect mistake. These grammar errors may be inherent to Joseph Smith’s dictation when he (early on) had little education in language. I don’t mean to marginalize The Earliest Text. Being strictly true to the original text doubtless has very worthwhile academic and historical application. But for the layman and everyday readers, it doesn’t. Joseph Smith himself made considerable grammatical and other emendations to the text for the third edition (dozens of times, he scratched out the very redundant phrase “and it came to pass”), and apostles and prophets who followed him down through the decades made numerous grammatical corrections, none of which alter the meaning of the text, all of which make it clearer and easier to read.

What pleases me in The Earliest Text is the plain layout, the spare devotion to only canonical text (none of the extensive introductions, cross-references, chapter introductions etc.), the preservation of initial section breaks as denoted by Joseph Smith, and Skousen’s very clear reworking of the punctuation from scratch. (The original manuscripts were, with very little exception, un-punctuated, continuous blocks of text. All periods, commas, semicolons etc. were added by the original type-setter.)

It dawned on me these facts (of my pleasure and disappointment) produce an opportunity.

The Earliest Text edition may arguably be under copyright as the first printing of all combined discoveries about the earliest text, plus Skousen’s completely reworked punctuation. What it does not have is the grammatical emendations of later editions – which are all in the public domain. Very little has been altered since Orson Pratt’s grammar emendations and versification of the text early last century.

I can combine the two without violating anyone’s copyright.

My edition will integrate these of Skousen’s findings: 1.) Correction of all errors that alter meaning, such as “pleasing” to “pleading”, 2.) All language that supports the original text’s self-consistency, such as the identified “Hebraisms” – for example, so many conjoining clauses prefixed with the word “and” 3.) All grammatical emendations subsequent to the original publishing which clarify meaning, and 4.) Perhaps even some of my own grammatical corrections. For example, where Lehi says “..behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice”. If this isn’t evidently originating in any language phenomenon inherent to the text before translation, why not simply reduce this to “in which I rejoice”? No change in meaning, and plenty of improvement in clear grammar.

Unfortunately, producing a new edition of the text is an involved undertaking. But modern technologies are speeding it up vastly (such as Optical Character Recognition grabbing me a full 1921 text, from a scan of an edition of that year downloadable from archive.org).

I have a full text; I’m working out OCR scanning errors. I’m aiming for a layout akin to the first edition, but maintaining verse numbers unobtrusively.

Hours ago I accidentally ran into the work of a font designer who created a font intent on reproducing a style of typeface in wide use in the 1800′s through early 1900′s, but which was subsequently almost entirely abandoned. I’ve incorporated this font into a page layout and title page design first draft; I’m very pleased with it. Here is a link to a pdf export: 1921-bookofmormon00smituoft-editcopy3-title-pages-design1

This entry would probably best be at a new blog devoted to the project; but I’ll have a section here devoted to it as well; so maybe I’ll just copy relevant stuff to.. whatever.. new blog.

Also, I decked out a Creative Reference wiki page listing this and other very useful books.

Hmm.. I wonder if that idea didn’t have to do with The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet, where, if I remember, two kids fly to a decidedly green planet. I love the illustrations in that book. I’m going to my library and xeroxing them. Er.. looking.. at them. There seems to be a reprint out with a cover that is too comic, IMO. Although it is in the comic style of the era. Maybe I’m just biased to what I read as a kid.

Oh, duh. It was inspired by this. Well, many people have thought of green planets.

Oh yeah. I made this green ringed planet here. If you like it feel free to put it on your computer’s “desktop”. The thumbnails link to larger.. er.. huge.. images (1680 x 1050). Tell me what you think. There’s also a smaller one I did inline here trying to composite with a Terragen image I made. Not sure that one fully worked out.

Here’s a link to the same, with attempted enlargement and noise/retouching to make it look originally at 1024 x 768 (the Terragen 2 preview only lets me render the terrain I composited this into at 800 x 600 )

I composited these last two in Photoshop, using a “darken” mask to make the sky eliminate the black shadows on the planet and rings.

If my local libraries or video rental stores don't have this in, I think I'll just get it – lower prices for it found by froogle are less than or not much more than rental (the first one it finds has a description of it from an entirely different film, though – what the.. !?).

show

A review from the Christian Science Monitor (here syndicated at Yahoo) in moral disdain of Harry Potter came to my attention. But I have a moral disdain for the views expressed in those criticisms. They are far off-base.

