From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 27 Mar 2003 23:36:17 -0700 Kim Madsen wrote: > Thought you might be interested to know that the women of my LDS > bookclub, whom you graciously allowed to read your unpublished > manuscript, were musing the other day on how it would probably be > possible to sell your book to the national market in light of the > Elizabeth Smart thing. I've already thought of that. > They also expressed concern that it would confirm LDS people as nutcases > in the national eye, and that a national publisher would probably want > to add purient sex to the story. That seems to be the focus of the > national media on the Smart case--what were the gory details, please. I'd refuse to allow the prurience, even if it meant losing the contract. But showing Mormons as nutcases--maybe. Do all the devil possession movies involving Catholics make Catholics look like nutcases, or do people just realize it's meant as a sort of fantasy? Either way, it wouldn't deter me from having the book published. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] RE: New Mormon Lit Forum Date: 28 Mar 2003 01:01:39 -0700 IF the new list gets created by me (I'm still not sure I will--we're nowhere near nine members yet), here's how I figure I would run it: It wouldn't be totally unmoderated. There would be certain rules of play. But it would be post-moderated. Messages would go through, and if a problem developed, I'd deal with it then. Dealing with it means, first a private (rebuttable) admonition to the offender, second a public reminder of the rules for everyone, and third, if an individual displays a pattern of infractions that is not repented of, he will be banned from posting. The rules will be limited: it's a list for LDS literary artists and those interested in LDS literary art. It's not a list to debate the validity of LDS theology or attack the church. However, much leeway will be given in defining what is cultural vs. doctrinal--even things that many members may consider doctrinal. If a reasonable case can be made that something is cultural, not doctrinal, it's free game. The temple and its ceremonies should be reverenced, but we won't get paranoid about discussing them in appropriate ways. Church leaders are fair game as long as the criticism is about their cultural influences and human acts, not their official acts as representatives of God. It's not a list to discuss anything and everything. Tangeants will be tolerated, but only for a limited time. Personal attacks without content are out (e.g., "You are an idiot!") But if they come with useful content and are expressed creatively and wittily (a time-honored tactic in debate throughout history, practiced by such great souls as Winston Churchill) they'll be tolerated. Foul language and prurience for cheap shock effect is also out. But if used literarily (sparingly and for a specific effect) or in a scholarly fashion (discussing use of such words or quoting their use by others) they'll be tolerated. As always, clever, creative, witty wording can cover a multitude of sins. In short, the list accepts as givens that God exists, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith and his successors down to Gordon B. Hinckley are prophets of God, and the core precepts of LDS theology are true. Debate and attack on these issues is off-topic. (Expressing sincere personal doubts are not.) LDS literary art is the topic. Respect for fellow members is required, but not for their opinions. Thick skin is also required (that should be obvious). The moderating approach: teaching correct principles and letting the list govern itself, enforcing only disruptive or prolonged infractions after the fact. No one will be thrown out, but chronic transgressors will be silenced until genuine repentance occurs (they can still read posts). I'm still not sure what to do about list volume. I hate restricting each person to a limited number of posts. On the other hand, I hate getting 200 posts in a day, half of which are lame. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Survey on Racism and Mormons Date: 28 Mar 2003 13:49:55 -0700 A friend from _Sunstone_ has asked me to circulate this survey, so I'm going to just send it to the list. You may be anonymous in your responses (though they prefer you not be) and may send it to SunstoneED@aol.com ---but I would really like to be copied on it (Margaret_Young@byu.edu), if you wouldn't mind. I am extremely interested in the responses. Please do not reply to the list. Here are the questions (they need responses by April 11): What are you memories of the events surrounding the 1978 announcement? Have you had any experiences with lingering racism in the Church or heard of any? What was your reaction to these experiences and how have they affected your beliefs and the way you act in Church settings? In your experience, how prevalent in the minds of the general membership are such teachings as: Black skin being the "mark and lack of priesthood being the "curse" of Cain? Denial of priesthood reflecting some level of unworthiness in premortality? Skin color and societal privilege being related to personal righteousness? The idea that skin can/will be "lightened" as someone or a group of people becomes more righteous. What has the Church done well in reaching out to black Americans? To blacks in Africa or other parts of the world? How freely do you believe most black Church members feel they can speak or share their authentic experiences in LDS settings? What are your experiences with the Genesis Group and its mission to help Church members of color feel more comfortable in the Church [sic] (My own note: The mission of Genesis goes beyond that.) What areas should the Church work harder in? What specific or concrete steps should it take with regard to racial issues? Are you optimistic about the future for blacks and other people of color finding their authentic voice and feeling more a part of the Church? If so, what specific trends or lights on the horizon fuel your optimism? If not, what stumbling blocks are the major reasons for your pessimism? ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:07:49 -0800 > Real interesting post here from Robert Slaven, especially his musings on = > Michael Moore and Roman Polanski. About Michael Moore, I don't have much = > to add to Robert's comments. > Roman Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. He's also a crime victim. His = > wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in one of the most appalling killing = > sprees in US history, the Manson family murders. And he's a convicted = > pedophile. As Robert pointed out, the grand jury testimony in his trial = > is available, but is only for the strong of stomach. He's an utterly = > brilliant filmmaker. I count The Tenant, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, = > Tess, Death of the Maiden and The Pianist as among my favorite films of = > all time. Watching Chinatown again recently, I was reminded what a superb = > film it is. > > He is a man who has been witness to horrendous things, far worse than any = > I can imagine going through. He is a man who has also done horrendous = > things, again worse than any I have ever done. And he's a far greater = > artist than I can ever hope to be. =20 This is something that's been talked about forever, and more so in the last half-century. IMHO, it's got to be one of the biggest, if not THE biggest question for all Mormon artists, especially w.r.t. the question 'why aren't there more great Mormon artists?' It is: Is great suffering -- which may not, but often does, include self-induced consequences-of-sin suffering -- necessary to be a great artist? Many, many, *many* people in the world think so. They forgive Kurt Cobain for taking drugs and being unpleasant and blowing his brains out. They forgive Jimi Hendrix for smashing guitars and choking on his own vomit. They forgive Michael Jackson for being, well, Michael Jackson. And they forgive Roman Polanski for taking advantage of a 13-year-old. Are we Mormons doomed to artistic mediocrity because we haven't had a Holocaust? Because we don't generally go out and get drunk/stoned/raped/raping/whatever on our nights off? It's a very hard question. Obviously, many great artists have created much great art in part through drawing upon their own experiences of pain and suffering. Would they have created that art without going through what they did? Was the great art created *because*of* their pain, or *in*spite*of* their pain? Should we, as a society, lionise their art while ignoring (or at least treating separately) their sins? Or should we lock them up until they get better? Would Van Gogh have painted 'Starry Night' if his mental state had been more normal? Would Hemingway have written _The Old Man and the Sea_ if he hadn't been such a depressed boozehound? I wish I knew. This question frustrates me beyond belief. I don't think I should be going around committing sundry sins to get 'more experience' so I can write that better story. But my strongest moments of self-expression often come when I *am* trying to fathom the depths of my sins. (Don't ask, don't tell. %-) Would I be that much less creative if I had kept my nose cleaner? Would I be that much more creative if I'd let my hair down more? Yes, Roman Polanski has been through hell squared. It wasn't just Sharon Tate his wife and a bunch of friends who were brutally killed; she was close to delivering their first baby, and I won't tell you what happened to that baby. And drawing on all *that* pain for art is certainly reasonable. It's not his fault he was a Jew in 1940's Europe. It's not his fault some nutbar sent his minions out on a killing spree that intersected so terribly with Sharon Tate's life that night. But no matter what hell we've been through, do we not all have a responsibility to get through it? To get on with it? To 'endure it well'? His _Tess_ brought home the 'victimhood' of Tess far more strongly to me than even Thomas Hardy's original novel did. Was he expressing his own victimhood there? Was he feeling like a victim because he couldn't leave France to film it (IIRC, it was his first flick after the conviction and flight)? Was anything of the girl victim there in Tess? (I didn't see it, but you never know.) > That's the glory of art, the wonder of it. Human experience depicted with = > all its contradictions and confusion and pain and grief and sin and horror = > and love and redemption and humor, all together, all there. I think we = > can glory in art, and also quite properly denounce dreadful behaviors = > practiced by artists. See The Pianist, for example, and revel in its = > complexity and beauty. And also not want to give Roman Polanski an Oscar = > for it. Which the Academy did, the same year they also gave one to = > Michael Moore, all the time recoiling from his utterly predictable--for = > him--Oscar speech. =20 I just wish we could find a way to glory in art that handles sin better. Or at least differently. The old Hayes movie code handled sin totally unrealistically; the bad guy had to die at the end, no ifs ands or buts. Now, sin is glorified more often than not, with consequences pushed aside or at best trivialised. As I suspect with everyone else out there, art that I find 'great' is great because it resonates with truth for me. If there is truth in it, I'll appreciate that truth as best I can. If things don't ring true, I have a hard time getting anything out of it. Real life depresses me to the point of my escaping into derogatory cynicism. Much art today does the same for me. But is there any way of creating that *great* art without sin? Perhaps the only 'great' art us Mormons will ever be able to make is the art of happy eternal families. But then, I guess, there are worse things. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Good prose is like a window pane. - George Orwell, 'Why I Write' --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:24:05 -0700 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan >=20 > I fully intend on seeing Bowling for Columbine. I don't want=20 > my distaste for Moore's Oscar diatribe to affect my veiwing=20 > of a film which, from all accounts, is quite the marvelous=20 > documentary. The second I give in to the natural man, and=20 > judge a work of art by the person who wrote, I will have=20 > considered myself as having come over to the dark side. =20 As long as you don't mistake it for fact or, say, a documentary. I = suppose it could be seen as a successful example of didactic literature, though. = It played so well to the ideologically sympathetic that they gave it an = award. Though you'd have to define "success" for didactic literature--Moore's = work offends the ideologically antagonistic so badly they can't discuss it without blowing fuses. I'm not sure we can apply it as an example for = us, though. I don't get the sense that Moore's beliefs are a matter of = faith or motivated by a sense of conviction. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 29 Mar 2003 11:49:10 -0700 . My wife has a friend whose dearest hope is to find a nice Jewish boy to=20 marry. One who=92s converted to the Church, sure, she wants to be married= in=20 the temple, but then at her reception, she wants to have an excuse to go all= =20 out with Jewish traditions=97breaking glasses and dancing and all that= stuff. Richard Dutcher: "I think the 'inside things' in the movie [God=92s Army], instead of pushing= =20 the audience away, will fill the audience in. The more specific the=20 characters are, the more universal the film becomes. The mistake LDS artists= =20 often make is to take a great story that has Mormon elements throughout and= =20 pull those things out. You don't need to do that. And I think 'Fiddler on=20 the Roof' is a perfect example. Every frame of the film is saturated with=20 Judaism, but members of every faith can still love the film." "You can't take the Judaism out of the movie, =91Fiddler on the Roof.=92 It= =20 wouldn't work. But that's exactly what Mormon people tend to do when=20 they're writing our stories. They think that they have to genericize=20 everything, taking everything that's unique out of the characters, taking=20 their faith and everything away from them that is really powerful. Trying= =20 to get by and be a true Latter-Day Saint in the current world is quite a=20 story. And we all have our own versions of it." Yes, every Mormon wants to be a Jew=97especially Mormon writers. We all= want=20 to write bestsellers like Chaim Potok and win Nobel Prizes like Isaac=20 Bashevis Singer. Wouldn=92t it be wonderful, we say to ourselves, to tell= =20 Mormon Stories and have the public latch onto them? Jongiorgi Enos: =93Because God Loves Stories: An Anthology Of Jewish Storytelling, Steve=20 Zeitlin. I just started this, on the recommendation of a friend (one of my= =20 several non-LDS guy friends who's married to an LDS gal), and I'm loving it= =20 so far. Jews can tell a story better than anyone, even better than the Big= =20 Fat Greeks! We (Mormons) try to compare ourselves to Jewish artists, but=20 folks, do we have a long way to go. =93This is going to inspire a digression, which should perhaps be its own=20 thread. A friend asked me once: So there are 14 million Jews and about 11=20 million Mormons. We both have a persecuted history, we both identify=20 ourselves with the same origin stories and the same destiny (The Chosen=20 Ones); so why are there so many great Jewish artists and so few Mormon ones?= =20 I'll leave that discussion for another time.=94 (I find it both exhilarating and extremely irritating, Jon, to find this in= =20 my inbox as I sit down to write on that very topic.) I recently read a story in Zoetrope: All-Story about a couple Orthodox=20 Jewish girls, and all sorts of words like Shabbos and Rebbe and peyos were= =20 thrown in without definition, and while sure, from context, I can get=20 Shabbos and Rebbe, I would never be able to decipher payos if I had never=20 read Potok and Singer. This is the first reason I think we want to be Jews: Vocabulary. Wouldn=92= t=20 it be wonderful to sit down to write a story and not have to define Relief= =20 Society or stake president or sealing or baptism for the dead or high=20 councilman or any of a thousand other uniquely Mormon terms? Wouldn=92t it= be=20 wonderful if the reading public already had a basic familiarity with our=20 words and didn=92t need to be told that a ward is about three hundred people= =20 and that it=92s the bishop who=92s in charge? How can we tell Mormon= Stories if=20 we=92re always pausing to tell the goyim, =93See a deacon is a twelve-year= old=20 boy=97you might say we have our bar mitzvah at twelve. Feh, I wish I was a= =20 Jew!=94 Eric R. Samuelsen: =93Reading the Book of Mormon daily (fifteen minutes a day is generally=20 recommended) is seen as a holy act in and of itself. Reading daily is=20 basically a mitzvah.=94 So I guess we can=92t even explain our own culture to ourselves without=20 falling back on Jewish terminology. And like Jon said, we=92re aiming for= the=20 success Jewish artists have found. Consider what AML reviewer Rob Williams= =20 said in his Brigham City review: =93Based on everything I've seen here, Dutcher's next project on the life of= =20 Joseph Smith will probably become one of the greatest religious films since= =20 =91Fiddler on the Roof.=92=94 Oh, to be a Jew! Consider these sprinklings from Isaac Singer=92s =93Are Children the= Ultimate=20 Literary Critics?=94: =93Actually there is no literature without roots. One cannot write good=20 fiction just about a man generally. In literature, as in life, everything= =20 is specific. Ever man has his actual and spiritual address. * * * The= =20 more a writer is rooted in his environment, the more he is understood by all= =20 people; the more national he is, the more international he becomes. * * *= =20 When I began to write the stories of my collection Zlateh the Goat, I knew= =20 that these stories would be read not only by Jewish children, but by Gentile= =20 ones as well. I described Jewish children, Jewish sages, Jewish fools,=20 Jewish bridegrooms, Jewish brides. The events I related did not happen in= =20 no-man=92s-land but in the little towns and villages I knew well and where I= =20 was brought up. My saints were Jewish saints and the demons Jewish demons. = =20 And this book has been translated into many languages. * * * Many of=20 today=92s books for children have no local color, no ethnic charm. The=20 writers try so hard to be international=97to produce merchandise which= appeals=20 to all=97that they appeal to no one.=94 There=92s a lot we can learn from Singer on these points. We are our most= =20 accessible when we are our most Mormon. And so yes, there are things we can learn from our Jewish role models. But= =20 is it fair to compare ourselves to Jews and think the goyim should look at= =20 Mormons as they look at Jews? Yes, our populations are about the same size= =20 worldwide and in the States. Yes, we both have a persecuted history. Yes,= =20 we can both be a little obnoxious with our Us/Them dichotomies. But there= =20 are some stark differences as well. When I read Chaim Potok, part of the appeal is the window into this=20 wonderfully Other culture. And Mormons, to most of the world, are also=20 Other. But Mormons are more different from Jews (at least, I would argue,= =20 in general perception) than we are the same. Jews are loveable rapscallions. Loveable because they are nonthreatening. = =20 In America, the Jewish population is decreasing. I don=92t know if that is= =20 true worldwide, but one thing is sure: the Jews aren=92t converting a dozen= =20 new stakes each month. That=92s the Mormons. We=92re growing and building= and=20 baptizing and expanding all over the globe. We can=92t be loveable=20 rapscallions=97we aren=92t nonthreatening. That is, even if people do recognize our peyos-like vocabulary, it might not= =20 be only because of a book they read and a couple Jewish friends they grew up= =20 with=97but perhaps because their neighbor stopped playing cards on Sunday=20 after getting Mormonized. We can=92t be as charming as an ancient and dying= =20 breed. People will never feel the same about us as the do about the Jews,= =20 even if they do become as familiar with us. We are very easily viewed as a threat, and in much more concrete ways than= =20 some Illuminati. We steal your friends and neighbors, and that is being at= =20 odds with you=97not being delightfully curmudgeonly. But what can we do about that? Stop baptizing people? Start smoking? No. = =20 We can learn things from the Jewish tradition, but we can=92t be Jews. We= =20 have to figure out what =91Mormon=92 can be to the world at large. And the= only=20 way to do that is to tell our stories. If you=92ll be Brother Potok, I=92ll be Brother Singer. _________________________________________________________________ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Alienating Community (was _Kadosh_) Date: 29 Mar 2003 19:48:17 -0700 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > If his community holds the keys to eternity, then it is *never* worth it to > alienate it to the point of excommunication. Ostracism might be worth it, > but there comes a point where you're just kicking against the pricks and > it's time to re-evaluate your position. Excommunication has one meaning for > every other organization and quite another for the one true one. > It may be romantic to be a rebel and all, but rebelling > against the *actual* gospel and the authority of God on Earth seems like a > phenomenally bad idea--no matter how right you believe you are. Not that I > believe we need to conform to our sometimes whacked cultural dogma, but the > heart of the church is *the* gospel and crossing *that* is an incredibly bad > idea. > And really, I'd be willing to bet that the director *doesn't* believe he has > alienated God. He'd be a singular artist indeed if he believed that he had > compromised God to tell his story. So to be able to translate his > experience to our own, you'd have to first assume that the Church isn't true > and that excommunication doesn't carry any actual consequences. A position > some of our artists *have* taken, but only at the cost of losing the respect > of those of us who remain faithful. There are two forms of alienation being discussed here, but Jacob is lumping them into one. There is alienation of the community. And there is alienation of God. Jacob is assuming the two are synonymous among the LDS community. There's a great deal of overlap, but they are not synonymous. I believe it's actually possible to be excommunicated as far as the worldly community is concerned, but not as far as God is concerned. This is possible, even when the community has the power to act in God's name, because the power is being administered by fallible mortal beings. In most cases, the beings involved do their best to make sure their acts are the acts God wishes. But I cannot believe that happens all the time. Therefore, I think it's a meaningful distinction to say whether the artist is alienating the community or alienating God. Even if the entire community is against you, including those with authority to toss you out, if God is not against you, it doesn't matter. Worded from a different perspective, if the artist alienates the community to the point of excommunication, and it's an excommunication God agrees with, the artist was not really alienating the community all along--he was fighting against God and his gospel. That is something to be concerned about. But in a community with true priesthood power that nonetheless sometimes can't tell the difference between true doctrine and cultural additions, alienating the community and alienating God are not always the same thing. How to tell the difference if you're the artist? There really is only one way. Through the spirit. At which time you have a responsibility to remain true to your convictions, even if the entire community lines up against you. > > IF you think about it, the > > people who have done the most good for the world and religion > > have entered these explosive places. > > Then we're in a world of hurt because those explosive places are patently > off-limits in the church. Jesus and Joseph Smith entered those explosive > places under the authority of God and in the confidence of their calling. > Violating gospel doctrine is not going to find much forgiveness here. To > forgive violations of core doctrine, we'd have to essentially admit that > we're in apostasy. Someone needs to provide a definition of "explosive places," because Jacob's words came out of the blue for me and don't compute. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 29 Mar 2003 20:53:57 -0800 Richard Dutcher wrote: "I'm interested in hearing what you Mormon writers are reading at the moment, what novels you've enjoyed recently, and what novels you haven't enjoyed. It would be fun to get a quick snapshot of our collective reading." The past several months I've been largely reading essay collections and literary magazines, memoir, along with a few novels and how-to writing books. For those of us voracious nonfiction readers, here's a list: *ESSAY COLLECTIONS* Slouching Toward Bethlehem, by Joan Didion Dialogues With Myself, by Eugene England Why the Church is as True as the Gospel, by Eugene England The Quality of Mercy, by Eugene England Making Peace, by Eugene England Tending the Garden, eds. Eugene England and Lavina Fielding Anderson *LITERARY MAGAZINES* Along with Irreantum, BYU Studies, Dialogue, and Sunstone . . . Bellingham Review, by Western Washington University Creative Nonfiction, by University of PIttsburgh Fourth Genre, by MIchigan State University Puerto del Sol, by New Mexico State University Willow Springs, by Eastern Washington University The Southern Quarterly, by University of Southern Mississippi *WRITING BOOKS* Creative Nonfiction, Researching and Crafting Stories of Real Life, by Philip Gerard *NOVELS* The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, by Brady Udall One More River to Cross, Margaret Young & Darius Gray *MEMOIR* The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, by Sue Monk Kidd Regards, Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 29 Mar 2003 20:58:48 -0700 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Roman Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. He's also a crime victim. His wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in one of the most appalling killing sprees in US history, the Manson family murders. And he's a convicted pedophile. As Robert pointed out, the grand jury testimony in his trial is available, but is only for the strong of stomach. He's an utterly brilliant filmmaker. I count The Tenant, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Tess, Death of the Maiden and The Pianist as among my favorite films of all time. Watching Chinatown again recently, I was reminded what a superb film it is. > > He is a man who has been witness to horrendous things, far worse than any I can imagine going through. He is a man who has also done horrendous things, again worse than any I have ever done. And he's a far greater artist than I can ever hope to be. This brings up a subject we've discussed before, but which I still don't have a satisfying answer to. Is it necessary to suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or from the sins of others (usually both), to be a great artist? I don't believe suffering is necessary to be a competent artist, but what about true greatness? And if the answer is yes, the more important question is, is it worth it? I would like the answer to the first question to be no, but I fear it is not. For the answer to the second question, I am compelled to answer yes. Would I want to live in a world where the art of the great suffering artists throughout history does not exist? No. That's why I have to answer yes. But that's a cheap answer because someone else is doing the suffering for my benefit, so of course it's worth it _to me_. The more meaningful question is, would it be worth it to me to _be_ the suffering artist, so I can produce great art for my fellow human beings? I've not suffered like many of the great artists in history (and maybe that's why my art is not as great as theirs). I don't believe suffering is what gives me the talent to be an artist. But I'm wondering if that's what's necessary to give me the passion to develop my talent unto greatness. I _have_ had my share of suffering. And I have to admit that whatever greatness I've developed my talent into has been motivated by passion which has arisen from my suffering. My suffering has also done something else. It has made me impatient with simplistic art, with stories containing affirmation of faith which comes easily. In other words, it has made me impatient with Deseret Book/Covenant-type fiction. Such stories have no relevance to me. I don't need my faith affirmed. Enduring faith-attacking life for almost fifty years with my faith intact, albeit greatly evolved, has been orders of magnitude more affirming than most published LDS novels ever could be. What I need is explorations on how to maintain and develop my faith through the tribulations I have yet to endure. This I believe is what people who suffer universally need. I'm sure it's a generalization, therefore has many exceptions, but I suspect those who like the faith-affirming fiction that Deseret Book won't ban have not suffered to as great an extent as others. Now I'm not trying to compare suffering to see who wins. I'm not saying someone who hasn't suffered as much is somehow inferior. Au contraire, if you are in the happy position to be satisfied with faith affirmation fiction, count your blessings. Call me presumptuous, but I'll bet Paris Anderson would love to have had life experiences that put him in that category. But what about the rest of us? What about those who have suffered and are still trying to deal with the aftermath, or who are still trying to escape from the things which induce the suffering? Where do the stories come from that are relevant to them? >From suffering artists. Many of the suffering artists paid a terrible price, and I'm not so sure the price was worth it for them. Is this the lot of all great artists? Must they sacrifice themselves, perhaps for eternity, to offer us the great art we crave? I believe an artist truly is a calling from God. I believe the artist is exempt in some ways from the usual rules of human beings. Not that I think they have carte blanche to commit whatever sin they want. Not that I give a pass to Polanski's child molestation or Mozart's wanton destructive lifestyle. They still suffer the consequences of sin and have need of repentance to enter the kingdom of God like the rest of us. But I believe the expectations we have of artists as human beings must be different from the rest. They must be freer to see the truth and point it out, or truth will not be fully seen. They must be freer to explore and understand the ugliness of the human condition, even if it means personal experience, or the ugliness will never be recognized and rooted out--it will fester and grow and destroy countless lives. I started thinking these thoughts when my one-time elders quorum president told me an anecdote from his life. As a youth, he invited an older friend to a movie. The older friend has some kind of position of authority that involved interviewing young people. He asked what the film was rated. PG was the answer. He said he would have to decline because if he exposed himself to even the slightest spirit-dulling influence the night before doing interviews, he wouldn't have the discernment he'd need. This anecdote bothered me. Could it be true? Must we avoid all but the most innocuouos art for fear of dulling our spiritual discernment? I won't debate whether this individual was right or wrong. I'll assume for him he was right, at least on the eve of some interviewing. But what about the artist? Is he doomed to either spiritual blindness or artistic mediocrity forever? This is where I think the artistic exception comes into play. The inspiration of the artist is, in my opinion, a form of inspiration as authentic, as valuable as the whisperings of the spirit this interviewing gentleman was talking about. The scriptures say that the gifts of the spirit come in many forms. Some have the gift of testimony, and some have the gift of believing the testimony of others. The founding fathers of America were not allowed to enjoy the blessings of the restored gospel. They had a different mission to perform, and the gospel would need to come later in their existence. No Mormon doubts the delay was worth it. The mission they performed was vital. Can the same be said of artists? Do they have a gift of the spirit different from others and a calling to go along with it to bless the children of God? If the fulfillment of that calling withholds from them the blessings of the gospel for now, is that necessarily a bad thing? Are there a bunch of formerly suffering artists in the spirit world now enjoying the redemptive blessings of the gospel? One would hope so. Especially since they suffered so we can enjoy the blessings of the great art they left behind. But how is all this relevant to those of us artists who are alive now and already a part of the gospel? Maybe a great artist is a bad candidate for bishop. His spiritual gifts lean in a different direction. This makes me recall the statement of Richard Dutcher in our writers conference two years ago that we artists need to stop worrying about being bishops and Relief Society presidents. Others can fulfill those roles. But nobody else can tell your stories. Let someone else watch G-rated movies before interviewing young people. The artist needs to fulfill his own calling of inspiration so he can tell his stories. Those stories need desperately to be told. The suffering artist helps himself by telling them: he struggles and comes to some kind of terms with his demons through them. Others who suffer like him can hear the stories and find solace that they are not alone, insight into how to deal with the tribulations, and maybe an idea of how to escape. These stories are needed. The suffering LDS artist is in a superior position to provide the blessings of great art. Other suffering artists must flail around in an environment of limited and compromised truth, searching for answers they may never find. The LDS artist has revealed truth on his side. He has the iron rod available to grasp, so he doesn't lose his way through the dark mist of tribulation. If he's willing to take it, he can show an escape route for other suffering individuals. The suffering LDS artist can mitigate the damage of the suffering by invoking the redemptive powers of the atonement. Other suffering artists may have no answers, or dark despairing answers, because they don't know where to turn, they don't understand that their sins are enslaving them, and they don't realize there is an escape route. Suffering LDS artists have the potential to produce art of the greatest kind: that which deals with the ugliness of the human condition, but offers hope through the glorious miracle of redemption. Art everywhere is teeming with Christ figures. LDS artists can create art with the greatest Christ figures of all. If we'd only let them. I'm glad George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson never had the opportunity to be Mormon bishops. What they did accomplish was essential to allowing _any_ Mormon bishops to exist. Similarly, we need to let our artists be artists, even suffering artists, so they can provide us with the unique kind of inspiration that their gift of the spirit is capable of providing. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 30 Mar 2003 11:04:47 -0700 Richard Dutcher wrote: > I wonder how entrenched this model has become in our storytelling. I have > read very little popular LDS fiction. Is this a common character/relationship > model? Yes. > Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in our > personal relationships? I don't know. Certainly the stories reveal something about the beliefs and assumptions about personal relationships that those authors have chosen to explore. They reveal that somewhere within the broad culture there is a pattern that these authors have either chosen to expose or at least that these authors felt needed to be exaggerated for fictional effect. I'm not sure we have a large enough cross section in our literature to make broad social or cultural assumptions based on the limited number of titles that have been published. From where I sit it's still the Mormons who want to grind an axe of some kind that are telling their stories (admitting that axe-grinding may be a characteristic of all storytellers), so the fact that a lot of stories seem to feature weak men suggests to me that a voice that wants to portray weak men has taken the most active storytelling role over the past few years. The fact that Mormon literature is still dominated by the northern Utah/southern California contingent (with a growing Arizona flavor) suggests to me that places with high densities of Mormons can create chafes and barbs and frustrations that don't always travel well to other contexts. Then again, some of the stories do transcend the Mormon Corridor of the American west. It seems to me that most of the Mormon men who write character-study fiction are also the kind of men who question some of the stereotypes of the last generation or so and are trying to explore alternative possibilities. Perhaps trying to show other Mormon men that there's plenty of room for repentance and change, and that priesthood is not a shield against personal responsibility to look inside ourselves and see how we need to become better than we have been. Perhaps some have gone too far and focused on emasculated men who feel powerless in a rapidly changing world--a very real condition for men not much older than me who have watched public discourse change over the last few decades to become very critical of male power and ego. Powerful men who live their lives without doubt are a cliche. Part of the backlash is to then show men as the essential opposite of the cliche--aka, powerless and childish and requiring a strong hand to help them find peace. I don't think either the cliche or the backlash tell us so much about how people actually perceive the world as it reveals some of the issues that chafe right now. Which is to say that the allegedly emasculated man is just as much a fictional construct as the overly powerful man was; most fiction exaggerates for effect and to reveal some of the assumptions and potentials we have that we may not have recognized. > Has the Mormon male been neutered? I don't know what this means. In some stories--certainly. In others he's been endowed with superhuman masculinity. >From my perspective men in general, and Mormon men in particular, remain in the position of power and authority in our culture. Those in power are scary. To deal with scary power structures, many writers either take characters over the top into stereotyped, unthinking icons of power or reduce the traditional power figure to something far less scary and perhaps even a bit pitiable. The intent is to break the complacency, to create and depict other models of behavior so that people make choices of their own rather than accepting the well-established ruts (no pun intended) set up by generations past. Has the Mormon male been neutered? Sometimes--and with good reason. Mormon men have enough history of spraying their world with testosterone that a little figurative emasculation seems not only fair, but prescriptively useful. > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? I don't. But I do perceive that men can and ought to shut up and listen sometimes. Taking input, listening attentively, and caring how events and conditions affect others is not something men have been historically been good at--and certainly not within the Church. Men have tended to go do what they thought was right without appearing to concern themselves with how women felt about it. But the pendulum does swing. As some of us try to learn to listen and create a unity with our wives and with women in general, sometimes we do go too far the other way into inactivity or even a mild paralysis of fear. Some have taken the shift as an excuse to justify their inherent laziness--something I think is inherent to humans, and not specially centered in men. But since men still largely have the power, men become the unusually common object of reimagination. > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about their > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? That men can actually change who they are by an exercise of will? That's we can come of age even after we've aged? That finding and keeping the love of a woman is something many men would give up their whole lives and personas to do? I don't mean to sound flippant, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. All of us should be actively recreating who are every day of our lives--it seems to me that's kind of the whole point of repentence and the extraordinary events that have gone into making it possible for nearly everyone. If, in the process of trying to figure out how best to do that, some writers have focused on a set of issues that they perceive as important--and largely unaddressed in the culture--then that reveals that some writers perceive a problem and are trying to figure out what it means. So they speculate, they depict, they offer strawmen and dare others to respond. If there's only one note being played in Mormon literature then we need to start offering other notes. I don't see the great emasculation in Mormon literature. A change in portrayal, certainly. But literature almost never portrays things as they really are. From my perspective literature reflects the concerns of a generation as they're in the process of trying to address those concerns. To me a modified form of Shroedinger's Cat applies--the instant we write it down, the event becomes a static element of the past, a dated observation that interprets what can no longer be called current. Yes, I think understanding of the masculine role is changing--which implies that the old models are being discarded. I think men are being forced to give up a lot of the power they have traditionally held, with the goal of creating that more even distribution of both capability and responsibility that should have existed all along. If sharing power means neutering, then I believe men are being neutered--to their benefit. If being neutered means that we're losing the ability for self-determination and the power to create the world we want to live in, then I don't accept the premise. Changed, yes; powerless, no. Not by a long shot. It's never been an either/or proposition, in my opinion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DAVIS, "The Other Side of Heaven" (Deseret News) Date: 31 Mar 2003 01:57:06 +0000 Deseret News Friday, March 28, 2003 'Other Side of Heaven' themes receive Disney label validation By Chris Hicks Deseret News feature editor Mitch Davis doesn't really think of "The Other Side of Heaven" as a "Mormon movie," and he hopes the rest of the world will feel the same way. It's a film with universal themes, Davis says - themes that reach out to a wider audience. The characters in the film just happen to be Mormons. That would also seem to be the feeling of Walt Disney Home Entertainment, which is distributing "Heaven" on DVD and videotape next Tuesday, April 1. And that's no April Fool's joke. "It will be in every Wal-Mart and Blockbuster and Hollywood Video (across the country)," Davis said during an interview from Southern California on his cell phone. What's more, it's going out under the "Walt Disney" label! "Outside of the movie business, people may not realize what that means," Davis said, referring to how the company is extremely protective of the Disney name, and often releases its many video titles under other labels, such as Buena Vista Home Entertainment. "The folks in the home-video department said, 'This is pretty amazing.' They were shocked and pleasantly surprised." It's quite a validation for the writer-director, who put his heart and soul into the movie, which relates the LDS missionary experiences in Tonga of young John H. Groberg (now a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). And he isn't finished yet. As the film makes its home-video debut next week, Davis is preparing to take "Heaven" out to the rest of the world =97 a job that will keep him occupied for another six months to a year. "I've had a lot to do with marketing and distribution. The movie did really well at AFM (the American Film Market, where distributors gather to purchase independent movies for release all over the world). "We're taking it worldwide theatrically and on video and on TV," Davis said. "I've been especially surprised at the number of Muslim countries that have bought the movie." Excel Entertainment's list of countries - so far - that have purchased "Heaven" for theatrical, video, television or other viewing rights, numbers 73, and includes Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iran, Iraq and many others. In May, Davis will take "Heaven" to the Cannes Film Market, at the Cannes Film Festival, which should cause that list to swell. Meanwhile, he's also developing his next film at Disney, though his "Heaven" labors will keep him from taking it into production for awhile. Davis also did an audio commentary for the "Other Side of Heaven" DVD, which, to his surprise, turned into a rather spiritual experience. "When I went into the booth, they just showed the movie and said, 'Talk,' and every time I started, I couldn't help but recall the personal, spiritual experiences that helped make the movie. I tried to shy away from that, but when I was done, I realized I'd been bearing my testimony on the audio commentary that Disney was now going to release. "The interesting thing was, five co-producers and engineers all said thank you. It was clear that they'd been moved by some of the things I had discussed. I mention that because I think a lot of people are looking for inspiration, for a reaffirmation of their faith. And Disney is putting out the movie, and it has this audio commentary that says there is a God, and he loves us, and he answers prayers. That's pretty amazing." Davis also feels strongly that there is a large contingent of potential moviegoers in the world hungering for such movies. "Mormons in Utah are not the only people who really, really wish there were more well-crafted family-friendly movies out there. And, surprisingly, there are a lot of people in Hollywood who wish there were more." He also has what he describes as a "pet peeve" about the way the LDS audience looks at movies with LDS themes. "The hardest group to convince that this is not a Mormon movie is the Mormons themselves. For us to think that only Mormons can understand our movies is like saying only Mormons can understand the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. "We've got to make movies that reach or surpass the standards of the world stage, and we've got to have the guts to pay the price to be on that stage. We should make no apologies for what we are and who we are and how we behave. If we sit on the sidelines and allow others to define who and what we are, we shouldn't be surprised when caricatures of ourselves permeate the media." 