zil

That sounds downright tragic to me. :) I suppose if you've never known different, then you just enjoy books in your own way. I can't imagine it.

That may be why reading the synopses made the stories seem to wander, and why I don't really remember the storylines well without the synopses (and even then, I appear to have completely missed some bits). Well-written books are always better than the movie, unless, perhaps, you're like one of my friends (the only person I know, as far as I know, who suffers from this) - she doesn't see any images at all in her mind as she reads, there's only the words. I cannot imagine not imagining the story. There are images in my mind from books I've read that are as clear as any movie scene - to the point where, for some of them, I'm not sure whether I've seen a movie of the book. And length is a problem with nearly all fantasy novels. Some of my friends go wide-eyed when I tell them I like 900-page-long books, and that I have series which take up 2 - 2.5 feet of bookshelf - and really, those are just one long story. How in the world do you make that into a movie? (Answer: By reading it and letting your imagination free. :) )

She's right, names are vital. In this case, as long as she intended them to be over-the-top in a fun way, she was right on target. (If it wasn't her intention, well, too late now.) :)

Prisoner of Azkaban: Really? An "admission slip". I'm pretty sure I enjoyed Emma Thompson's acting, regardless of anything else about the movie. I remember Alan Rickman as Professor Snape was really good at being unlikable (but his characters often are). Oh my, did they all have such convenient contrivances to solve plot problems? I'm bored with Harry Potter now, and am off to continue my L.E. Modesitt, Jr. book.

Chamber of Secrets: Maybe it's the way the synopsis is written, but boy were there a lot of conveniences built into that story. "Diagon Alley" really? I hope this is meant to be silly.

Hmm. Well, unfortunately for me (or my time), between my post and yours, I remembered there's this thing called IMDB. Of course, that won't help with the script. Reading synopsis of movie 1 now... (Needs a good editor; either the movie rambled a bit, or the synopsis needs an even better editor; I don't remember this bit: "the Sorcerer's Stone, which produces the Elixir of Life which will make the drinker immortal" - which was probably critical. Hmm. I see some silliness and an awfully convenient, not-revealed-until-it's-over protection spell from mom.) Am I supposed to be seeing symbolism or parallels or something? PS: It's highly unlikely you'd prejudice my thoughts, as I don't seem to have any beyond, "that was a reasonably enjoyable way to spend 2 hours". I'm now going to go enjoy breakfast part 2. Then I'll read the synopsis of the Chamber of Secrets movie...

Does your wife know you talk to other women like that? (for context, see other hotly contested thread on this site) I enjoyed them, but I still wouldn't choose to read the books*. I love fantasy fiction (please start a new thread if you want to go there), but I stick to books set in universes where the magic is not incantations of spells, but rather a natural force which some people have the ability to control - also, the technology is nothing like modern Earth. Get to close to occult practices (like incantation of spells) and I prefer to avoid it as potentially too close to Satan - whether it is or isn't; just my choice. Can't say I felt any of that while watching the movies - they seemed harmless enough in that regard. *IMO, there is a power in books that is not the same the power of movies. Knowing full well that power, I choose not to test it in this case, just in case. I'm not sure I'm capable. Ask me about a book, and I can remember great detail. I can also get it out and re-read while writing requested review (unless it was trash, I still own it; if it was trash, I can tell you why I put it in the trash). Not so much with movies, and I don't own any of these - watched them over-the-air. I remember scenes (can see still images in my head), but I'm not sure I even remember overall plot lines. What sort of review are you looking for? How well-made the movie was? How good the acting was? How good the script was? (Clearly not whether they were true to the books.) I remember sympathizing with the Harry Potter character in some ways (we all remember what isolation or being an outsider or being treated unfairly feels like). Sorry, drawing a blank (been years, I think, since one was on TV). Maybe more-specific questions would help.

JojoBag, I don't agree with everything you post (on the forums, pretty sure I do in this thread), but thank you for being a man making concerted efforts to hold other men to the highest standard, and rejecting their "can't help it" -type excuses (apparently, when women make this attempt, we're acting like mothers - and apparently there's something wrong with acting like mothers). I would add, in response to those who seem to object to getting the bishop involved: why is it that when we see people struggling with other trials, that we're all in favor of enlisting external aid, but not with this trial (and it is a trial)? If we see behavior in someone that we fear will lead to that person harming others, we asked (and most of us expect ourselves and others) to act early. I see behavior that is already harming the actor and others. While it's true that one must be a willing participant in repentance, sometimes the external exposure, or the external pressure, or the external perspective is needed to open the sinner's eyes to just how bad their behavior is. Then, being denied the option of hiding behind self-deception, one _begins_ to feel those stirrings that lead to repentance. I have experienced this myself with negative habits and behaviors of my own, and I am grateful to the people in my life who have helped me overcome self-deception so that I could choose to do better. Sometimes that person was a friend, who had the guts to tell me I was behaving badly. Sometimes it was a bishop who received inspiration regarding a 5th-Sunday lesson topic. Sometimes it was a ward member who followed the Spirit in preparing a talk or lesson. No matter who it was, they were acting as Saviors on Mt. Zion.