These are spoilers for anyone who hasn’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

show

This book is very, very satisfying and inventive.

Just so’s if I’m right I can say I said so, before the final Harry Potter book is out this weekend I’d like to make some predictions. I arrived at these on my own and then discovered that big networks of Harry Potter fans have speculated the same. By the way, this portrayal or illustration of Severus Snape, which I love, is taken from Leaky Fan Art, a huge art forum full of Harry Potter fan art, much of it excellent (and much of it not).

These are spoilers for anyone who hasn’t read up to book 6, The Half-Blood Prince.

Oh, I just noticed that with the spoilers in this entry hidden there is a delightfully odd visual juxtaposition between this entry and the last. Click the psychedelic image in the banner to see that layout

On with the predictions.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

show

show

As a long aside before my own actual review, I’ll lay challenges to someone else’s review, Terry L Jeffress (in the review archive at AML), faux paus though it might be, 14 years ago though it was:

Jeffress’ review

Jeffress says the ending to this story is anticlimactic. Simply put, he’s wrong. Well, except that’s his view. Except that his opinion is wrong. (I’m being facetious). Though I’m not sure what kind of ending Jeffress would have liked. An ending that erases some things that happened in the story? For those things to have never happened? The story itself hinges on matters of life beyond mortality, and the final lines of narrative boldly present the main character’s assurances of resolution that will occur in the next life. How very important is that point which Jeffress missed.

Jeffress also asserts that Card “Doesn’t introduce the suspenseful elements that play on the story’s resolution until well into the novel”. No, they were there early, along with some really great and subtly disturbing foreshadowing. Jeffress also apparently missed that.

And not enough horror? The behavior of some people in the story was quite horrific enough – and this wasn’t a gore or slasher film (I mean book – I see every scene in the book in my head though, as a film) – it was suspenseful. To complain against the book’s form one would have to complain that it isn’t suspenseful enough. And it was very suspenseful.

Lastly, I just don’t see how playing affections for children is any abuse in storytelling, and I disagree that such affections should necessarily fade for teenagers (which has nothing if little to do with this story). That complaint is really off-target. News Flash: people love children. Or they should. Children are naturally compelling. If properly portrayed. Which they were here.

Jeffress concludes by recommending the short story version of this tale. Well, good for that, at least. This story is published in Card’s short story collection book Maps in a Mirror, also in reprint by Orb Books (an imprint of Tor), published January 1, 2004. I don’t doubt the short version is also very good, though I haven’t read it, and I suspect I would end up recommending both.

Here is a favorable review I entirely agree with, by one Stephanie Name.

Now, my own review -

I give my highest recommendation to read this novel. In fact I would love to see it turned into a film. It is in turns flabbergasting and unbelievably good, harrowing and glorious. It also has some moments I thought were really darkly funny.

It tells the story of a young Mormon family that moves to North Carolina for the father’s new job programming video games (for the Commodore 64, which Card provides many authentic descriptive touches of. And from first-hand knowledge, I think. Several Christmases ago my dad bought me a Commodore off eBay – yeah, I’m a retro gamer – and one of the bonus books sold with it had a programming article written by Orson Scott Card). The boss at the father’s company and two other characters at his work provide some boggling fodder for unrelenting and unbelievably low conflict, which the father handles in ways only the rarest of men could pull off. But that ain’t all of it. There are some _nutso_ people in the local Mormon ward, and also the children’s school, who provide some outrageous antagonism, which although there was little redeeming about those characters, aside from the fact that they may not be bloodthirsty neo-Nazis, and also perhaps because these are characters any of us may have met in everyday real life – rendered to me as downright darkly comic.

Depending on your view. I know people who can hardly stomach that; making it an apparently “love it or hate it” story. Clearly I fall on the side of loving it. But the characters aren’t all either far off the deep end or upright as a Saint. There are characters anywhere between the long spectrum of crazy and sane.

Speaking of crazy, I love the grace the story lends to the theme of how indistinguishable craziness can be from religion. Well really in fact, don’t religious people believe some strictly not rational things? As an example, there is nothing logical in supposing a resurrection.