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 31 Mar 2003 08:08:55 -0700 Robert Slaven wrote: > But I do think our democracies would be a lot better off if > people would actually *think* about political issues, rather than *feel* > about them, IYKWIM. Nothing frustrates me more (as a citizen and as a > politician) than someone whose basis for political argument is raw emotion, > especially when he/she has his/her facts wrong. But that's the way the > world turns, and we can't avoid it here or anywhere. Given that all literature is political, I would argue that you can also say that all politics is emotional, and I question whether it's possible to discuss politics dispassionately. The emotional response is part of the political response and has to be taken into account and dealt with. "The facts" are as subject to interpretation as anything else; it's common practice to ignore the facts that don't bolster one's own argument--resulting in either intellectual dishonesty or emotional sifting of opposing facts as unreliable. I would argue that the basis for decision-making may be (essentially) intellectural, but the basis for action is almost always emotional. We act when the moment "feels" right, and hopefully our acts are informed by our careful thought and study. But I don't think you can separate emotion from politics any more than you can separate politics from literature--or any other communication intended for an audience other than oneself. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Yale Conference on Mormonism Date: 31 Mar 2003 10:13:06 -0800 For an amazing article on the recent Mormon studies conference at Yale, follow the link below to Meridian Magazine's online article! Travis Manning ************************************ Meeting of the Minds: Groundbreaking Gathering of Scholars on Mormonism at Yale This past weekend, the stage of religious history and philosophical scholarship was visited in the form of an unprecedented conference at Yale Divinity School in New Haven, Connecticut entitled “God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History.” By Mark Martin Link below: http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=351d947c34541561c1113a2b569 a5532&lat=1049133963&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eldsmag%2ecom%2fchurchupd ate%2f030331yale%2ehtml -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 31 Mar 2003 11:15:32 -0700 I'm very interested in this question of conservative literary theory, = though I've felt constrained from joining this thread because, well, I'm = not a conservative. Here's where I see conservative literary theory right = now, though I think it's not what you're thinking of; it's actually more a = fundamentalist literary theory. It's a theory based on the notion that = there exits an absolute one-on-one correlation between what one reads (or = reads) and what one does. I think of William Bennett, for example, and = the Book of Virtues. The theory there seems to be that there exist = certain canonized texts, 'classics,' which are called classics because = they clearly and unmistakably set our for us certain absolute moral = principles. Read the text, apply its moral to your life, and you're a = better person, and we're a better society. And most contemporary = literature doesn't have that, so it's best dismissed as exemplifying = 'moral relativism.' =20 Okay, I'm setting up Bennett as a straw man, and attacking his book (which = I've not read all the way through, though I have started reading it a = couple of times) and conservative theory along with it, and that's not a = nice thing to do. But guys like Michael Medved are just that boneheaded, = and when he comes to speak at BYU, he's SRO in our biggest house.=20 Now, let me also acknowledge of course that there's a lot of boneheaded = Marxist, Marxist feminist, radical feminist, radical lesbian feminist, = post-colonialist, Marxist post-colonialist and radical lesbian Marxist = post-colonialist feminist criticism floating around the academy these = days. I yield to no one in my admiration for the infinite ability of = academics to write idiotically. But that criticism, a lot of the bad = stuff, comes out of the same place that Bennett seems to me to be coming = from. I see it all the time in professonal organizations I belong to: = papers that point out that David Mamet is clearly a sexist pig, because he = doesn't write very interesting female characters anyway, and besides he = wrote Oleanna, a play in which a professor gets fired because of a false = accusation by a feminist student, so he's a bad guy, so we can't let our = students read him or they're going to catch that oh-so-virulent sexist pig = virus. I'm not kidding; I've heard papers that bad. But the point is, = they're coming from the same critical stance really that Bennett is, at = least in my probably reductive and simplistic opinion.=20 Point in part is, for a lotta folks, when you write 'conservative literary = theory' they read 'reactionary fundamentalist literary theory.' I mean, = conservatism is in part cultural, a reaction against certain presumably = retrograde cultural trends that can easily (and not always inaccurately) = be demonized as 'anti-family.' We see it a lot in film criticism, or = television criticism. In Mormon cultural circles, there's a lot of = anti-TV rhetoric and a lot of anti-Hollywood rhetoric; it even surfaced = here, on the List, when we got into the R-rated movie thread (which = believe me I don't want restarted). Like it or not, that rhetoric is = usually labeled 'conservative.' Bill Bennett is usually labeled a = 'conservative cultural critic.' =20 If y'all don't want to go there, and I sense you don't, you need to = clarify that position. There are actual ideas behind the ideology which = we call political conservatism. Those ideas could well provide the = philosophical basis for literary criticism. So who are you citing? = 'Liberal' criticism, I gather, is the stuff derived from Derrida and = Foucault and Althuzzer and them thar guys. Real philosophers, whose ideas = have very broad implications and applications, which is why post-modern = and post-structuralist ideas permeate every part of the academy. So who = are your guys? Camille Paglia, maybe? She's a self-declared pagan and = lesbian, but she loathes Foucault and is not an uninteresting thinker. = Levinas? But be careful there, we lefties have already claimed him. =20 Interesting project, though. Keep us posted. Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Sugar Beet Readership (Comp 1) Date: 01 Apr 2003 23:58:14 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From BJ@bjrowley.com Fri Mar 28 18:26:33 2003 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Does anyone know any explanations for this? Are there >really that many people interested in Mormon satire in Virginia, or is there >some other reason why the statistics would skew that way? > > Might have something to do with that quasi-LDS college over there. Maybe the students have discovered and shared in big numbers or something. -BJ Rowley >From lajackson@juno.com Fri Mar 28 22:07:13 2003 aol.com probably equals Virginia. Did your report include domain names? If I were to hit the Beet from work, for example, the report say I came from one of four different states, depending on which of the four gateways my server at work chose as being less busy at the time. And if I were to hit it from home, the domain would be NetZero. I don't even know which state they call home, but it is a national service, as well. But what it really means is that you never know who your readers are, or where they come from, or who is going to like what you wrote, or whether or not the literary tie-in on an AML post will truly be meaningful. Ah, the joys of authorship. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com >From katie@aros.net Fri Mar 28 23:38:24 2003 There's that little private LDS college (not Church-owned) out that way. Is that in Virginia? Maybe they had to read it for class or something... I'm with you. Those numbers are pretty surprising. --Katie Parker >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Sat Mar 29 19:29:29 2003 I'm going from pure memory here, which as we all know is highly unreliable after 40...but isn't there some sort of BYUwannabe little college out there in Virginia? A private college with LDS values? My kids got literature from it when they graduated from high school...but maybe it's not Virginia at all. If 'twere true, you might find The Sugar Beet is creating a cult at a small LDS institution of higher learning. One possiblity. Kim Madsen >From tmanning.eagle@sisna.com Sat Mar 29 22:09:53 2003 Is there a contingent of Mormon satire lovers at the up-and-coming Southern Virginia University in Buena Vista, Virginia? Perhaps they're skewing the numbers. You might consider approaching some university presses that also publish literary mags as a possible publisher, be they in Utah or no. There are hundreds of university presses. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 31 Mar 2003 12:52:42 -0600 For once I'm not entirely sure what Eric's getting at here (more my fault than his I'm sure) but here's two cents' worth on the subject line. The urge to write fiction based on the Book of Mormon goes all the way back to the original home literature of the 1880s and 1890s. Off the top of my head I can tell you about two serialized novels in the youth periodicals that were based on the Book of Mormon. In fact, they were both based on the same story from the BofM: Corianton--the guy who was supposed to be a missionary but went after a harlot. Even more interesting, one of those stories is by no less a figure than B.H. Roberts himself. Most people don't know that he was one of the early voices in favor of developing "home literature" at a time when there was still much hysterical suspicion of any kind of fiction within Mormondom. Roberts' story attempts a high-minded literary tone and focuses on the tragic aspects of the story. It's definitely "masculine" in tone and theme. The other novel appeared in the Young Woman's Journal, penned by some anonymous author (not Susa Young Gates for once) under a pseudonym. It's definitely feminine. It goes on for several installments through all the melodrama and passion of which any self-respecting 19th century woman writer was capable. The main character is a woman. She's in love with Corianton. When he goes off, she marries another, faithful guy out of duty. But then he dies and Corianton comes back and repents and they end up together. So, in Mormon terms, she's sealed to the "good" guy for all eternity, but she gets to sleep with the "exciting" guy for this life. Not bad. And totally without any basis in the original text (as was Roberts' story, to be fair). Anyway, I thought it was interesting that Corianton would be the story they chose to write about, with its sensational possibilities. It makes perfect sense, though, when you consider that during this period they were extremely concerned about the lack of worthy young men for the women to marry and the perception that too many were marrying outside the faith. The general consensus was that the youth were all going to the dogs and now that polygamy was no longer an option, the righteous young women were going to have to resign themselves to lives of spinsterhood. All of which has little to do with Eric's post, but does point up the fact that the Book of Mormon provides a wealth of material that can be adapted to whatever cultural concerns are current. How do you think the Corianton story would look if one of us novelized it today? What are some other BofM stories that might lend themselves to fictional treatment? Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 31 Mar 2003 11:55:56 -0700 (MST) Jacob Profitt said: "I think it might be harder to do conservative literary theory because conservative theory doesn't fracture or focus very well." My Response: Not as hard as you would think. Politically based literary criticism mostly involves selecting texts for analysis which reflect one's ideological perspective or analyzing a text to reveal the ideological undercurrents of it. Obviously, in this regard, some texts are going to be more fruitful to analyze than others. For example, Gilman's Yellow Wallpaper and Chopin's Awakening lend themselves nicely to Feminist interpretations, but not much else. As my wife says, the secret to looking good in a hat is never put on a hat you don't look good in. The so-called classics of literature, on the other hand, are open to a large variety of interpretive trajectories. For example, when I teach critical theory I sometimes use just one primary text, usually something like WS's King Lear or Hamlet, and approach it from a dozen different directions. Conservative literary criticism would come under the rubric of moral and philosophical criticism. To be sure, as Jacob pointed out, there is a lot more Liberal and Leftist criticism around than Conservative, but only because the profession (of teaching and analyzing literature) is infested with Leftist and Liberals. Now you would think that this would not be so in the LDS community, which is generally percieved as being dominated by a conservative political ideology, but unfortunately the literary enterprise is a beach where many LDS Liberals and Leftists wash ashore, having been shipwrecked elsewhere. Jacob asid that Conservative theory "doesn't fracture or focus very well." Actually, it does, and those lines are mostly religious, since traditional religion is generally a conservative political force. This is why you can talk about an LDS, Catholic, Protestatnt, and Jewish critical perspective. The central question asked by the reader or critic is "What does this text say to the LDS reader?" "What religious or social values does it reinforce or challenge?" Finally, concerning Marxist criticism, we should be aware that it is interested in looking at economic and social issues on the theoretical lines suggested by Karl Marx, and in this regard it is not the same things as advocating the political movement which has come to be known historically as communism. Therefore, we can have BYU professors lioke Dan Muhlestein and Mike Austin who do Marxist criticism with no sense of ideological disjunct. Fred Pinnegar GE and Honors, BYU -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 31 Mar 2003 14:15:52 -0800 << redemption and humor, all together, all there. I think we can glory in art, and also quite properly denounce dreadful behaviors practiced by artists. See The Pianist, for example, and revel in its complexity and beauty. And also not want to give Roman Polanski an Oscar for it. Which the Academy did, the same year they also gave one to Michael Moore, all the time recoiling from his utterly predictable--for him--Oscar speech. Eric Samuelsen >> Why give not him an Oscar, then, if it's such a great film? (I haven't seen it, I'm taking your word for it. :) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 31 Mar 2003 18:54:17 -0800 > > >>PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? >> One of Anita Stansfield's books deals with date rape at BYU. I thought it was very well written. (can't remember the title) After reading these posts, I can't help but wonder if it's one of the ones that DB banned, or if it's still on the shelf. Anybody know? -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] Call for Papers - Mormon Lit in the 21st century Date: 31 Mar 2003 12:16:35 -0700 Mormon Literature in the 21st century will be discussed at the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association's annual conference to be held at Missoula, Montana on Oct 9-11, 2003, in a session sponsored by the Association for Mormon Letters.=20 Mormon literature is a thriving ethnic literature both within and beyond = the Mountain West, and we invite perspectives on the growth and significance = of this literature in its various genres. Papers addressing specific works, genres or authors, including films and filmmakers, are all invited, as = are papers dealing with the cultural contexts for producing or interpreting imaginative writing by Mormons or about Mormon experience.