Blame PC - his choking in another thread reminded me of the following joke... :) One day at a local cafe, a woman suddenly called out, "My daughter's choking! She swallowed a nickel! Please, anyone, help!" Immediately a man at a nearby table rushed up to her and said he was experienced in these situations. He calmly stepped over the girl, with no look of concern, wrapped his arms around her and squeezed. Out popped the nickel. The man returned to his table as if nothing had happened. "Thank you!" the mother cried. "Tell me, are you a doctor?" "No," the man replied. "I work for the IRS."

I assume you're speaking of J. K. Rowling, but I've never read any of her books (have seen the Harry Potter movies that have been on free TV, but apparently wasn't paying close enough attention).

Hmm. Minister Said at work again! (You know, he doesn't like chaplains - you should keep a low profile!) (PS:: I'm glad you survived, but I have to go back to the bad joke thread now.)

Now look what you've done! The back of my brain has already begun working. Minister Said is wearing a tie at the moment (not sure why that's important, but he is wearing a tie), and is quite pleased with his recent success in convincing the world that "evil" is just "live" spelled backwards.

Other people say "Everyone is not a programmer." I say: "Not everyone is a programmer." Because some of us are programmers, and the other wording makes it sound like no one is a programmer. Other people think I'm weird. :) I think your teacher should get over it. Sometimes, IF NOT at the start is the way to go. For example, I never do: IF {condition} THEN ;do stuff ELSE ;don't do stuff ENDIF ...when I could do: IF NOT {condition} THEN ; return ENDIF ;do stuff ...the second way is just more efficient and easier to read. :) Also, I will put the IF NOT first if the block of code between it and ELSE is smaller than the block between ELSE and END - again, because it's easier to read that way.

I'm a programmer. And I'm perhaps the most passionately opposed to this of all of us. I'm also a writer. Programming is just another language. That said, there are a fair number of programmers who don't seem to know English, despite it being their native language. And I think your teacher gave good advice.

And this link is an interesting read on the idea (of tolerance leading to intolerance). And here's a book that was recommended to me, haven't decided whether to buy it, but it looks good: The Intolerance of Tolerance

Mine says I liked Jarduli's "surreal" paintings so much that I made a little doodle like them on an artist trading card (2.5" x 3.5").

That made me laugh out loud.

No worries, PC - I always appreciate it when someone points out my type-os. I really did like your post, especially considering the audience.

I've never had it, but right now, it's only $10.19 on Amazon.

Step 1: Dig a really long tunnel (try not to burn up as you near the earth's core). Step 2: Transit said tunnel using any "vehicle" other than a horse. Seems pretty easy to me. And I'm thinking the horse might appreciate not having to traverse a tunnel that goes through the world. That said, I do think everyone should try riding a horse at least once - I always enjoyed it (haven't done it more than a few times, all ages ago).

PC, Yes, it makes perfect sense. Here's a quote from "Beyond Politics" by Hugh Nibley (talking about scripture from the Book of Mormon): It's too long to quote here, and I couldn't really find a way to get the idea across without the whole thing, so, if you're interested, here's a section of 1 Nephi wherein an angel teaches Nephi of the "condescension of God" - condescension sounds like humility in this case (not the negative kind of condescension that implies arrogance). While I may have some doctrinal disagreements with your post, I liked it - and I think it will be a positive influence for those in prison. Free proof-reading: End of second paragraph: "his confinement would be worse that the tiniest solitary confinement cell" - "that" should be "than". Second-to-last-paragraph: "Then he endured death-by-torturous execution." This either needs to be: "Then he endured death by torturous execution." or "Then he endured death-by-torturous-execution." or "Then he endured 'death by torturous execution'." Same paragraph, but this may be a regional dialect difference, I don't know. The word "no" should be "any", in the dialect I'm used to: "Is it no any wonder that God the Father, and we, his followers, honor Jesus so?"

Groan.

Wow. This thread is older than I thought.

I hope you're right. (Please understand, I'm passionate about teaching writing well because writing is the one and only thing I have _always_ wanted to do (since 8th grade anyway) - my efforts right now are to reach a point where I can retire from my day job and write for a living. I'm one book away from that goal - which is the most difficult thing I have ever done - because nothing else was worth this much effort. So this is one of those things that hits me closer to home than it will ever hit 99% of the rest of the population.)

While they became mortal either shortly before or upon leaving the garden, and while one could call that, technically, pre-mortal, it's not what the church manuals mean by "pre-mortal life" - which was living _as a spirit_ without a physical body, in the presence of God. Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the garden, thus, not pre-mortal in that sense. I've noticed a trend toward "pre-earth" life, thus avoiding the confusion.