But how many outright wicked opponents can you cram into one story and have the main characters fend them off with brilliant wit, perfect justice, and without inflicting any counter-harm? I could spoil it with a more specific answer but I’ll just say that here, Card’s answer is “a lot.”

And the real heart of things comes through the children in the story, I would say especially the increasingly withdrawn oldest son in the family.

As the book’s cover blurbs and copy let on, the story is also set to a backdrop of boys in the city disappearing one by one.

I will set up expectations. When I said glorious I meant the ending, which – despite but also because of everything else that happens in the story! – left me in a blubbering and astonished stupor. I picked up several of the clues in the novel as to other happenings – which were simply rending to know without the story outright telling – but I did not see that one coming.

But do not skip ahead to read the ending of the story.

The rest of this review is spoilers unless you have read this novel.

Here’s a kid who sees ghosts and helps them solve their unresolved problems. Was that tale around before this? Because this was around before Shyamalan.

[Addendum since first write: Card says when he heard of the premise of The Sixth Sense he at first refused to see it because he realized it meant LOST BOYS could never be filmed. You know what I say to that? Rubbish! So many stories and films are so like each other but have suceeded enormously despite. The comparison will be made (in fact it could be made favorably in pitching it to producers - producers on the whole tend to only want to do something that has "already" been done! - producers do not think like audiences.) - but the comparison will be then be thrown out the window for everything else greatly different between the stories, and because your story has ten times the heart. No diss on Shymalan's work; I love his film and it has a lot of heart. LOST BOYS has more.]

What I predicted right: Gallowglass would try to pull (successfully or not I didn’t know) something creepy, and the Butler (the landlord’s father, rather, tending the house) did the crimes. I knew Stevie’s friends were really the spirits of the lost boys. I knew the moment when Stevie disobeyed his father and didn’t come to the table when his father rushed out the door, and I knew that he then went out back and got lost like the other boys. I knew he was a ghost when his mother was trying to touch him to test his temperature, and he wouldn’t go near her. As I said, it was rending to know that while the characters didn’t. And what left me in a blubbering and astonished stupor was the fruit of Stevie’s unshaken courage.

They’ve got these blurbs from guest speakers who are very successful screenwriters. I believe the one, Paul Haggis, is the type that a certain book I’m reading sneeringly refers to as a “Creative Protectionist” type; one who makes art for art’s sake, and who happened to be one of the one in fifty thousand who made it big doing so. Because such successes are rare (or are they just a matter of lining up the right business plan behind the art?), folks on the purely business, pragmatic side of the spectrum (who are in the habit of deluding themselves that they can “eliminate” risk) advocate going with what is tried and true – in other words, what has been done before and made money. That approach by definition demands formulaic, unoriginal, and therefore to the audience, drab films.

Which is what Haggis’ comments get at. And whatever else I might be – I think my film ambition may demand more pragmatic people at my side – I think I’m a “Creative Protectionist”. Now mind, though I counter-sneer at that term, the book from which it comes (THE PRODUCER’S BUSINESS HANDBOOK) has some absolutely indespensable loads of details on the actual operational and organizational procedures of the most successful independent film production businesses. I will not ignore the loads of wisdom and business know-how in that book. It’s just a matter of deciding what of it to take for granted and what to question, if your insticts ever tell you otherwise on anything. Because film is a business of risk, and I would think that sometimes you have to know when to knowingly take a risk, do something “untried” and “unproven”. The same kind of thing goes for listening to what folks on the fiercely independent creative artist side of things have to say; decide what to take for granted and decide what to challenge. And I don’t mean to say make rules out of any of your conclusions; I mean feel it out for every work of art you want to put forward.

To get back to where I was going, I find myself more inclined to first listen to the “creative protectionists” for creating stories, and then use the business side of things to decide what to do with my art.