=20 Please submit a proposal for a speech of 20 minutes length to the = session chair, Gideon Burton, by April 15th. Presenters must become members of = RMMLA in order to be on the program. For details about RMMLA and the = conference, visit http://rmmla.wsu.edu/conferences/. Gideon O. Burton, President The Association for Mormon Letters 3113 JKHB Department of English Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3525 Visit The Mormon Literature Database http://MormonLit.lib.byu.edu -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 31 Mar 2003 22:34:51 -0500 At 05:54 PM 3/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: >--- Eric Russell wrote: > > I think there's a lot more out there. Anyone else have any ideas towards > > a > > conservative literary theory? I don't know exactly how this would be classified, but in the dissertation I'm gearing up to write I'm going to try to make a case for a "return with difference" to a more conservative (read: less deconstructionist, less ironic) mode of reading and writing literature, especially in (Caribbean and Latino) border cultures of the Americas. A return, in that I want to reassert the humanity in literature (against, say, the move toward the cyber/post-human in the most extreme branches of cultural studies) but with a difference (ie, not just a resurrection of New Criticism or religious essentialism). I'm still just working out the broad strokes of what this might look like (read: I don't quite have a thesis yet), but my aim (though I'm rather surprised to admit it) would be considered conservative, I'd think. Any thoughts? :) Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _Stones_ at Center Street Theatre Date: 31 Mar 2003 21:56:05 -0700 Please do whatever it takes to see The Nauvoo Theatrical Society's = presentation of Scott Bronson's play _Stones_at Center Street Theatre at = 50 W. Center Street in Orem. I saw the play in Springville at the = Little Brown Theatre and was moved by the splendid performance of the = three actors--Elwon Bakly, J. Scott Bronson and Kathryn Laycock Little. = I was doubly moved with the performance at Center Street Theatre, = because the set was stunning. The set, lighting and music created the = perfect mood for this beautifully written and performed play. _Stones_ = consists of two one-act plays performed in repertory. The first play, = _Altars_ is based on the story of Abraham and Isaac and their journey to = the top of Mt. Moriah. The second play, _Tombs_ inquires into the = relationship between Jesus and his mother, Mary. I can't begin to tell = you what a meaningful theater experience you will have if you make the = effort to see this play. Explore the precious gift of motherhood, = fatherhood and childhood. You will approach your Easter celebration = this year with much more appreciation and insight than ever before. The = play is universal and has a message for everyman. Scott Bronson, = missionary man, has reached a pinnacle of perfection with this piece = that few of us will equal. Would that we all could leave this earth = with a legacy so profound. The play runs through April 26. Call (801) 225-3800 for tickets. Nan McCulloch Draper, UT -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Sugar Beet Readership Date: 01 Apr 2003 05:55:31 -0500 I believe the explanation is AOL, which has its network hq in Northern Virginia. This puts all AOL users there artificially. Many Internet service providers have at least some kind of connection there. No. VA is the location of MAE East, one of the major Internet hubs. I'm afraid what you're seeing is artificial. Its simply very difficult to place actual geographic locations with users. Kent -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 31 Mar 2003 22:20:43 -0800 Travis K. Manning said: "There is an unwritten contract that exists between writers and readers of literary nonfiction (I am distinguishing literary nonfictive genres like memoir and personal essay, from 'straight' nonfiction like autobiography and most journalism). This unwritten contract requires the writer of literary NF to be as exacting and detailed as is possible." I believe the exact opposite to be true. Travis' comments are correct, but completly reversed, so I have probably misunderstood him, and I suspect it is I that got confused. But to make sure, I'll restate it how I see it, and we'll see if there is agreement or not. It is Journalism and Autobiography which are the more exacting and detailed sub-genres and which include the "unwritten contract" mentioned above. This is most obviously so in the case of journalism. Conversely, in that genre that is most often called "literary" non-fiction, the specific use of the qualifying adjective "LITERARY" immediately suggests to readers that a writer may be using more lee-way in his descrition of facts, hence "literary", in other words "literary license." It has never been socially understood that the personal essay is more exacting in truthful content than the journalism article; it has never been socially understood that the so-called "memoir" is more exacting in detail than the so-called "autobiorgraphy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. This is not to suggest that literary non-fiction should not strive for an application of verity. It just suggests that the understood social contracts for the mediums are reversed. Journalism, scientific texts, scholarly non-fiction, biography, etc., are the most precicely accurate sub-genres of the form. So-called "literary non-fiction", belletristic memoirs, personal essays (more often than not statements of opinions having little or no nessessary connection to verifiable facts) are the least precicely accurate sub-genres of the form: hence thier being called "literary". Manning then goes on to describe "A few basic rules." I won't re-quote them, but all of his rules are perfectly applicable to "straight non-fiction," especially history, biography, scholarly essay, journalism. However, the rules he describes would be, if liberally applied, the absolute death-knell to any more "literary" or belletristic non-fiction. Anyone who has read a great deal of the more literary sub-genre will see that authors of the same almost never indulge in the more journalistically required "rules" that Manning suggests. Manning states: "As the writer of literary NF, you want > the reader to trust that what you are saying is, in fact, true. So don't > violate that writer-reader obligation to be truthful." I am prabably quibbling over semantics here, but this, again, is a description (using his own definitions) of "straight" or journalistic non-fiction, not "literary" non-fiction. In belletristic or "literary" non-fiction, the goal is not to present facts that the reader trusts are true. The goal is to create a sense of realism and a literary equivalency of recognition in the reader, to move the reader emotionally though the power of the literary art in exactly the same way that fiction can, but to do so using non-fiction events or personal history as the launching board. This is why the sub-genre must be called "literary non-fiction," because it is so much more like literature than journalism. Nobody expects a memoir ("Angela's Ashes" for example) to be as precicely truthful in its recollections as, say, Time Magazine. But then again, nobody is as moved by a journalistic news weekly as they are by the literary non-fiction of Frank McCourt. And this is not to say that Frank is lying or making things up. But thank goodness he does not go around citing his sources, qualifying whether conversations were recorded or transcribed from memory, or checking his dates and facts! It would kill the narrative flow and turn the work into a scholarly autobiography instead of a literary memoir. Both forms are laudible, but they have completly different goals. Manning's "rules," as stated, would disallow a McCourt-like memoir, which I don't think he wants to do. Memoirs are written like novels, not biographies. They do not follow any journalistic rules and there is no "unwritten contract" that they be more truthful "at all costs". The reason that this is so is that the "cost" of such "truthfulness" would be a loss of literary power, narrative flow and emotional effect, destroying the very raison d'etre of "literary non-fiction," and none of the most successful authors of the genre are willing to pay that price. If truth must suffer to establish greater literary power or effect, then it does, and I can think of about a dozen writers of "literary non-fiction" who do it time and time again (the two published McCourt brothers, Bryson, Dillard, Mailer, to name a few modern ones, and Montaigne, Rousseau, Thoreau, Hemingway and Mark Twain, to name a few classic ones.) Once again: this is not to say that literary non-fiction is not FACT-BASED. It is. And I am not disagreeing that it should be. Quite the contrary, it is factual (that's why it is called nonfiction). When we cross a certain line, it becomes autobiographical fiction. When literary non-fiction stops being fact-based altogether, or even when it substantially fictionalizes or imagines large or important sections within the fact-based telling, it shifts gears into a different genre: the non-fiction novel (Mailer, Capote, Talese, I think, are famous examples of this). But there are two different kinds of "truthfullness" at work. The journalist is more skewed to an interest in "factual truth," while the creative non-fiction writer is more skewed towards an interest in "human truth." Carolyn Forche and Philip Gerard, two teachers and writers in the genre edited an excellent compilation addressing the form in 2001 called: "Writing Creative Nonfiction". In their introductory essay on the subject, entitled "Creative Nonfiction: An Adventure in Lyric, Fact, and Story" they make some intersting points, which I quote below: "Crative nonfiction has emerged in the last few years as the province of factual prose that is also literary -- infused with the stylistic devices, tropes, and rhetorical flourishes of the best fiction and the most lyrical of narrative poetry. It is fact-based writing that remains compelling, undiminished by the passage of time, that has at heart an interest in enduring human values: foremost to accuracy, to truthfullness. "Its very literariness distinguishes this writing from deadline reportage, daily journalism, academic criticism, and critical biography. It is storytelling of a very high order -- thorugh the revelation of character and the suspense of plot, the subtle braiding of themes, rhythms and resonance, memory and imaginative research, precise and original language, and a narrative stance that is intelligent, humble, questioning, distinctive, individual and implicitly alert to the world." I can't think of a better definition than that! But the "truthfullness" in this definition is explained as the most "human" kind of truthfulness, often not pressent in mear reportage. One of the interesting aspects of this genre, which Theric Jepson and I have been exploring privatly in our own works (and In an exchange of e-mails) is the concept of "the self as a character." In the book I quote from above, essayist Phillip Lopate addresses this very thing in an essay entitled "Writing Personal Essays: On the Necessity of Turning Oneself Into a Character". My contention is that an element of fiction enters into the work inherently at this point, and that this fictional aspect is OKAY, in fact, essential. It is an expected convention of the genre. Hence my philisophical differences with the "rules" proposed by Manning. They miss an essential and facinating aspect of this genre's true power, not its distance from fictional writing, but how CLOSE TO FICTIONAL WRITING IT REALLY COMES -- WHILE REMAINING FACTUAL. The more I work in the genre, the more interested I am, critically, in the emphasized sentence above, discovering where those subtle boundries intersect and overlap. And I believe that serious readers of the genre must also be aware of that dangerous, but exciting, duality. In both fiction and nonfiction the key to generating literary excitiment is the concept of "dramatizing" the story. In ficition, we "dramatize" by making stuff up, or at least making them a lot more exciting than they might be if told in a different fashion. In literary non-fiction, however, the act of dramatization does not mean to blatantly fictionalize (tell lies), but it does mean that we must selectively represent the truth in such as way as to hone in on or extract from the real story the most dramatic elements, and shape them in such a way as to derive from them a power not nessessaily inherent in the event itself. Sunset on red rocks, for example, may not be particularly enlightening. But when Terry Tempest Williams is done with it, you've gone on a journey! My point is that this sunset may not have been the world's greatest sunset at all. But it is the writer's infusion of artistic elements, the use of the focusing power of the writer's art to pull from even the most mudane, elements of the sublime, that we achieve a sense of FACTUAL FICTIONALIZATION. We do not cross the line and invent a second sun rising on a different planet (fiction). We are feet firmly planted on earth and stick with one simple sunset (fact). But the creative element, the literary element, extrudes from this sunset every ounce of its power. And in that exercise and achievement, readers are simply not even remotly interested in factual truth; they are absolutely interested in human truth. Did the writer get it RIGHT? Do we RECOGNIZE it? And that is why the list of journalistic rules do not apply, in a broad sense, to this genre. In my opinion. Jongiorgi Enos P.S. As a side-note, so that Travis knows my differing opinions are semantic and not personal, I should like to point out that (while it didn't enter into my comments regarding his argument) I completely agree with his theory that there was probably an officially signed document at King Benjamin's people's conversion and covenant and that all the people signed onto, agreed and therefore "said" the same thing or were "one" in thought. I think Travis is right on with that supposition. That is a very perceptive intuition, well thought-out and exciting to contemplate. Bravo. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Covers Date: 01 Apr 2003 06:59:24 -0700 Jamie Lualusa wrote: . I do not yet have a copy with a pretty cover, but if anyone=20 wants to remedy that situation... Send it to me and I'll put a nice cover on it. No charge. I use = Japanese sewn bind on paperbacks I want to preserve. It keeps the paper = cover from getting folded or torn and the spine remains visible. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 01 Apr 2003 09:31:10 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > > ___ Johngiorgi ___ > | ...the restored gospel uses culture [19th Century American > | Puritanical Conservatism] derived from apostate theology > | as the basis for its own culture? > ___ > > Well, as *elements* of its culture. But of course one could say the > same about any period of the gospel. How much was the culture of Jesus > influenced by the fact they were occupied by Rome and had been highly > Hellenized? Don't we acknowledge that this had an effect on the content > and rhetoric of the scriptures? Didn't the same thing happen to > Abraham? To Moses? To Isaiah? Is it pure coincidence that many Psalms > appear to have been borrowed/modified from Babylonian hymns? Much the > same way many of our own hymnals have songs from Protestantism? > > This really isn't that surprising. No, it's not surprising, but I don't think Jon was complaining that there are external cultural influences on LDS culture. I think he was complaining that Mormons don't differentiate between cultural influence and official doctrine. Which is also my complaint. For example, here's what many Saints would say if they found out their elders quorum instructor had gone skinnydipping at a nearby hot spring. "That's evil--he shouldn't have done that." Instead of saying: "The aversion to nudity is a cultural influence based on an apostate belief. I was raised to be uncomfortable with nudity, so I don't want to do it, but if my elders quorum instructor indulged in a little innocent, nonsexual skinnydipping, what's that to me?" -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 01 Apr 2003 09:33:26 -0700 Robert Slaven wrote: > PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? I'd love to see some. Hi Listers! I'm still lurking. (Trying hard to keep from getting involved with all of your wonderfully intelligent discussions so that I can concentrate on my writing, but I do read them rapidly and find you all fascinating!) But I just can't help responding to this post. Yes, BRIGHAM CITY is "fiction" (though film) and it's about rape. We do close our eyes to it, and wish it would go away. Sexual abuse is rampant right now. There has been a streak of acceptance of sex outside of "lawful commitment" in films, tv, art, that has fed promiscuity. AS Brigham Young said, we can portray evil if we call it evil. We have certainly ceased to call sex outside of law and certain "bounds" "evil." Most romances in today's world culminate in the sexual act upon the first flush of infatuation. Most films promote the idea that you are stupid to adhere to the old mores. And it is the promotion and focus upon sex that is poisoning our society. (Not sex itself, which is great, but the misappropriation of it.) Yes, Robert, as I write the novel, (I'm on page 120 and haven't even reached the screen play yet) I am dealing with sexual promiscuity, child abuse, and rape in Richard Dutcher's outstanding film BRIGHAM CITY. There could be more LDS literature dealing with it (if hopefully Deseret Book would allow it on the shelf). We as a people cannot ignore it. The Elizabeth Smart debacle is just one of thousands of problems. And like Wes Clayton in the film, we often find ourselves over-trusting or uncomfortably looking away. When it hits so many times in your own experiences with acquaintances and family you get a knee jerk! Profoundly! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 01 Apr 2003 09:45:22 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > _True Lies_ notwithstanding, James Cameron always has had strong female > characters. (And even there the film was partially about the > transformation of the Jamie Lee Curtis character into an empowered > woman, despite some underlying misogyny) Something I've always admired > in him. One could argue, as I mentioned, that some shows have tried > this. i.e. _Charlies Angels_. _Charlie's Angles_ explored the empowerment of bimbos, not women. > _Aliens_ was amazing because it was a fully empowered female, but one > that still recognized some gender differences. Indeed the underlying > theme of the movie was motherhood. The final battle is the battle > between two mothers - Ripley with her adopted daughter and the Alien and > her brood. What was so fascinating to me was how Cameron managed to > make Ripley powerful *without* simply adopting a male view of > empowerment. > Compare this to what Cameron does in _Terminator 2_. There the mother > character is dehumanized by adopting a masculine view of female > empowerment. She has rejected her motherhood to prepare her son, thus > adopting a kind of stereotype of fatherhood over motherhood. It sounds like you're implying that the _Aliens_ empowerment was superior to the _Termintaor 2_ empowerment. Maybe from the point of view of social engineering, but from a literary point of view, both are equally desirable. The empowerment of Ripley in _Aliens_ was true to character. The empowerment of Sarah in _Terminator 2_ was also true to that character and the correct sort of empowerment to use in that film. Leadership was forced upon her, and leadership was a foreign concept to her up to that point. She dealt with it by going to the extreme: becoming strong in a masculine, stereotypical way. For Ripley, leadership was already a part of her character, and it was better integrated into her whole human identity. She could be strong and gently nurturing at the same time without falling out of character. It took a crisis of conscience for Sarah to rediscover some of her gentler side. Both characters are excellent ones. Both contribute to a film literature that encourages the empowerment of women. Even Curtis in _True Lies_ fits this mold. There _are_ weak women who are treated condescendingly by men. To have one in a film, then have her discover empowerment, is a great thing. That's how literature should be. We don't want across-the-board Ripley's in all our stories. That would be nothing more than a politically correct swing to the opposite extreme. We want literature that represents the whole spectrum of human experiences, with each story addressing one small part of that spectrum. We even need stories that show weak women remaining weak women throughout their lives, because they exist. What we don't want is too much of one representation throughout the literature. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 31 Mar 2003 22:02:59 -0600 At 12:32 AM 3/28/03, you wrote: >Not to put down Linda's writing, but the last days kind of speculation >doesn't excite me. (I like her book because of the story and characters, >not the speculation, which is all wrong. I know--I've seen the future >myself in my own speculations.) That's mostly all LDS spec fiction has >done so far. I almost skipped this thread, then I caught my name here. Thanks, I think? Just to make sure this is clear: DUH, my speculation is "all wrong!" I did that on purpose. Do you think I'd be dumb enough to publish what Really Will Happen? Even if I _knew??_ Argk! The last thing I need is a wide-eyed cult-following claiming I'm a prophetess and throwing flowers in my hair wherever I walk. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 01 Apr 2003 13:57:46 EST Thanks, Stephen, for bringing this film into our discussion. I saw "Kadosh" at the Tower Theater in Salt Lake back in 2000. I highly recommend the film to LDS writers and filmmakers. I don't recommend the Tower Theater, however. You'll enjoy the experience of "Kadosh" much more at home on your television screen. I agree with Stephen's conclusion that the orthodox Jewish culture is the film's antagonist. That's pretty much the only way to read the film. And I agree that the orthodox community, if they know or care about this movie, must feel angered and betrayed by the filmmaker. Was he ostracized from his community? Was the orthodox Jewish community, in fact, his community? I don't know the background of the film. What I find even more interesting than Stephen's post, is Jacob's response to Stephen's question: "Was it worth it, in the eternal scheme of things, for Gitai to have alienated himself from his spiritual community in order to create such a magnificent work of art? I mean, as far as the religious community of his youth is telling him, he's probably damned now. I wonder, has he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage? In the end, is this film, with all its power, pottage? Jacob said (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a moot question because the orthodox Jewish doctrine is wrong, the community is worshipping in falsehood, and therefor Gitai has done nothing wrong and is better off outside the community. Interesting. I see Jacob's reasoning, but I can't help recoiling at the underlying arrogance of the statement. Orthodox Judaism is as true to its adherents as Mormonism is to its most devoted adherents. The same mental and spiritual and social anguish that a Mormon feels in leaving his community is felt by the Orthodox Jew who is leaving his community. Losing faith, and losing one's community, is an emotionally violent experience. A Jewish artist/writer/filmmaker creating from his experience and faith and community deals with the same things a Mormon or a Catholic does. The dangers, the emotions, the fears, the struggles...they're the same. To the artists. To minimize another artist's experience simply because his doctrine and his community are, in our eyes, "wrong" is a dehumanizing act. By lessening his experience, we distance ourselves, we empathize less. We certainly are not comforting the afflicted or "mourning with those who mourn." I have more to say on this subject, but I have an appointment I have to get to. More later... Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 01 Apr 2003 15:25:11 -0700 . Mr. Manning's comments regarding my first scriptural example (the people of Benjamin crying as one voice) seems very likely--that King Benjamin had a written covenant the people were asked to accept and that, perhaps, they all spoke it together simultaneously. This is a very reasonable explanation, and I adopt it as my working assumption regarding these verses. As for my second example (the runners sent to investigate the alleged murder of the chief judge), I claimed that the thoughts expressed between these runners as they ran full tilt were probably the truth of their sentiments and not the actual words. If I understand his rebuttal, Mr. Manning agrees with me. What I believe he is actually taking issue with is my word choice, suggesting as I did that Mormon "got away" with something. What I suggested he "got away" with was telling the truth without using a word-for-word transcription of the runners' actual dialogue. Not that he somehow lied and invalidated the Book of Mormon or even 1/10th of that statement. I'm concerned that anyone interpreted me in this way. In fact, the whole purpose of my original post (which I thought I titled "Validity of Memory and the Book of Mormon") was that nonfiction does not mean taperecorded transcription, but actual events, honestly told. This is the contract with the reader Mr Manning spoke of, and I agree with him that Mormon never broke that contract. I don't know of any "discrepancies" in the Book of Mormon that need rectifying, and I certainly don't amuse myself by pretending I would be the one to so rectify. And that's the truth. -------------------theric jepson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 01 Apr 2003 16:06:00 -0700 >_The Runelords: Wizardborn_, by David Farland: Not only is The >Runelords series arguably the best fantasy I've ever read (I haven't >decided if I like Lord of the Rings or Alvin Maker better, and I >don't really see why I should choose.), it contains the two best >romantic subplots I have ever read in any genre (Borenson/Myrrima >being the second one). In this latest installment, Gaborn is still >trying to figure out what being the Earth King is all about, and The >Great Big Bad Guy really isn't as Big as we thought he was. When, >oh when, is the fourth book coming out? There has to be one! We >needs it. We wants it. It is our precious. The fourth book, _The Lair of Bones_, is supposed to be out in September. You know that Dave is LDS, right? And the last Alvin Maker book, _The Crystal City_, is supposed to be out in November. Yes! I can finally read the series (I stopped after the second book to wait for the series to be finished). And the sequel to Anne Perry's _Tathea_ should also be out in September. Marny Parkin [MOD: Sadness. If I understood Scott Card correctly at this year's BYU sf&f symposium, _Crystal City_ is *not* the last book in the series...] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 01 Apr 2003 20:13:09 -0500 Deborah Wager: >I even recall seeing something like it in a movie once, where a beautiful, >intelligent Woman fell for a younger, insecure boy who thought the 3 best >books ever written were the scriptures. :-) Yeah, he did get a testimony by >the end of the movie and he grew up a little, but I'd put it in the same >category. > But I seem to remember that she had some issues of her own along the lines of conciet and arrogance that she grew out of before the end of the movie. In fact, her character started out a lot like Cammie in "Single's Ward", but she got over it and was nice and I liked her a lot by the end. I think the relationship in "God's Army" was pretty nicely balanced. And I remember the line, "The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Yeah, those would definitely be my choices," as being very sarcastic. He struck me as more of a "Catch-22" sort of guy. Flippant. And he probably read Animorphs as a kid. JMO ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Hansen" Subject: RE: [AML] Words and Music Date: 01 Apr 2003 18:20:26 -0700 I enjoyed R.W.'s comments about music - but I was confused about his Wagner paraphrase, "[Wagner}observed than words and music are incomplete art without each other, that they naturally fit together to give a more complete aesthetic experience." Following which he gave a fantastic review of the Orchestra at Temple Square's recent concert which had precious few "words" involved. I'm one to believe that words and music can go together to create true communication, but that neither are necessarily "incomplete" without the other. In my view, it all depends on what you want to communicate. Music certainly is more abstract, and in that sense is more adept at communicating concepts than words. Words, while not devoide of emotion, are more suited to communicating facts than music. One of the enticements and problems with popular music today, in my opinion, is that the music itself communicates on an immature level. I compare it to having a conversation with a 13 year old boy. "How was your day?" "Fine." "What did you do?" "Nothin'." I also was at the OTC concert and echo RW's comments on the fantastic performance. Having performed with Barlow Bradford for 10 years in a different capacity, I feel a much greater understanding for the power of music, by itself, to communicate things that can only be known emotionally. The OTC performance was bittersweet for me knowing that it would be Barlow Bradford's last performance with OTC. (He didn't mention it at the concert, BTW.) It seems that the church has recently changed its policy from wanting the "finest orchestra in the world" to wanting the "finest VOLUNTEER orchestra in the world." (One wonders whether the church would ever settle for the "finest volunteer accountants" or the "finest volunteer lawyers," but that, I suppose, is another thread.) The Monday following the concert, Barlow formally resigned from the Tab Choir effective April 1. The Tab Choir's new mission statement talks about the missionary efforts of the Choir. In essence, it says that it's the dog and pony show to get missionaries in the door to teach the gospel with "words." This belies the fact that the Tab Choir and the OTC can teach the gospel very well with their music. Of course I'm not saying that we don't need FT missionaries. But rather that music can be a powerful force to communicate to people the concepts of the gospel where words fail. We need them both - combined and separate. Let me also be the first to say that I was overly optimistic several years ago when I joined this list about the new Tab Choir changes and the new church theater in the Conference Center being a new boon for arts and artists in the church. Hah! Eric Samuelsen (or should I say, Oscar Robertson :)), among others, took a definite "I'll believe it when I see it approach," and tried to limited avail to temper my enthusiasm. Unfortunately, it turned out that these concerns were all too true. Perhaps if I didn't care so much about the status of arts in the church it wouldn't have been such a blow. All is not lost by any means, but it just means that I can't see it happening under the church's institutional control. I'm glad you found a choir, RW. If you ever want to come to Salt Lake to sing, we'll save a spot for you in Utah Chamber Artists. (Who BTW are performing on May 12 at the U's Gardner Hall at 7:30. Tickets $15, $10 for students.) Dave Hansen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 01 Apr 2003 21:37:37 -0500 Jamie said: > _Mystique_, by Amanda Quick: I picked it up expecting a fantasy, and got a > sex-laden romance instead! How vexing! Mom liked it, though, she went and > got Quick's entire library. How interesting to be on the receiving end of family stories told in public. Especially ones exaggerated a bit. I believe what we actually checked out was the book-on-tape read by Barbara Rosenblat--and that is why I enjoyed listening to it. I love Barbara Rosenblat (and George Guidel). I must admit to finding explicit sex rather embarrassing to read, and even more embarrasing to listen to, though I have friends who say the steamier it is the better they like it. I listened to a couple Amanda Quick books-on-tape; I've been practically living in the car the past few months. I had a much harder time trying to read her--just not a gripping read. I had the same reaction to Harry Potter. I thought I should read the books, since all the kids were, but couldn't get past a few pages. I ended up listening to them on CD and enjoyed them quite a bit. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] FW: Kim CLEMENT, "Hole in the Roof" Date: 25 Mar 2003 15:10:25 -0700 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > > This is an unusual post. I don't know if Jonathan will find it > appropriate, but I feel it speaks directly to several of the issues that > concern the list, so I pass it along for your (all of your) judgment and > comments. Appropriate? It was one of the most appropriate messages I've ever read on this list. It's appropriate and relevant not only for LDS artists, but all LDS members generally. And to think it had to come from a Christian of other persuasion than ours. I could give this article as a sermon in sacrament meeting without changing hardly a word (including "shit", which was a powerful way to illustrate my objection to bean-counting morality). A lot of listeners would be shocked, but I think most would get the point. (And I'd probably never have to speak in sacrament meeting again.) This article has also fired me up to get started writing the next novel I've been planning. Tnat novel will accomplish much of what this article is talking about--at least _I_ think it will. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 27 Mar 2003 00:50:35 -0800 > Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives > Look at the big honkin' fuss so many people made when the Beatles came out > with 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and there was all this fuss about the > Beatles using pot or LDS or whatever. But both Berlioz' _Symphonie ^^^ Oy! Is that some kind of Freudian slip where I'm associating the gospel with hallucinogens? Or did I just have the 4th Star Trek movie running through my head? %-) Methinks I need more sleep.... ObLiterary: My wife telling me tonight that after I finish the two database contracts I'm working on, I should work more on my stories and invite her help, especially with my weakest area, dialogue. That sure came out of the blue! I've got a long-ish SF story in my head that relates to the whole Jackson County thing, and a novel about cloned prostitutes (don't ask!) that's sort of a sequel to a short story I've already written (2 rejection slips down...). We'll see if any of that bears fruit. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too For when two beings who are not friends are near each other there is no meeting, and when friends are far apart there is no separation. - Simone Weil --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/14 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: Re: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 02 Apr 2003 03:37:34 +0000 John Williams asked: I guess a more broad question might be, does someone who does not speak English have any access at all to the more complex, heterogeneous intellectual history of Mormonism that has emerged in the last fifty years? In Japanese, no. There was a intellectual Mormon journal published in 1988-2001 called "Mormon Forum" which had some translations of things going on in the English-speaking Mormon intellectual world. As one might imagine, it had a very small subscription base. The Japanese members who I have talked to about the war seem a bit confused about why the US thought it was necessary, and are very concerned, but are not actively speaking up against it at all that I can see. Kind of like the general response in Japan as a whole, there has been some protests, but not a big upsurge of opposition, like there is in other parts of the world. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Packaging of Fiction Date: 31 Mar 2003 18:30:22 -0800 Many of the older books are published in regular-sized packaging. And, as such, they are generally less expensive than their larger cousins. Sadly, some of the authors have, like Lund, become writing machines. Their books become less interesting as time goes on. I recently found the first nine volumes of the Left Behind series at DI. The first six were boxed; the other three were loose. All in mint condition. Naturally I bought them. I may even read them. I had previously read 1 1/2 of them, but can't remember much about them. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Anita STANSFIELD, _To Love Again_ (Review) Date: 31 Mar 2003 18:37:32 -0800 This review is very much appreciated. It gives me something to look for in her books. The comment below was puzzling. If Deseret Book is willing to special order books, why remove titles from their review archive? These were books sold by their outlet, and they are still willing to order them. Very curious indeed. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > The customer reviews on deseretbook.com were interesting, at least until > the book and its reviews were removed from the website. While most > customer reviewers of Stansfield's books rave about the high emotional > intensity, real life problems and solutions, and high quality of > her writing, > two of the three reviews of this book were somewhat negative. > Admittedly, two is a small number to base any sweeping judgments on, > but they are nonetheless interesting. This quote from one of > them says it > all: "This book left me feeling bothered and troubled, and left > behind it an > obvious lack of the Spirit in my home for several days." This sort of > material is something that many readers of LDS fiction just > aren't looking > for. > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 01 Apr 2003 23:14:31 -0700 I guess a more broad question >might be, does someone who does not speak English have any access at all to >the more complex, heterogeneous intellectual history of Mormonism that has >emerged in the last fifty years? > >John Williams >--UC Irvine > No. At least not in Brazil. Scriptures, the Liahona, institute manuals and a few books by Talmage. That's it. No Deseret Book materials. But then, I really don't think there would be much interest even if there were. Very few reach out to things such as the Talmage books, much less things further outside the standard circle. Very few have access to any internet connection and exceedingly few have the extra money to pay for something as peripheral as Mormon themed literature if it did exist in Portuguese. Even fewer have the academic or intellectual interest to do so even if they could. Also, church culture hasn't evolved enough that something like a "liberal Mormon" even exists. I don't think they would understand it if you tried to explain. Right now a "liberal Mormon" in South America would be someone who drinks, goes to church on occasion, and thinks "tithing" means pocket change. Sure, people have different opinions about the war, but one's opinion on the matter is about as religiously and socially significant as your favorite kind of ice cream. It doesn't mean anything. I really don't think there is currently any social demand for any such liberal or academic outlet. There might be for that random intellectual, but right now "Jesus the Christ" fulfills the needs of the intellectual fringe. Basically, if the literary Mormon community ever reaches South America, it won't be for a very long time. Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Russell" Subject: [AML] RE: New Mormon Lit Forum Date: 01 Apr 2003 23:29:27 -0700 It all sounds like a good idea. But there's something I still haven't figured out: what kind of intelligent comments really need to be said that can't be said on the AML-list? Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 01 Apr 2003 23:58:04 -0700 Yes, I love to read Camille Paglia and darn it, I love to read William F. Buckley as well. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 00:24:18 -0700 ---Original Message From: Robert Slaven > Many, many, *many* people in the world think so. They=20 > forgive Kurt Cobain for taking drugs and being unpleasant and=20 > blowing his brains out. They forgive Jimi Hendrix for=20 > smashing guitars and choking on his own vomit. They forgive=20 > Michael Jackson for being, well, Michael Jackson. And they=20 > forgive Roman Polanski for taking advantage of a 13-year-old. >=20 > Are we Mormons doomed to artistic mediocrity because we=20 > haven't had a Holocaust? Because we don't generally go out=20 > and get drunk/stoned/raped/raping/whatever on our nights off? Everybody has *some* suffering in their life. Everyone has bills to pay = and a number of unpleasant individuals in their lives. I think you need to evaluate what kind of a bar we're trying to raise here. Are we looking = for a cop-out to explain our lack? Or can we find counter-examples that = would be more instructive? Many artists didn't suffer *that* = much--Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Shakespeare. Pleasing a patron was a pain and all, but hardly something that puts them out of our reach. I don't think we need to = suffer more and I don't think we've been all that mediocre. I mean, 99% of everything produced is crap. I think we have a bit of an advantage as = only about 90% of LDS stuff is crap :) Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 01 Apr 2003 23:57:59 -0800 Lisa Tait asks: "What are some other BofM stories that might lend themselves to fictional treatment?" Some that I've thought about: Gideon Abis Hagoth Amaleki (son of Abinidom) Coriantumr vs. Shiz The wars of Captain Moroni Moroni (son of Mormon) and those pesky 40 years he wandered as a loner between his first burial of the plates and his final comments... Just to name a few. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 02 Apr 2003 01:12:32 -0700 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen >=20 > Point in part is, for a lotta folks, when you write=20 > 'conservative literary theory' they read 'reactionary=20 > fundamentalist literary theory.' I mean, conservatism is in=20 > part cultural, a reaction against certain presumably=20 > retrograde cultural trends that can easily (and not always=20 > inaccurately) be demonized as 'anti-family.' We see it a lot=20 > in film criticism, or television criticism. In Mormon=20 > cultural circles, there's a lot of anti-TV rhetoric and a lot=20 > of anti-Hollywood rhetoric; it even surfaced here, on the=20 > List, when we got into the R-rated movie thread (which=20 > believe me I don't want restarted). Like it or not, that=20 > rhetoric is usually labeled 'conservative.' Bill Bennett is=20 > usually labeled a 'conservative cultural critic.' =20 That's mainly the liberal view of conservative criticism. I don't think it's anything that would resonate with or engage conservative = literature. I'll explain that better below. > If y'all don't want to go there, and I sense you don't, you=20 > need to clarify that position. There are actual ideas behind=20 > the ideology which we call political conservatism. Those=20 > ideas could well provide the philosophical basis for literary=20 > criticism. So who are you citing? 'Liberal' criticism, I=20 > gather, is the stuff derived from Derrida and Foucault and=20 > Althuzzer and them thar guys. Real philosophers, whose ideas=20 > have very broad implications and applications, which is why=20 > post-modern and post-structuralist ideas permeate every part=20 > of the academy. So who are your guys? Camille Paglia,=20 > maybe? She's a self-declared pagan and lesbian, but she=20 > loathes Foucault and is not an uninteresting thinker. =20 > Levinas? But be careful there, we lefties have already claimed him. =20 >=20 > Interesting project, though. Keep us posted. Well, I *am* thinking mainly in broad neo-con terms. I think you're = kind of fighting the last war with the whole "anti-anti-family", "preserve = tradition just because" thing. Most conservatives I respect have moved deeper = than that and are quite comfortable in a modern world of cultural upheaval = and diversification. As such, we'd look to figures like Andrew Sullivan, = P.J. O'Rourke, Steve Forbes, and yeah, Camille Paglia (she isn't so much conservative as she just comes up with some of the most interesting = ideas). I'd claim Derrida, though conservatives would corrupt his ideas by re-inserting some of the universalism he's breaking down. In fact, that might be an interesting way to define conservative literary theory. You could call it neo-post-modernism--concerned with the distance separating "other" while reaching out towards universal chaos-touched themes of = shared culture and identity. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 02 Apr 2003 08:47:00 -0700 John Williams said: Nearly every poll confirms nowadays that just about 7 of every 10 Americans s So, when my home teachers explain that D&C 98 justifies the use of preemptive violent force in Iraq (seriously, I'm not kidding, they shared that just before the message on Family Home Evening), I'm certainly shocked, but not shaken by it. Because I am situated firmly within a solid discursive community of people who do not think that way, I feel a kind of solidarity. I am also not so easily swayed by talk of how patriotism and nationalism are paving the way for the preaching of the gospel in Iraq. In other words, I may be only 1 in every 10 Mormons, but I do have access to a valuable discursive connection with those other 1's. I think you raise some really important issues here. We had one member of this list from outside the U.S. for awhile but now he seems to have dropped out. I believe that members of the church in other countries do not have a chance to hear the 10 percent view. In fact, I feel that only an occasional post on this list gives me that 10 percent view, even though I strongly am in that camp. Rather, my community at the University of Utah for example is one that tends to believe that all Mormons share the 90 percent's views and they therefore do not easily find much commonality with Mormons. In fact the constant "in your face" nature of religious difference in Utah tends to polarize people into camps so strongly that listening to alternative views is very difficult. I obviously need to read my issues of Dialogue and get a subscription to Sunstone if I want to survive in the church. My family and church friends and my ward members seem to think so differently than I do. I feel more and more isolated and more and more like I don't belong. On-line community can help. But is it enough? I think real face to face conversation and friendship is what I need. It feels like writing on a list like this, where I probably am still in the minority (we have strong conservative voices here) just aggravates people. I like dialogue and discussion and I enjoy reading the other points of view but I also want to belong. Let's face it the sense of community and belonging that the church provides is one of the strongest positive things that people experience from membership. But when you start to feel that you don't belong, it goes in exactly the other way. In other words, I need people and where am I going to find them? More and more the people that think like I do are not LDS. I keep trying to keep a foot in both camps, but it is pulling me apart. So thank you John Williams for giving me a a chance today to feel not completely alone! Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 10:06:10 -0700 Susan wrote, re: Polanski and The Pianist: >Why give not him an Oscar, then, if it's such a great film? (I haven't = seen >it, I'm taking your word for it. :) Great question. But, see, the notion of a 'best film' or 'best director' = is essentially preposterous, as the Oscars proved this year for the = umpteenth time. The Pianist won the Oscar for Best Screenplay, Best = Director and Best Actor. But it didn't win Best Picture. So how can a = film be the best written film of the year, with a superb screenplay = realized by the best directing job of the year, and with the leading actor = giving the best acting performance of the year, and it's still not the = best picture? I guess that darned sound editing really musta let it down. I thought all five films nominated this year were excellent films. I saw = all of them and loved 'em. But if, instead, the five films nominated had = been Unfaithful, Insomnia, Punchdrunk Love, Adaptation and About Schmidt, = I would have said the same; they nominated terrific films, and I'd have = been happy if any of them had won. =20 Quick aside: actually, I did think this year that one film was in fact = vastly superior to the others, so much so that it almost needs its own = category. And I also knew it wasn't going to win. I'm referring to The = Two Towers. Peter Jackson's achievement in those films is so remarkable, = I think it's getting overlooked. Dick Stuart hit 66 home runs in the = minor leagues one year, back in the early '60's. It didn't get him a = major league job. Nobody thought of him as a major prospect. His = achievement was so astonishing, they tended to write it off as a fluke, = and get all excited instead about some prospect who hit 35 homers. (I = know, I know, you baseball fans out there are going to point out that Dick = Stuart's nickname was Dr. Strangeglove, that there were reasons why he = didn't make it to the Show. The analogy only holds up so far, I admit = it.) =20 Point is, you're more or less picking one really good film and honoring = it, and if you're going to do that, I think character counts. I think it = matters. If Martin Scorcese had won for Best Director, I would have been = thrilled, not because Gangs of New York was a great film (I'd put it in = the 'noble and ambitious failure' category), but because he's a great = director, with a slew of great films under his belt, and it'd be about = time. I think everything should count, basically, and that's why I didn't = have a problem with Halle Barry winning the Oscar last year, not that her = performance was so stunning she HAD to win it, but because black women = have been historically overlooked, so why not count that too? The Pianist = was a wonderful film, and it was beautifully directed. Ten other films = were as good, and as well directed. So count everything, and don't give = the Oscar to a convicted pedophile. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:20:05 EST I just wanted to share an interesting newspaper article. I think it's the first time a reporter has accurately represented my points of view. Ironically, the reporter is a student at UVSC. Here's the link: http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/17/3e77815bc874b?in_archive =1 Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 11:36:10 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >This brings up a subject we've discussed before, but which I >still don't have a satisfying answer to. Is it necessary to >suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or from the sins of >others (usually both), to be a great artist? I don't believe >suffering is necessary to be a competent artist, but what >about true greatness? I think the ONE thing that makes a true artist a true artist is honesty, pure and simple. Psychologically impaired artists force their honesty on the world as a form of therapy. If an artist who is otherwise perfectly normal can at the same time be honest in his/her feelings, then he will ultimately be great. Some questions to ask yourself if you want to be a great Mormon artist. Do you worry that you will offend people with what you right? Do you stress over correct language used by your characters? (profanity, etc.) Do you find yourself saying, "I can't write that. People will think Mormons are weird?" Must all your Mormon characters always have the right answers? Do you wonder if your mother will get embarrassed over the scene you just wrote? Do you work hard at making your villains as well-rounded as your protagonists? Do you feel compelled to have all loose threads of doubt, sin, etc. neatly wrapped up at the end of your story? Do you ever ask yourself, "What would the Brethren say if they read this?" Your answers to those questions may make the difference between becoming a great artist and well, just an artist. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Words and Music Date: 01 Apr 2003 10:01:36 -0700 "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > > Speaking of artists' personal lives: Richard Wagner may have been a > disgusting old anti-Semite, but he did say one true thing about music. He > observed than words and music are incomplete art without each other, that > they naturally fit together to give a more complete aesthetic experience. > You rarely hear a song on the radio that is just instrumental. And the > best poetry and prose has a musical rhythm. So all those symphonies and concertos and suites and orchestral what-not written by Vivaldi and Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Brahms and Berlioz and etc. etc. etc. are aesthetically incomplete experiences? I think instead Wagner's opinion on this is intellectually incomplete. And besides, music without words is the only workable background music for when you're trying to write. Otherwise the words distract you. Heck, even wordless works by Beethoven, et. al, can distract, because the themes are so complex, sophisticated, and communicative, they can draw your attention in as much as words. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 02 Apr 2003 01:40:56 -0700 ---Original Message From: Robert Slaven >=20 > I was discussing this in a completely different forum=20 > recently. The Smart's bishop was bang on when CNN quoted him=20 > regarding how Elizabeth is almost certainly not guilty of any=20 > sin in this matter. OTOH, how many parents from her=20 > ward/stake/SLC generally will tell their young men "Stay away=20 > from her, she's tainted" or "after what she's been through,=20 > she'll mess you up" or whatever it is they might say. What an appalling depiction of our LDS parents! Do you think this is *really* a potentially large reaction? I can't imagine anyone in my = ward saying anything so callous. I can envision a deep, deep (if somewhat uncomfortable because we're glad it wasn't us) sympathy accompanied by a good deal of understanding, patience and kindness. I *know* that's what we'd be striving for. > I wouldn't be at all surprised if she felt "Well, I'm=20 > 'damaged goods' anyway, so there's no point going home." She=20 > may have thought that on her own thanks to our cultural=20 > hang-ups, her captors may have planted the idea in her head,=20 > or (most likely) both fed off of each other. I *hope* she didn't get that message from our doctrine. It'd represent = a serious mis-understanding of what was supposed to be taught. If we're teaching our teens that rape is always the woman's fault then we're in = some serious trouble. > She's going to have people whispering behind her back for at=20 > least the next decade. If I were her dad, I'd be seriously=20 > looking into home-schooling her through high school, and then=20 > making sure any post-sec takes place outside of Utah. And I=20 > don't even want to think about what she might have to go=20 > through at church from fellow Young Women over the next few years. Huh? I kind of agree with the leaving Utah for post-sec because that'll help even out the reactions and make it easier to concentrate on, you = know, school. I can't *imagine*, though, a significant portion of our Young = Women treating her poorly because of the ordeal she endured. One or two = *maybe*, but they'd be snots to everybody regardless of their circumstances. > > PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? The Dollmage (that's all I'll say because even that is giving away too = much of an excellent story that depends on bringing the reader on a journey = whose end is shrouded and powerfully complex). Not obviously our culture, but very much our same base assumptions and ideas. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] RE: New Mormon Lit Forum Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:25:48 EST In a message dated 4/1/03 9:59:02 PM Mountain Standard Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: > IF the new list gets created by me (I'm still not sure I will--we're > nowhere near nine members yet)... I'm in. Do we still need seven more? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Author's Omniscience (was: Miracles in Literature) Date: 02 Apr 2003 01:33:26 -0800 D. Michael Martindale wrote:=20 "Because the author is supposed to understand everything that goes on in = the story, including stuff that doesn't appear in the story, you might = think I'd argue that the author at least should know if it was a real = miracle or not. But I tend to believe this is one exception to the rule. = If the author isn't even sure, somehow that seems to me to preserve the = ineffable nature of miracles." My comments are not really about the "miracles in literature" thread at = all, so I've spun these thoughts off onto another thread. I think the = Miracles thread is a very interesting one and I have a lot of thoughts = about it which I hope to organize into an essay at some point. But my = few thoughts at the moment for this new thread were inspired in response = to Michael's side-observation about an author's supposed omniscience = expressed in his comments above. I don't know about you guys, but I have to say that as an author, I = would NEVER say that I "understand everything that goes on in a story"! = Quite the contrary! For goodness sakes, if I understood everything that = went on in a story, and even the things that don't even appear in the = story, then I'd be GOD, and not a lowly author! Half the time I feel like I'm just a court reporter taking down = transcription from the world around me (or at least the world in my = head) and I don't understand anywhere near all of what is going on! But = that doesn't make me less of an author. In fact, I think the authorial = voice is one which frankly acknowledges an incomplete handle on all of = the events in his or her own story. This state of amazed, but observant = clueless-ness is the penultimate state of authorial observation, in my = opinion. The opposite state, a state in which the author is coolly confident that = every ramification, subtext, axiom, construct, culmination or background = is completely within his or her control or understanding, is, in my = opinion, an author who is going to come across, more often than not, as = didactic, superficial, trite, pat, oversimplified and/or supercilious, = at best. If you are writing about life, it is impossible to understand everything = that goes on in the story. That would suppose that you understand = everything that goes on in life. Can you write about a situation about = which you don't know the background? Sure. Maybe you'd be better off if = you knew the background, but that might be impossible. Can you write = about what a character does, but not know (completely) why he does it? = Of course. Character motivations are as complex as human motivations, = which we usually know only partially. I wrote my sister a play for her birthday last year. Wonderful director = and actress that she is, she immediately began diving into it, tearing = it apart, asking questions, analyzing. She prepared a list of about 40 = questions just from the first act: Why does she do this? What is the = background of that? Etc. Very good questions. But for a many of them, I = did not have the answer. For the ones that I did, I didn't want to say. = Those were all questions that the actors, directors and audiences for = the play will have to ask and answer. But I as the author had absolutely = no insight to them; or at least, I as the author had no more authority = to answer them than anyone else. I was just taking dictation. I = envisioned a room full of complex and often inexplicable people and I = watched them talk to each other for two hours. Sometimes they were = funny, sometimes they were horrible, pitiful, smart, foolish, glib, = brilliant, bored, vacant, passionate. And do I know why? I'm the author = after all; do I know why? Well, sometimes, yeah. But all of the time? No = way! When Richard, the author, the creator of the character of Ed Gray in = Brigham City, asked me, the actor playing Ed Gray, to look over at his = character of Wes Clayton in a kind of mysterious or menacing fashion, = did he, the author, know why the character would look at him behind his = back in that way? No. Didn't matter. Didn't need to know. He had several = suggestions, several possibilities as to why, any one of which would = work. I knew, but why should he, as the author, have to know which one = was the right one? He didn't. He just observed, as the author, that it = DID happen, and YOU (the audience) get to debate over or try to figure = out why. Same with Matthew's character, Terry. Did the author understand why the = character behaved like he did? To some extent. Had several ideas, even = suggested some of them in the dialogue. But to truly understand = everything that went on in the killer's head? No way! That is part of = the point: that we cannot know. Richard's theme of the "loss of = innocence" is particularly assisted by a state of authorial ignorance. = Some questions don't have pat answers, and the author is the LAST person = who is going to give them to you. He, the author, knew what happened, = basically, but certainly did not have a full understanding of every = aspect of the why, or even the how. On a completely side note, I am VASTLY curious as to the additions that = Margaret is going to add to her novelization of BC. She will make = authorial contributions all her own that will have nothing to do with = what Richard "knew" or we as the actors playing the characters "knew", = but even she will not "know" everything. She may attempt to discover, in = the text, may offer possibilities, but there are many things she may = never understand. But that does not disqualify her as an author. To the = contrary. [MOD: Isn't it actually Marilyn?] One might say, "Well, that is a special case: Margaret is adapting = another author's work into a new form, a screenplay into a novel; it is = different when the work is original and completely one's own." But that is a stance I would argue with. Our work is never completely = our own. At some point, and in countless ways, we all adapt our work = from pre-existing realities, be it the real world around us, imagined = worlds in our heads based on reality, or plausible alterations thereof, = etc. Characters speak words, characters behave, and all of this speaking = and behavior is based, at least in part, on speaking and behaving that = we, the authors, have seen in the world and may or may not fully = understand. It's all an adaptation. Yes we have a certain amount of control. Yes we shift and shape and = alter things to follow a structure we impose or to explore a theme we = wish to present. But when our work really becomes great, when an author = most often achieves flights of perfection that we, as readers, marvel = at, I would suggest that those times are when the author is the LEAST = certain what his characters are doing, and when there are the most = number of possible answers to the basic questions of motivation behind = character's actions.=20 Okay, I may be exaggerating some for effect, but does this not seem = true, to some extent, in your own experience, as authors? Some work is very structured, very "well made" (some critics know how to = make that description an insult), and when it is, the author does, = indeed, understand everything that goes on in the story. But in more = organic writing, more directly autobiographical, more strictly observant = from life, more human-driven than plot-driven, in those types of = writing, authors are only slightly less clueless than audiences are. We = are truly "just taking dictation."=20 And this is a kind of Nirvana-state in writing that should be attempted = and achieved, from time to time, in my opinion, by all authors, even if = is just as an exercise and yields stuff that will never be printed. Even = if your bread-and-butter writing is LDS romances with cookie-cutter = characters, formulaic plots and infallibly-resolved endings, and you do, = indeed, understand everything that goes on in the story, including the = stuff that doesn't appear in the story, you should, once in a while, as = part of your diary or workbook or morning exercises or whatever, just = dash something out from your guts (I'd go farther anatomically south, = but I'd fear to offend) and SEE if you understand it all. You won't, and = bravo for you; I bet it will be some great writing. Not that we are ALWAYS clueless. Don't mean to go in the other = direction, either. But to come full circle and go back to Michael's quote about miracles. = To repeat, he says: "If the author isn't even sure, somehow that seems = to me to preserve the ineffable nature of miracles." Well, I agree with = this, but wish to expand it. I think everything in life is a miracle, = even the horrors. The fact that any of this is even possible, is = miraculous. The fact that 200 billion free-agents spirits are allowed = over 7000 years to squat on this earth and do whatever they want, is = miraculous. Breath, life, death, corn flakes: all miracles.=20 Conclusion? "If the author isn't even sure, somehow that seems to me to = preserve the ineffable nature of miracles." Right. So please: give authors a break. Authors don't understand any more about = the world than anybody else does. Well, at least the good ones don't. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] _Stones_ Performances Date: 02 Apr 2003 11:53:23 -0700 You've got at least one person out here who is dying to see the show, but I'm pretty much attached to a little baby at present. I'm looking forward to when she's old enough to leave with a baby sitter for date night! In the mean time, I'm drooling over some of the shows I see advertised and can't go to Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 12:37:19 -0700 At 08:58 PM 3/29/03 -0700, you wrote: >But I believe the expectations we have of artists as human beings must >be different from the rest. They must be freer to see the truth and >point it out, or truth will not be fully seen. They must be freer to >explore and understand the ugliness of the human condition, even if it >means personal experience, or the ugliness will never be recognized and >rooted out--it will fester and grow and destroy countless lives. Freer in what way? Surely you don't mean free of the moral laws that govern people. It's been tyrants and oppressors like Napoleon who've said that they were different--that the laws applying to "ordinary" people were not meant for them. An artist or writer or musician or filmmaker is no more justified in deliberately sinning than is anyone else. Your comment implies that only the artist is capable of saving civilization, based on his having wallowed in the gutter. I don't like the typical meek and mild LDS literature any more than you do, but anytime someone says that he should not be subject to the same laws as everyone else, I think he needs to think carefully about that viewpoint. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 10:17:35 -0700 D. Michael wrote: Au contraire, if you are in the happy position to be satisfied with faith affirmation fiction, count your blessings. Call me presumptuous, but I'll bet Paris Anderson would love to have had life experiences that put him in that category. And I write: Yeah . . . and sometimes I wonder what made the difference. Why some poeple, when put in certain situations, have life experiences that allow them to write faith affirming fiction. While other people in those same situations go through hell and end up writing Poe-esque stuff. I think I must have done something bad in the pre-existence. The bad thing is it isn't just a few bad things happen, and then it's over. It's like a few bad things happen that leave a mark. And you carry that mark for the rest of your life. Sunday I had another episode with post traumatic shit syndrome. Tusday I had another conversation with a ward member that made me wish I had never been a Mormon--it's one of those "Cammie-Reaction" things. It hasn't happened yet, but Pavlov's dog learned to drool before he smelled the food. I've learned to shudder when Church-people become nice. But . . . I have a good, good wife who puts up with me even though I'm a crusty old fart. I honestly think I would have died years ago if she hadn't have come along. I think the Lord is responcible for us accidentally meeting each other. And I have three good boys. They make life pleasant, even though I got these scars that bother me sometimes. Sometimes I get afraid that putting up with me will get to be too much. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Line from Samuelsen. . . . Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:10:52 -0700 I've been trying to remember a great line from Eric's play The Way We're Wired. It goes something like this: "You're single for one of three reasons: you're divorced, you're widowed, or you never married. In other words, you're a failure, a pity case, or a loser." How does it go? I don't think I have it in the most effective order, anyway. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:19:37 -0700 At 12:52 PM 3/31/03 -0600, you wrote: >What are some other BofM stories that might lend themselves to >fictional treatment? There's lots of great stuff in the story of Ammon and Lamoni, what with dis-arming the sheep thieves, a king apparently dying and coming back to life, and so on. There are some faithful women in there, too, and some romantic elements. Although Hollywood would prefer to see the Lamanites slaughter the Nephites with a lot of blood and guts rather than be converted to Godliness. Here's a challenge: have a filmmaker do a movie based on Jacob 5. Tee-hee! barbara hume, hoping Jonathan will dump this one so my silly mood will pass unnoticed [MOD: Barbara, not a chance!] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Travis Manning Subject: [AML] Yale Mormonism Conference Date: 02 Apr 2003 19:52:47 (GMT) Fellow AML members: My previous link for the article in Meridian magazine didn't work, so sorry. Here is a link to Peggy Fletcher Stack's article on the ground-breaking conference this past weekend regarding Mormonism, held at the seminal Yale University Divinity School. Travis Manning Salt Lake Tribune Article: Philosophers, Historians Explore LDS Scholarship at Yale Conference http://www.sltrib.com/2003/mar/03292003/saturday/42962.asp -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 02 Apr 2003 18:53:21 -0800 > I don't know exactly how this would be classified, but in the dissertation > I'm gearing up to write I'm going to try to make a case for a "return with > difference" to a more conservative (read: less deconstructionist, less > ironic) mode of reading and writing literature, especially in (Caribbean > and Latino) border cultures of the Americas. A return, in that I want to > reassert the humanity in literature (against, say, the move toward the > cyber/post-human in the most extreme branches of cultural studies) but with > a difference (ie, not just a resurrection of New Criticism or religious > essentialism). I'm still just working out the broad strokes of what this > might look like (read: I don't quite have a thesis yet), but my aim (though > I'm rather surprised to admit it) would be considered conservative, I'd think. This sounds interesting. However, those of us who do not live in academia do not quickly translate these buzz words. Could you rewrite this paragraph with complete translations of all the buzz words so we can all get an idea of what you're talking about. This might actually lead to some thoughts, though one never knows around here. :-) Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 02 Apr 2003 17:17:51 -0700 Robert Slaven wrote: > But is there any way of creating that *great* art without sin? Perhaps > the only 'great' art us Mormons will ever be able to make is the art of > happy eternal families. But then, I guess, there are worse things. Amen to all you said. I just want to add my two cents worth, well maybe a quarter? First we all have our own Goliath to face. (I don't know who said it, but I like it.) We can write about our adversity, and pain without actually deliberately sinning. I think we all do enough accidental sinning to help us in this area of our art. we just need to face up to our own reality, and get the courage to put it on the page. Then there are the sins of the past perpetrated by our progenitors or upon them. Maybe Mormons didn't have a Holocaust, but thousands of Mormons died in an effort to preserve the gospel principles they believed in. And finally, with the advent of diversity brought into our midst by the missionary work going on all over the earth, I'm quite sure there will be, and there already is, a large group of talented writers and artists who will express their art through the hands and eyes of those who have experienced all the depths of human emotion and adversity that we could possibly hope for. We just need to wait for these Mormon artists to catch their breath, find their voice and learn the language. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 02 Apr 2003 20:42:55 -0700 > > Point in part is, for a lotta folks, when you write 'conservative literary theory' they read 'reactionary fundamentalist literary theory.' I mean, conservatism is in part cultural, a reaction against certain presumably retrograde cultural trends that can easily (and not always inaccurately) be demonized as 'anti-family.' We see it a lot in film criticism, or television criticism. In Mormon cultural circles, there's a lot of anti-TV rhetoric and a lot of anti-Hollywood rhetoric; it even surfaced here, on the List, when we got into the R-rated movie thread (which believe me I don't want restarted). Like it or not, that rhetoric is usually labeled 'conservative.' Bill Bennett is usually labeled a 'conservative cultural critic.' Am I understanding this correctly? Conservatism would not exist without liberalism? And if it went away, liberalism wouldn't even notice? Maybe I'm starting to understand Eric's hate of cultural Mormonism--he sees it as just a reaction to cultural liberalism (anti-TV, anti-Hollywood, anti-caffeen, anti-sland, anti-facial hair, anti-fun, even anti-academia?) Political Conservatism, as defined by Geo Will, is an adherence to principles of social and societal behaviors, also called natural law. Mormon theology is similarly based on eternal principles but not necessarily part of this thread. Would a literary criticism based on conservatism be more concentrated on the "law of the harvest" which is also called karma, or "what goes around comes around." So Sheri Dew is right, and conservative, to say they want books that show consequences. I am afraid of this kind of witchhunting, scared to death of it, because I don't trust the judge. But a critic maybe could analyze a book based on a "consequences" scale, as an intellectual exercise. The book of Mosiah could rate high on the scale because of Noah's death, but might score low because his priests got away with murder AND the Lamanite girls. Maybe Jacob Proffitt, who started this thread, could write a critique of Mosiah or another book. Maybe the ultimate conservative novel would be Tolstoy's Crime and Punishment, or novels with epilogues about the afterlife. A sort of "where they are now" like Dutcher finished God's Army with. Imagine: Elder A married in the Temple, had 9 kids, but fooled around with his secretary--his family visits him in the telesial kingdom, Elder B didn't baptize at all and died and is in Abraham's bosom, Elder C is general manager of a medium size galazy in quadrant 3442. > If y'all don't want to go there, and I sense you don't, you need to clarify that position. There are actual ideas behind the ideology which we call political conservatism. Those ideas could well provide the philosophical basis for literary criticism. So who are you citing? 'Liberal' criticism, I gather, is the stuff derived from Derrida and Foucault and Althuzzer and them thar guys. Real philosophers, whose ideas have very broad implications and applications, which is why post-modern and post-structuralist ideas permeate every part of the academy. So who are your guys? Camille Paglia, maybe? She's a self-declared pagan and lesbian, but she loathes Foucault and is not an uninteresting thinker. Levinas? But be careful there, we lefties have already claimed him. The beauty of conservatism, like Mormonism, is that any knucklehead can do it. Because it is in the doing. One has too be very clever to be a liberal thinker. I nominate P.J. O'Rourke, who makes the best arguments and does it with humor. Any tin-pan intellectual can act serious, in fact seriousness is their commodity. Alan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] KZION Radio Date: 03 Apr 2003 00:02:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) =0D I really should review _Message in Motion_ (on cassette) for the list. T= he cover art alone is worth a paragraph! I think someone was going for a Ste= ven Curtis Chapman look.=0D Debbie Brown=0D -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 02 Apr 2003 23:26:10 -0700 ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com > "Was it worth it, in the eternal scheme of things, for Gitai to have=20 > alienated himself from his spiritual community in order to=20 > create such a=20 > magnificent work of art? I mean, as far as the religious=20 > community of his=20 > youth is telling him, he's probably damned now. I wonder, has=20 > he sold his=20 > birthright for a mess of pottage? In the end, is this film,=20 > with all its=20 > power, pottage? >=20 > Jacob said (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a moot question=20 > because the orthodox=20 > Jewish doctrine is wrong, the community is worshipping in=20 > falsehood, and=20 > therefor Gitai has done nothing wrong and is better off outside the=20 > community. Oh, I didn't say any of that. I didn't say he had done nothing wrong, = only that he probably didn't believe he had (and what artist that breaks with their community believes they have done so wrongly?). And if you'll = read carefully you'll find that I didn't say anything at all about Gitai, = what he felt, or what he should have felt. What I *did* say is that exploring Gitai's experience isn't one that will be useful to faithful LDS artists = due to our belief that we belong to the one True church. Further, I said = that we actually *are* right, and that we have the priesthood and God's = authority on Earth to bind (or loose) in eternity. It doesn't really matter if = others think they are as right as we think we are right. When an LDS artist is excommunicated, LDS faithful don't just consider him breaking with tradition. We don't just believe he's going to "make his own way to = God". We actually believe that that artist has turned against God and rejected Him. As such, that artist has lost all opportunity to influence the = culture for good. Any "lessons" he or she is trying to teach have no chance of actually penetrating. > Interesting. I see Jacob's reasoning, but I can't help=20 > recoiling at the=20 > underlying arrogance of the statement. Orthodox Judaism is as=20 > true to its=20 > adherents as Mormonism is to its most devoted adherents. The=20 > same mental and=20 > spiritual and social anguish that a Mormon feels in leaving=20 > his community is=20 > felt by the Orthodox Jew who is leaving his community. Losing=20 > faith, and=20 > losing one's community, is an emotionally violent experience. Okay. But what's the point then? I mean, no apostate leaves actually believing that they are wrong. Or at least doing so would represent a dishonesty that would permanently cripple any work that apostate could produce. Now, if you translate that to LDS terms and an LDS audience = and what lessons our artists can learn from artists excommunicated from = other traditions (which was Steven's point), then you have to posit that the = LDS artist is *leaving* the church. As such, it's an example that isn't terribly instructive to artists who are working within their culture as = an LDS artist on this list presumably is. If Steven meant to ask about = what apostate LDS artists can learn, then I failed to perceive that intent.=20 > A Jewish artist/writer/filmmaker creating from his experience=20 > and faith and=20 > community deals with the same things a Mormon or a Catholic does. The=20 > dangers, the emotions, the fears, the struggles...they're the=20 > same. To the=20 > artists.=20 Okay. But there's a reality beyond the subjective. We *are* the true church. Sure that's an arrogant statement--unless we're right. And = while the emotions, fears, and struggles may be the same, the dangers most certainly are not. Eternity is *truly* on the line. In fighting the "establishment" it is important to determine if you aren't actually = fighting God. If you *are* actually fighting God, then the stakes just got a lot higher. > To minimize another artist's experience simply because his=20 > doctrine and his=20 > community are, in our eyes, "wrong" is a dehumanizing act. By=20 > lessening his=20 > experience, we distance ourselves, we empathize less. We=20 > certainly are not=20 > comforting the afflicted or "mourning with those who mourn." I'm not minimizing his experience. Just because it isn't an experience = that relates well to our own doesn't make it any less powerful to him. I = *never* said that his pain was unimportant or that he doesn't deserve care and concern. Nor did I say that his art is the less or that we can't watch = his film with respect. I didn't say that he has nothing to teach us. I = only said that his experience doesn't relate to our own in the specific way expressed by Steven's query. I don't see how it is dehumanizing to recognize that we are irreconcilably different in one specific way. We = are irreconcilably different from *everyone* in *some* way(s). It isn't dehumanizing to recognize or point out that fact. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 03 Apr 2003 08:25:35 -0700 Fine article. But, Richard, I think your perception that "People don't hate Greeks like they hate Mormons" is a mis-perception. I don't believe we are hated. I just think we are misunderstood. We are perceived by the world at large to be people of a monolithic ideology and lifestyle. The fact that there isn't an organiztion on the planet, nor ever has been, where everyone thinks and acts exactly alike, seems to escape most observers. The work you and others do will go a long way to raise those misperceptions and, eventually, will help us to be better understood by the world at large. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 02 Apr 2003 22:55:44 -0800 I really don't want to resurrect the long-winded, hot-and-bothered, and = basically legally pointless debate-thread about the Clean Flicks = controversy.=20 I really don't.=20 Really. See, I caught the tail end of it in my lurker phase before "joining" the = List and wound up writing a virulent and obnoxious 10-page essay about = it which (thankfully) I kept to myself and didn't submit.=20 So, believe me, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO RESURRECT THIS THREAD. BUT. (yeah, there is always a but!), Richard's recent comments to a reporter = on the subject made me just HAVE to say what I'm about to say.=20 The reporter tells it as follows: "When asked about movie editing by companies like Clean Flicks, in order = to make more family friendly films, Dutcher had this to say, "I don't = like it, but I recognize their right to do it." Then he gave an example = that you could buy the "Mona Lisa" and then by rights destroy it because = it's yours, but that doesn't make it right." Okay. Let's get something straight.. (And this is going to make RD happy, probably, because, as he says, he = doesn't like it.) So: let's get something straight. Buying a video is absolutely NOTHING like buying the Mona Lisa. There is = absolutely no legal equivalent.=20 I spent 5 years in the bowels of the MGM Legal department down in LA, so = this is a little bit of a hot-button for me, but we are the artists, = okay?, and we have to understand the LAW regarding our own works and = stop perpetuating these confusing myths! When someone buys a video, they are NOT BUYING THE VIDEO.=20 They are simply buying a limited (very limited) LICENSE in the video, = i.e., the right to do certain things and nothing more. The nuance is not = nit-picky, it is absolutely essential, and essentially misunderstood. Look very carefully at the language in that little FBI notice that pops = up onto your screen when you put in a tape. You know, the warning that = nobody on the planet actually reads?=20 Yeah, that. Read it. What does it say? Have you acquired all rights to = that movie? Not in the least, baby: just a FEW. Just as Irreantum only picks up a = few rights when they agree with you to publish your short story (First = North American English Language Serial Rights, and nothing more), you = have only acquired a few rights when you bought the tape or DVD. Basically, the purchase price of the tape entitles you to watch that = tape in your home. THAT'S IT, FOLKS. That is really and truly IT. You have not bought = anything else.=20 You haven't PAID them NEARLY ENOUGH for anything else!=20 Do the math: I just sold all of the rights in and to one of my = screenplays for $20,000 (which is cheap); you just paid $20 for a = completed movie! You think you can do whatever you want with it?! FORGET = IT! You haven't bought NEARLY enough of the rights! All other rights are expressly reserved.=20 READ THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN.=20 Just because its "legalese" does not mean it isn't English. Read the = words. They mean what they say. When I buy the Mona Lisa (first of all, it is in the public domain, and = I can do whatever I want to with her image anyway), it is a painting, a = unique, specific object, and my purchase price ($27 Trillion Dollars) = buys ALL RIGHTS in and to her cute little smile. But when I buy a video or DVD, I am buying a very limited license in a = COPY of someone else's copyright-protected work.=20 It's a totally different ball-game, kids. Legally, it's apples and = oranges. Not the same kettle of fish; two llamas shy of a full gaggle; = seven tadpoles. er, uh, well. you get my drift. Technically, although this is in actual practice unenforceable and = therefore we all ignore it and nobody cares, but technically, you have = not even bought the right to invite 25 friends over to watch that movie = at your house (as this arguably falls under the "public exhibition" = clause, which is expressly forbidden under the rights you have = purchased).=20 Unenforceable as this fact is, it is also technically illegal to do so. = (But I'll be attending D. Michael's Film Lab regardless, because, well. = I think it will be cool.) But REALLY, private, in home viewing, is intended to apply to a single = family unit to watch that copy of the movie IN YOUR HOME, as many times = as you want.=20 That's it. That is all you OWN, that is all you BOUGHT. Certain limited = rights. Period. No discussion. You did not BUY the MOVIE. You did not = even, technically (in the same way you would buy a painting) BUY the = DVD. Technically, you bought a LICENSE for RIGHTS in and to a specific = COPY of a movie. That's it. Ah!-Ah!-Ah! Don't!. Don't say it!. No discussion! Of course, in fact, obviously. it doesn't work out that way. People = invite friends over, people make dubs of tapes for friends, etc. We do = about a million things all of the time that are in violation of the = currently written law, and there are no repercussions and nobody is = particularly hurt by it, so we say: what is the big deal? And, pretty much, there IS no big deal.=20 This is partly why people are generally so confused about what the law = really is. This is also why there are so many myths about the law.=20 The law is meant to be tested and interpreted. That's the beauty of our = system. But by and large, people are scared of law, or find it boring or = confusing, so we mostly just do what we do, push the limits, see what we = can get away with, or live in blissful ignorance. Most of the time, that = works just fine. But every once in a while, a big test case like Clean = Flicks comes up, and everybody is up in arms until it is resolved.