So here are three excellent answers to questions by Paul Haggiss via screenwriter.com, referenced in google’s cache:

QUESTION:
Sometimes I go to sleep at night and say to myself that this isn’t working and I don’t know what I’m doing and I’m not going to write anymore. The next morning I get up and my characters are yapping again. At this point in your career, do you ever have such insecure thoughts?
ANSWER:
Every single day. You deal with it by writing. You just sit your ass in the chair and write through it. It’s the only way to solve your problems. When you come upon a problem, write directly into it. Embracing the problem is often the way to find a really interesting scene. My other trick is to say, ‘What awful thing could happen to them right now?’ Because sometimes, things are going too well for your characters and you have to give them the worst possible thing that could happen to them. [Ah ha ha! This sounds like God meddling with his lazy children who are too comfortable. "Let's give them a trial!" - RAH]

–

QUESTION:
What type of scripts are hot in Hollywood right now?
ANSWER:
Never ever ever ever ever ever think that way. That is the road to failure and hackdom. I just met with Linda Obst this afternoon, and she bemoaned the fact that all young writers are looking for a payday and therefore are writing what they think she wants to see rather than writing what is in their gut, something they have to say. I cannot stress this enough.

I wrote two spec scripts that I was absolutely sure no one would ever buy: Million Dollar Baby and Crash. They both sold within a couple of years of me writing them, which is very fast.

If you try and second guess what people want and then provide it, YOU WILL FAIL.
Guaranteed.
And never listen to any agent who tells you any different.
You want to write something unique, something only you know.

–

QUESTION:
How does an unknown make it to Hollywood?
ANSWER:
You have to understand that for all intents and purposes, I was “unknown” to the film business four years ago. I had no more advantage or disadvantage than you have. You may not think that truth, but it absolutely is because I had no “heat” coming off any great television show. It was all about the script. If you write a great script and put it in your drawer at your cottage in Muskoka Lake, someone will track it down and find it. If you write a bad script and send 100,000 copies out, it still ain’t gonna sell. The trick is really simple: write a great script. And I don’t mean to be flip. That’s just the truth. Write something that’s in your heart, and if you have your craft down and if you’re really honest with the characters, it will sell. It just may take some time. I guess that’s what you should ask yourself. Not how to sell or market something, but have I written enough and experienced enough to write a good screenplay? You write, you research, you write, you research… What makes a good writer is thousands of pages written.

Where I am dubious of these comments: excuse me Haggis, but at some point someone picked up your work and put a lot of money behind it. And then audiences loved it and got more money behind it. Don’t discount that. Your success was not all pure art. It was pure art with filthy money behind it.

Other than that, he sounds just like the writers in this “ZEN” book I constantly refer to, which Richard Dutcher recommended to me – and I like what I hear. Haggis doesn’t say it’s easy, he says it’s a lot of work, but he says to go with your gut. I should also say, though, that the whole premise of sharing ideas before they are even written in first draft form – sharing them in schools and for example this online-organized writer’s workshop – that goes against what I read in ZEN. There are ideas I’d share with others, and there are ideas I won’t until I’ve got a first draft written.

One more against “doing what has been done before” – what is one of the major complaints about films? That too many of them are FORMULAIC. What does this imdb reviewer of Napolean Dynamite have to say positively about it?

I think where the film ultimately succeeds, aside from the casting of Heder, is that it doesn’t fall into the traps of predictability and stereotyping.

Whatever the writer’s gut tells them to do will be original. Actually, that could mean doing something that has been done before. Maybe in a different way, but still.

Oy. So, a first draft.. oh yeah. That’s why I went to get a program that will output screenwriting format (right now there’s Haggis again at that page: he’s hot, he’s everywhere, he’s the Indie Hero); ZEN recommended writing 120-ish pages of pure rubbish in screenwriting format to defeat the fear of the written page. That’s what I need to do, and that’s what I’m going to do.

I am also reading another indespensable book on independent film marketing: THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENT MOVIE MARKETING HANDBOOK. Though I have the same singular criticism for it that I have for the (afore-linked) PRODUCER’S BUSINESS HANDBOOK – it takes formula way too seriously – I emphasise that it is indespensable.

Lastly, I haven’t forgotten the other two books I mention here (though I haven’t finished reading them), one of which an anonymous commenter mentioned helped him get his first film off the ground, picked up by Fox Searchlight. Who left that comment? One of the folks who made Napolean Dynamite?

Look at this! Look at this entry! LONG! This is my contract with the world.

I devoured the first book when it arrived (via Barnes and Noble order) and it’s been back on my bookshelf for some time now. Unfortunately I forgot some of its particulars of advice (which I’ll show), but the general advice I remember. I may skim back through it and post more detailed notes later.

The book interviews many very successful screenwriters, interspersed with short chapters of advice from the author, William (Bill) Froug, who founded and headed a reorganization of the screenwriting program at UCLA. It goes through the art and craft, and the business, and also morality, which encouraged me the most, and I’ll address it first.

The author makes some clear value statements about uplifting films vs. amoral, degrading ones. The book I’m reading now, HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA, expands on that a lot – and condemns a lot. Anyway, the president of the Hallmark card company for some time produced many clean-cut, uprightly moral movies and TV movies (and some high quality ones at that) that found a very devoted audience. Froug says that uprightly moral entertainment can have a more devoted audience, even if the audience may be smaller (myself I believe the audience would be huge if there were a lot of superb and moral films). But he doesn’t know any Mormons. That’s a comment on mormon tastes for amorality, not audience size, if I need to make that clear. Anyway.. This man’s work was cut from TV even when the ratings were climbing because producers didn’t respect his work. Nyaah to those bozos! When he shaves every morning he looks at a man in the mirror he respects. They don’t. Very many in Hollywood will publicly boast about reviews and money, but privately confide they aren’t very proud of the films they turn out. The Hallmark guy was put out of TV for many years but now he’s back with his own cable channel, putting out the very respectable TV movies he likes to make. Hooray for the Hallmark Channel. I don’t watch cable but I’ll put some attention there when I.. finally get it. If what I have seen on that channel has been high quality but not necessarily superlative, it is reliably clean-cut, and for that reason it will enjoy more of my support. It’s miles ahead of Feature Films for Families if you’ll forgive my bluntness.

Now, on the book as a whole, it is excellent and has gotten me started further into writing. However, the people in and around this book and its school of thought contradict each other, and in the case of the author, himself, apparently unaware. Dutcher recommend this book along with urging me to write from the gut and not worry about structure. I’ll call that the intuitive, free-form school of thought. And the free-form school of thought is mostly what is given in this book (as I see it), by a former teacher at UCLA, yet at the LDS film festival I heard a graduate of the UCLA screenwriting Master’s program, Rodney Hensen, repeatedly emphasising an opposing school of thought: structure and story rules. Before I read ZEN, I wondered if Hensen was a rebel to what he was taught at UCLA. I also noted that Hensen is self-inconsistent: he in turns says to just let a story go where it does, which a strict focus on structure does not allow. After reading ZEN, I see that UCLA is as self-inconsistent. Also note that Hensen’s first film (SUITS ON THE LOOSE) flopped. Is there a connection to his philosophy? Myself I think so. I wish him success with his next film. Anyway, on UCLA’s inconsistency, Froug closes the book by advising that you see as many movies as you can in a year, in theaters, to get a feel for how the audience responds to things. He then says this is contrary to what one of the teachers he hired said in a new book, which teacher made the preposterous assertion that one need only be very well acquainted with his “Fabulous Five” films, one of them happening to be something he wrote, a mostly unheard-of TV movie – hello, arrogance!?

But as I said the author is himself self-inconsistent. He puts forward and is very sympathetic to interviewees who make what I think is the book’s overall main point, as I said, of writing from the gut without being overly analytical or duty-bound to rules or formula. However, the author in turns offers many apparently hard, fast rules, sometimes even in direct contradiction to things he said in earlier chapters, without noting the contradictions. For example he talks in one place about how the line of action of a film should relentlessly rise and become more intense. Elsewhere he hails recent independent filmmakers who break this rule and take things slow and let you absorb everything that is going on, as if at a flat pace of everyday life – but he doesn’t note that by praising this apparently more independent approach, he breaks with his own advice of relentlessly rising action. Also, he uses two different terms which his interviewees say they find repugnant, to which he seems sympathetic – until he totally forgets it and uses the terms himself. I don’t remember the other term, but the one was “Hollywood screenwriter.”

On overcoming fear: Froug says that the very first thing a new person, or even a continually developing writer should do, is get your hands on some books about screenplay form, study some screenplays, and then write an entire screenplay, strictly in screenplay format, of pure, unadulterated rubbish. He said to write your name a hundred times if you do nothing else. This is to overcome the raw, overpowering fear of THE BLANK PAGE. I skipped this step on my way to writing, because with all due respect to myself, I have no fear of the blank page. Hmm.. except for some fear when it comes to fiction

Froug gives great criteria for assessing whether a story idea is a great idea.

1)It will be something you have never seen before [I make exceptions to this, personally]..
2)You will be excited about it, and you will intuitively know the audience will be too.
3)It will have a strong, clear line of action.
4)You will write it more easily than other things – but it will not “write itself” – nothing ever does.

My exception to 1) is that no story is truly original – at least not in its underpinnings. All great stories descend from truth. The composition of the characters and the plot may be truly unique, but I believe buying into the idea that any story can be truly original is destructive because it will bypass things which may be very valuable as part of a story for having been “already done”. Unfortunately, the idea of absolute originality is widely bought, so an audience may balk at something you need to do, but.. whatever. There are many stories similar or alike to each other which are recieved very well by audiences.

On art, craft, and process: You know what? While this book gave some great advice, I think that If You Want to Write gave better advice. I need to skim that again and gather notes on it. Anyway and again, Froug and these screenwriters say to write from your gut and do not prohibit yourself from honestly exploring wherever your writing takes you, neither compel yourself necessarily by any rules or idea of structure to go in any forced direction either. Don’t obsess or necessarily even think on rules of what should go where or happen when, or how you should be writing your story. However, I would say that the rule not to have rules self-contradicts, because it is a rule: the muses, passions and intuitions have their own reasons, and if your awareness tells you to follow some guideline or rule you know, for a strong reason, follow that guide. That said however, the book asserts that such alone is nothing, and that the prattling story structuralists and gurus have produced very little actually good screenplays or films from their theories.

Then some flexible rules, or even ones to ignore if intuition says so: Avoid the obvious. Keep something back from the audience in each scene: keep them wondering what is going on or what will happen next. Keep the line of action always rising. I hate this rule – myself I say forget it unless it happens or needs to happen. I hate the insane bent in Hollywood for heightening and increasingly raising the level of action. There are films where it works, but too dang many of them do this too dang much. Something I got from the LDS film festival that this book has affinity with: forget the studio or limitations of imagination or budget and write whatever you want. Even if it can’t be made into a film for five years, or ten, or I would say even your lifetime. Write it. If a studio or production company asks you to rewrite it, forget them and look elsewhere. Unless it’s really reasonable what they ask. You judge.

Many writers outline and can’t write without outlining, and will generally stick to the outline. Some write scene labels on index cards and arrange and rearrange them to find what’s best. Almost nobody sticks with just what they outline and writing always goes where you don’t expect. Well-realized characters will be ones that you follow on their course letting them do their thing as if you are doing some investigative journalism. They will tell you what they say next and what happens next. Some writers just write the story out from beginning to end without needing to outline. Some writers start at the end or middle and work back to the beginning. A screenwriter in this book said he often works backwards from an ending he knows he wants and figures out how the story got there, and then writes up to it. But he seemed a much more logical, methodical writer than I (he writes military/government thrillers – which isn’t to say there is necessarily logic in politics!), though I may limit myself in saying that. I often have a dilemma of having an ending or important scene of a story clearly in mind, but not knowing all the details of how those characters got there; I have to work backwards through the series of responses and events that got them there. I think that’s harder to pull off effectively for my generally more intuitive, emotional ideas. As opposed to logical – for example, take a look at my life. Just take a look at this. What is the logic in this?

In my view, the most powerful stories are not necessarily conceived plots so much as characters, and what those characters do.

Many directors have zero respect for the writer and will even make a point of modifying a script to suit what they see. Or if they don’t do that, their interpretation of the script may be drastically different from what the writer intended, and the book offers many tragic cases of this. Many of the most successful films were close collaborations between the writer and director with the director consulting the writer on changes. The script on almost every film changes in production. Many producers, directors, and actors have their favorite writers that they bring on to rewrite their own dialogue. Democratic free-for-all re-writes can seriously muck up a project.

The auteur theory is garbage.

At the time the book was written, and I don’t know whether this has changed, no one in the book including the very well-networked author know of anyone who has ever seen a penny of their “percentage points” from film proceeds or royalties: all the studios count distribution expenses against those royalties, which screws the writer, is arguably simply wrong, and is unheard of in any other publishing business.

I have a story idea right now that I’m slowly fleshing out, but the funny thing is if I told you what the idea is, I flatter myself that I’d have to kill you, even though the prospect of any buyers, if there is any prospect, may be years away. Here’s why. The very first scene I wrote for it reminded me of Richard Dutcher. I emailed him and asked if he’d like to read it or wait (I flatter and promise myself) for the movie. This was his response which echoed advice I read in this book, and forgot:

My recommendation to you regarding your screenplay is to keep it fairly close to your vest until you have a complete draft. I generally don’t even let my wife read anything until I have a good solid draft. (And then she’s always the first reader). Everyone naturally feels the need to respond, and to try to shape the film into what they want it to be. And this is before you’ve even had the chance to find out what it is going to be. Also, storytellers often tend to lose enthusiasm for their stories if they’ve already succeeded in telling them in some form (even verbally to a small audience). I think it’s best to keep the story in your head and in your heart and to funnel all the desire to tell the story into the actual writing of it. In my experience, even talking about it dissipates some of the creative drive. But maybe that’s just me.

Good luck!

Richard

I’ve found this to be true – when I related to my wife the first scene which came to me (a scene near the center of the story I think), it made her laugh, and I lost interest in writing it down. Before this, I had been not relating outline ideas to her, and just writing them down. But when she laughed, my storytelling impulse was satisfied (the scene was approved and did its work), and my interest in writing it left.

I think writers can be so flipping lonely for approval of what they write that they’ll be content with an audience of one (two if you count the writer), even while every writer deserves the largest audience they can get.

There are writers who collaborate all along, deriving the benefit of knowing someone else’s mind before they pen anything. This can work very well if they work well together.

That’s that. If I find more notes from my skim re-reading, I’ll post them here.

Recent reads (most recent first):

The Book of Mormon – the President of my church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) invited all members last fall to read this book by the end of the year, promising certain blessings as consequence – an increase of peace, a greater resolve to do what is right. Those blessings happened for me. Apart from that: this book is true. It’s a mix of glory and the profoundest tragedy. It’s lighting and thunder against bad religion and philosophy. According to many it is also stylistically bland – but that was never the point for me. More than any of this, it is a witness of the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, and His power of deliverance.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe – This is a classic. The recent film adaptation was a philosophical, overly humanistic and diabolical, amped-up butchery of it that children shouldn’t watch besides because the fear is beyond any level of intensity Lewis ever intended. Not content with the level of tension in the original, they invented dangers and extremities of fear galore to put the children through. A fairly young child behind me wept in fear in this movie. So much for our children. Fetch the wolves on them!

So you Want to Self-Publish – This is an excellent, excellent resource of advice and a guide to resources from a successfull self-publisher of mostly civil war history books. My wife found this at the Provo Library. The first thing I remember from it is the importance of self-marketing and getting on the radio and your book in reviewer’s hands well before publication if you possibly can.

If You Want to Write – this book is exceptional. Besides being a fiery dismantling of many of the problems of intellectualism, analysis, wieghing and measureing which it alleges destroys creativity (and myself I would add that it destroys enjoyment), it offers some excellent advice on the creative process and how to change contrived, dry writing into honest, unabashed, detailed, and lively writing. Has some appreciative asides about Jesus that I disagree with – philosophically. Please understand I appreciate Jesus, or at least, I profess to..

Taking Control of Your College Reading and Learning – Gold. Every student needs this book. Every serious reader, too, I think. Wonderful suggestions and methodologies for actually retaining what you study – and studying more efficiently. It’s an investment of time to improve your study methods, but the payoff is infinite.

Current reads:

A load of math books for school. Must conquer math. .. Hmm.. I want to find that book I ran accross about overcoming math phobia.

Super Reading Secrets – I want to learn to speed read so I can get through everything I want to faster

The Star Wars Trilogy – Familiar material to practice speed-reading

The Old Testament (King James Bible) – I’m going through this (for this year) with the aid of my church’s gospel doctrine class member study guide and a commentary on the Old Testament whose title I forget. This includes what my religion calls The Pearl of Great Price, which contains books of scripture by Moses and Abraham purported by the Prophet Joseph Smith to have been removed from the beginning of the bible, and which he recieved by direct revelation. Minor note: I’m fascinated by a fascimile from an egyptian scroll which fell into Smith’s hands, replete with notes on the religious nature of the iconography, also containing such notes as “ought not to be revealed at this time.” Anyway, this book applies to real life, as it turns out, and I classify it as a workbook along with the following four.

102 Great Dates for any budget – Erm.. my wife and I watch movies together, which is neat..

How To Win Friends and Influence People – A book whose advice I overlook to the point of being laughable, which my posts in this and this forum betrays.

The Artist’s Way – I have minor criticisms of it, but this book is, so far, gold – if you actually follow it’s advice.

What they Don’t Teach you in Film School: 161 Strategies to Making Your Own Movie No Matter What – Urges you to begin with even the most miniscule projects you can. Sound advice – the rest is probably good.

Writers of the Future Vol. 20 – The “best” (according to this contest) of new science fiction and fantasy writers and illustrators. I’ll enter this contest one day. I consider this a workbook of sorts in observing writing trends.. if I can pick out any among the stories in the book.

Prince Caspian – The second published book in the Chronicles of Narnia, which I only know by referring to the back cover of an antiquated copy of the first in my wife’s possesion. I prefer reading them in the published order and haven’t read these since I was a kid – if I read all of them. Sad how little we remember even from such time investments.

First Meetings in Ender’s Universe – A birthday present. So far the first story in it is good.

The World of Tolkien – This and the three following are Christmas presents, this one requested. Fascinating and apparently thorough exploration of the myths, legends, and history of earth which inspired Tolkien’s work. The illustrations I think are often “meh” – but sometimes great.

The King in the Window – Haven’t started yet. Looks good.

The Tale of Despereaux – A mideavalish/fantasy mouse’s adventure – started reading and it’s kinda funny. My wife liked it.

Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder – Fascinating. Things I never knew either about him or the society around him.

A Historical Atlas of Mideaval England – I’m not finding this online. Aging Christmas present. Very useful to me in combining history with visuals – the changes of who is where on a map of Europe. Interestingly sorts people not so much by nation but by language – which isn’t always cohesive with nationality. So it’s also a sort of history of language.

Bulfinch’s Mythology: Legends of Charlemagne But this was from two Christmases ago and I still haven’t read it, very interesting thought it is..

My sister gave me a history of mideaval england whose title I forget. Very interesting looking through it so far.

The Hobbit .. I want to read this.. I actually.. never read it. I know I’ve missed out on a lot, I know, I know.. Le sigh. I never read a *lot* of things.

The Spoils of Time – Never get around to reading because I want to take notes from it to actually remember what I read.

The Right to Write – Kinda “meh” actually, glancing through it.. but I know there were some things that resonated perusing through it at the bookstore, or else I wouldn’t have bought it. Maybe I’ll enjoy it after finishing her other book, the first on this list, and the two other books on writing I hope to acquire (read on)..

Myth and the Movies – Now I think of this as probably a useful idea generator – but not a backbone for screenwriting. Perhaps philisophically in line with structuralism, and sometimes glamorizing things I disdain while overlooking things I love. So far.

The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers – Haven’t much looked through but suspicious I’ll react much the same as to the above – because -

I plan on acquiring Zen in the Art of Screenwriting and its follow-up, because Richard Dutcher recommended these when I had the opportunity to ask his advice on screenwriting resources. Dutcher added that he only has use for “the structuralists” as he put it (Note the subtitle of “The Writer’s Journey”) for screenplays that need fixing up.

Second to last, and far from least, I’m reading a screenplay a prominent local screenwriter sent me for feedback. But it’s secret, and I probably shouldn’t have even said that much, but I want to brag because I’m flattered!

The Great and Terrible, Vol. 1: Prologue, The Brothers – A drama beginning in the pre-earth life, or existence before earth, which I couldn’t stop reading at my local Deseret Book but couldn’t buy either – I’ll finish reading that in the store. Evil, I know.

Future Reads

Hmm.. I want to get The Backslider, and LDS novel. From there, various from this list.. and the films and books listed in the syllabus I requested from the professor who replied to that post (under “New-Topics”).