=20 But until the courts hand down their latest (and always-changing) = interpretation of what the law really is, please, let's try not to = perpetuate myths upon ourselves any more than we have to. Buying the Mona Lisa is nothing like buying a limited-rights license to = a movie on DVD. (Now, do you SEE why I try and keep my trap OUT of this kind of = discussion?! I wish I had this time, too. but, but, Daddy! The DEVIL = made me do it! Macbeth: OUT! OUT! DAMN SPOT!) (Spot's a Boston terrier, of course. They're the best.) Jongiorgi Enos, Special Victims Unit -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: RE: [AML] Re: Sugar Beet Readership Date: 03 Apr 2003 10:44:36 -0500 Clearly these results show that the farther away from Utah you are the more likely you are to like The Sugar Beet's type of humor. I laugh like crazy at some of it and am a bit offended by some, which is only right because Arkansas is about half way to the east coast. (It couldn't be that those Virginians are really working in D.C. and come into contact with lots of different folks who infect them with all sorts of "funny" ideas.) Cathryn Lane -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:02:36 -0700 "th. jepson" wrote: > Richard Dutcher: > "You can't take the Judaism out of the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof." It > wouldn't work. But that's exactly what Mormon people tend to do when > they're writing our stories. They think that they have to genericize > everything, taking everything that's unique out of the characters, taking > their faith and everything away from them that is really powerful. Trying > to get by and be a true Latter-Day Saint in the current world is quite a > story. And we all have our own versions of it." And as I read this, I think of the big national marketing campaign that just started up for the DVD release of "Other Side of Heaven," the most non-LDS LDS film ever made. And one of the blandest. > Jongiorgi Enos: > This is going to inspire a digression, which should perhaps be its own > thread. A friend asked me once: So there are 14 million Jews and about 11 > million Mormons. We both have a persecuted history, we both identify > ourselves with the same origin stories and the same destiny (The Chosen > Ones); so why are there so many great Jewish artists and so few Mormon ones? I'll bet one reason is the Jews are not a proselyting religion, and everyone knows it. Mormons are, and everyone knows it. Not only do people expect proselyting in our but not Jewish literature (i.e., Jewish literature is trusted more than ours), but Jews write their literature without proselyting in mind in the first place, something Mormons have a hard time doing. > I recently read a story in Zoetrope: All-Story about a couple Orthodox > Jewish girls, and all sorts of words like Shabbos and Rebbe and peyos were > thrown in without definition, and while sure, from context, I can get > Shabbos and Rebbe, I would never be able to decipher payos if I had never > read Potok and Singer. > > This is the first reason I think we want to be Jews: Vocabulary. Wouldn't > it be wonderful to sit down to write a story and not have to define Relief > Society or stake president or sealing or baptism for the dead or high > councilman or any of a thousand other uniquely Mormon terms? Wouldn't it be > wonderful if the reading public already had a basic familiarity with our > words and didn't need to be told that a ward is about three hundred people > and that it's the bishop who's in charge? How can we tell Mormon > Stories if we're always pausing to tell the goyim, "See a deacon is a twelve-year > old boy--you might say we have our bar mitzvah at twelve." Feh, I wish I was a > Jew! I wrote _Brother Brigham_ precisely this way--no explanation of any terminology (except for D.I., which even Mormons outside the region wouldn't understand). I'm very interested to see how it would play among non-Mormons. I've already asked a Baptist high school buddy in Minnesota if he'd read it. Anyone else have a Mormon-ignorant friend that'd be willing to read it and report on whether they could follow the story or not? (I promise not to report to your bishop that you've been negligent on asking, "What do you know about Mormons? Would you like to know more?") > Consider what AML reviewer Rob Williams said in his Brigham City review: > > "Based on everything I've seen here, Dutcher's next project on the life of > Joseph Smith will probably become one of the greatest religious films since > 'Fiddler on the Roof.' " > > Oh, to be a Jew! Dutcher's films (including the upcoming "Prophet") may be the best thing we have going for us right now in catching up to the standing Jewish literature has in society. Just look at the education viewers of _Brigham City_ received on Mormon culture! We need more Dutcheresque stories out there. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Jeffrey S. Savage, _INTO THE FIRE_ (Review) Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:34:54 -0700 I have sometimes heard the sentiment from readers that they expect an LDS published novel to be bad, especially if it's published by Covenant. That idea is troubling to me on many levels, including the fact that readers looking for something negative will find it, not giving the work a real chance on its own merits. That is what I am afraid has happened with this review. At one point it says, "I can often determine how good a book is by how much I notice the little discrepancies." I could well be wrong, but looking at the kinds of complaints in the review, it seems to me that the reviewer was out *looking* for discrepancies, as if he never once let his guard down enough to see if he could actually enjoy the book. The title alone shows that the focus is on trifling things: "Fractal Characters and Presto-chango Canoes." But I'll get to the canoe in a minute. Let's start with one of the first complaints, that _Into the Fire_ "is a lackluster title in the first place." Since when do authors get to pick their own titles? Almost never. So why bother mentioning something the author had no control over? After a summary of some plot, it goes on: "Normally I'm anti-prolog (sic), but this time I have to grudgingly admit that a prolog is appropriate this time, because this book parallels the Book of Job, and the Book of Job has a prolog." Well, at least there something positive. But somehow the point of the book and the prologue never see the light of day: "the promise was right their in the writing: intrigue of global proportions, a thrilling mystery unraveling what happened to cause Joe to lose his business, his reputation, his good standing in the church, and starts losing his family. How did the patent infringement occur? Who framed Joe into being the culprit? How is he going to unravel all this and restore his good standing? Will he recover from the lyme disease?" And later, "In fact, he does _absolutely nothing_ with the story he promises in the opening chapters of the book." What book was that? Every promise I found in the text was completely fulfilled. I don't know where the promises listed above were found. They weren't in my copy. This book can be seen as a modern-day allegory, not a novel with "intrigue of global proportions." Yes, there is the "mystery" per se about what happened to bring Joe's company down (and what novel doesn't have unanswered questions), but that's not the point (or the promise) of the story. The point is how a man's trials bring him closer to God and to an understanding of what is most important. The review goes on with two contradictory sentences: "All Joe's troubles back home are cleaned up in short, vague statements that everything is all better again. We never find out anything about how it all happened." No, everything is not necessarily cleaned up, BECAUSE WE DON'T FIND OUT WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED. And that is also part of the book's point. Once Joe has gone through his ordeal, the house and the company and everything else don't really matter anymore, and whatever happens later is beyond the scope of the story. The butterfly kisses didn't work for me either, but I can't understand the nauseas response to it as being overused, either. The only other work I'm familiar with that uses the same image is that wildly popular song by the same name. In reference to the Down Syndrome daughter there is the complaint about not being surprised by who will threatened in the climax. As recently discussed on a thread in this vein, everything doesn't need to be a surprise to work. If the author wasn't trying to be secretive, then it wasn't a failure on his part to keep the reader guessing. In fact, knowing that Joe's daughter is helpless to handle the situation makes the impending conflict that much worse when it does happen. About and comma usage: Only certain rules apply grammatically. Every other case is by the in-house style. The examples given, "Oh yes you are," "Come on man," "Well I don't believe that," are all sentences not necessarily with a missing comma if that's what the house style is. I would prefer commas in those sentences, too-but that doesn't mean they are wrong without one. Several of my own commas were removed my novel over protest, because that's the house style. It's not WRONG, just (obviously) against some people's taste, including my own. Now to the canoe that remains a canoe. I've been in both row boats and canoes, and I never sat down to think through descriptive verbs about what I did with the oar. "Row" and "paddle" are almost synonymous to me (in fact, they are listed together in my thesaurus, and my dictionary defines "row" as only to "move with oars"). Yes, I can understand the picky definition about pins and fulcrums, but not once was I confused or irritated by not reading "paddle" a dozen times. (Now *that* would have been grating.) I am amazed that so much time was spent in this review dwelling on a single verb. No, _Into the Fire_ is not a perfect book. I'm sure Savage would be the first to admit it could be improved, as all good writers do of their work. And honest criticism is important, but this review struck me as almost mean-spirited. Somehow the themes, symbols and spirituality were missed completely. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Jeff SAVAGE, _Into the Fire_ (Review) Date: 21 Mar 2003 15:44:32 -0700 Michael, A few of comments regarding your review of Into the Fire by Jeffrey S. Savage: 1. Of the hundred of so LDS books I've read in the past few years (all considered Best-Sellers), I believe Into the Fire to be one of the most well-written and enjoyable. Unlike so many LDS authors, Savage continues to grow and learn, making continual improvement in style and content with each new piece. Most locally published LDS authors seem to find a niche and stay there, never bothering to discover new themes, improve story-telling capabilites, or learn the basic elements of grammar. 2. I've found through the years that Covenant firmly believes they know more about assigning titles to books than the authors do, so they likely have changed an original title (usually quite good and appropriate to the text) ones they think will sell the book. Unfortunately, this may account for the title you don't care for. I DO happen to know this main character was originally named Job, but Covenant nixed that and changed it to Joe. 3. As to your comment about the editors at Covenant and commas, I must agree. I used to freelance edit for them and would painstakingly insert every needed comma (I'm an English teacher, and I know the rules), but I was told on more than one occasion, "We don't need a comma there. Besides, ink is too expensive and it's a way to cut production costs." One can only hope the local publishers will someday realize they do have an intelligent audience who wants quality literature to mean more than interesting storytelling. With so many LDS authors beginning to publish nationally, it is only a matter of time before the LDS reading audience follows them away from the poorly edited locally published novels. [LuAnn Staheli] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 26 Mar 2003 15:34:45 -0700 Kathy and Jerry Tyner wrote: > > Although I love reading much > of Nephi's writings, personally if I had had to deal with him in real life > I'd bet I'd find him irritating. Of course, since there was condensation > of the BOM, all we tend to get from him is repent, study, repent, study, > be perfect, repent, study......he always came off as pushy to me, sort > of super-Elder if you will. Now that's a Book of Mormon novel or movie I'd love to see. Maybe Orson Scott Card will write it. He sure made Isaac irritating in _Rebekah_. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: Words and Music Date: 02 Apr 2003 21:50:00 -0800 I think now would be a funny time to quote David Byrne, headman of the = ex Talking Heads: "Words are tricks used by musicians to get people to listen to music = longer than they ordinarily would." Stop Making Sense. He-he. Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: [AML] T.T. WILLIAMS, _Leap_ (Review) Date: 27 Mar 2003 22:32:04 EST Leap by Terry Tempest Williams Pantheon Books, 2002. Hardcover: 338 pages ISBN: 0-679-43292-2 Suggested Retail Price: $25.00 (US) Terry Tempest Williams's little jewel of a memoir "Refuge" has been a favorite of mine for many years. When Powel's Books noted in their newsletter that she had a new full length book, "Leap", I couldn't resist ordering it. "Refuge" explored William's loss to cancer of her mother and grandmother and she structured the book using the rise and fall of the Great Salt Lake in the 80's to mirror her loss and recovery. While I was waiting for "Leap" to arrive I reread "Refuge" and it still resonates with me. "Leap" is another nonfiction work dealing with seven years of reflections on a painting, The Garden of Earthly Delights, created in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century by Hieronymus Bosch. The painting is a triptych that portrays the Garden of Eden, the world, and hell each on its own panel. Williams' grandmother had a copy of the Garden of Eden and the Hell portions of the painting hanging in the guest room where the young Terry often slept as a child. Apparently grandma felt that the center and largest panel, "The Garden of Earthly Delights", was too earthly to display anywhere children might view it and when as an adult she saw the center portion an obsession began. All this I learned from the publisher notes before the book arrived and I couldn't wait, I did an Internet search and encountered the strange and amazing world of Bosch. My first question was, "what LDS family (or non LDS for that matter) hangs paintings (even copies) of paintings from the Spanish Inquisition in their home. I started to really check out what was on the walls in everyone's home I entered, even my own. Most folks I know, LDS or not, have some prints or more rarely a local artist's original of floral or landscape scenes,. Some have prints of religious nature, such as temples in my LDS friends homes and a picture of Christ or angels in my non LDS friends homes. I work in building management for a Class A luxury office park and our buildings are full of original art, but it's to enhance the decor and to prove that we are such a classy place that even art is safe here and won't be stolen off the walls. Let's face it; Americans as a whole aren't usually familiar with great paintings on a day to day basis. I also wondered why her grandmother thought that the naked, though hardly realistic, cavorting figures in the center panel too lewd for display but the naked and tortured figures in Hell were OK. This work is very similar in the style to "Refuge", in which the chapter titles are the water level of The Great Salt Lake, "Leap" has the painting form the chapter structure for the book. One chapter is devoted to each panel of the work and then a chapter on the restoration work she encountered on a later visit to Spain, where the painting hangs. Intertwined is an examination of how she reconciles her Mormon upbringing and heritage with her disenchantment with the present day Church which she accuses of having "dropped the hand of Joseph and grasped the hand of Brigham". (page 144) She sees Joseph Smith as a spiritual genius but Brigham Young as a pragmatist who we embrace because of his practicality rather than hunting for our own sacred groves to connect with the divine. This split between acceptance and rejection of Mormonism enables her to regard her patriarchal blessing as "cherished words. . . a form of personal scripture" (page 270) but burn her temple marriage certificate and ask " What happens when our institutions no longer serve us?" (page 117-118) I had a hard time judging this book fairly because my own spiritual journey is very different from Williams. In short, I cherish my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (even though certain members of the Church may espouse a cultural Mormonism that I find alien), and Williams has clearly left behind the organized religion I love. I don't think our differences make the book invalid, it just makes it difficult to know if my criticisms are valid or based on my prejudices. My biggest criticism is that Williams writes in a deeply interior and stream of conscious style that I found very difficult to follow and just plain pretentious. It was a similar voice to the one in "Refuge" but much more disconnected, thus loosing much of its beauty. Perhaps "Refuge" was easier because it was grounded in time and place in the very structure of the book while I'm often not sure in "Leap" where Williams is or what she is talking about. The last 72 pages are notes that explain the often times cryptic writing in the main body of the book and I found that I needed to constantly switch back and forth from the text to the notes to gain some understanding of her intent. She uses the notes to explain "Mormonisms" to non Mormons, to explain what she meant in the text and to tell us who she is quoting . I'm not an expert in editorial do's and don'ts but I don't think that you have to give the reference when you quote yourself in your own journal or a conversation you participated in. Just say, "I wrote in my journal". The existence of so many notes seems to me to be proof the she knows that she isn't clear and that it was done deliberately. I came away with the impression that she wanted the text to sound more like poetry. It didn't seem poetic, just annoying. I'm glad that I was introduced to Bosch, (he has other pieces that are equally unusual and fascinating) and the best parts of the book ruminate about the creative process in our lives, but I'm ultimately grateful that the book was on sale. I only paid $9.00 and shipping. Unless you are a die hard TTW fan you might want to save your money. Cathryn Lane P.S. What everyone really needs to read is "Summerland" by the Pulitzer prize winning Michael Chabon. Very complex ,but older children should like it, and it's definitely not just for kids. Maybe I have spent too many days at the ball park watching a child of my own come up to bat with the bases loaded, two outs on the board at the bottom of the 5th (that's all the innings we play in this league) and certain in your heart that sorrow was the only outcome. The best line ever for a base ball book is contained within this wonderful book - "A baseball game is nothing but a great slow contraption for getting you to pay attention to the cadence of a summer day" (page 64 Summerland). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:26:25 -0700 Linda Adams wrote: > Just to make sure this is clear: DUH, my speculation is "all wrong!" I did > that on purpose. Do you think I'd be dumb enough to publish what Really > Will Happen? Even if I _knew??_ Argk! The last thing I need is a wide-eyed > cult-following claiming I'm a prophetess and throwing flowers in my hair > wherever I walk. Hmm, maybe I should write a novel with my speculations in it. This sounds enticing. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Books on Tape (was: Books on the Bedside Table) Date: 02 Apr 2003 23:09:07 -0800 Tracie Laulusa on books-on-tape: > > I listened to a couple Amanda Quick books-on-tape; I've been > practically living in the car the past few months. I had a much > harder time trying to read her--just not a gripping read. I had the > same reaction to Harry Potter. I thought I should read the books, > since all the kids were, but couldn't get past a few pages. I ended > up listening to them on CD and enjoyed them quite a bit. > I am hooked on books-on-tape. I'm an addict. I couldn't get nearly the amount of reading done I do if it were not for this wonderful explosion of recorded books. And some of the actors now working in the field (YES, George Guidel is one of my favorites, too) are SO good that, I totally agree, they transform an otherwise dismissible read, into a great experience. Of course, we've seen actors do that with lame scripts as well. I have also had the sad experience of having a terrible reader destroy the enjoyment of a book for me. This is rare, but it has happened a few times when a reader is so flat and dead or nasally or bland or just plain cotton-pickin' awful, that I hated the book in a way that had nothing to do with the book itself. Interesting. I tend now, in my re-writing phase, to go back and read my text outloud to myself to see how the "sound" and the flow of the words works as spoken language, as well as written text. This is a relatively new sensitivity, but I think it will begin to affect literature more and more as "performed" works of lit proliferate. We are now seeing more and more LDS books on tape, too. I have not yet sampled any of them, but I've had a couple of friends say they enjoyed them. Perhaps this will be the salvation of some of the more bland LDS works: have a bunch of actors tear their hearts out on tape, and we'll all just LISTEN to them, instead. Like R.K. Rowling, we'll get caught up in the fun and forget that the prose is fairly pedestrian. Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:48:46 -0700 Lisa Tait wrote: > > "What are some other BofM stories that might lend themselves to > fictional treatment?" Something addressing the recent DNA issue: how can the Book of Mormon be historically accurate even when no Jewish DNA exists among the natives in America? I've already worked out the scenario, but I hate the idea of doing research to evoke the culture accurately, so I don't know if I'll ever write it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 31 Mar 2003 17:12:43 -0700 On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 23:42 America/Phoenix, Eric Russell wrote: > > I think it might be inherently >> harder to do conservative literary theory because conservative theory >> doesn't fracture or focus very well. i.e. liberal politics can be >> rendered >> down to feminist, Marxist, or ecological studies. All relatively >> distinct, >> though broadly related to or influenced by liberal ideology. So what >> would >> a conservative look at? >> >> Good question, and one I'll have to think about. > >> Jacob Proffitt >> > > Yes, it is a good question. And one that I've been struggling with for > some time now. Current literary theory is so liberal it's actually > become boring. I'm currently attempting to create a systematic method > for reading texts based on conservative social principles and > psychology is one way I think this is possible. > > Terry Warner, who wrote Bonds That Make Us Free, developed a powerful, > socially conservative perspective on behavior that's now being used as > a sort of self-help program in various ways. But I think his ideas can > be focused down to a point where they could be used to do some really > strong readings. > > I think there's a lot more out there. Anyone else have any ideas > towards a conservative literary theory? > > Eric Russell > There already is a conservative literary theory. It's called Classicism. It's been around for an awful long time and was never intellectually defeated. As in so many other areas, most leftists never engaged Classicism intellectually, they merely engaged in ad hominem attacks, slandered the motives of Classicism's proponents, and then ignored any counter-arguments. Classicism deals in universals, while all post-modern and leftist criticism deals with relatives and denies the existence of universals. A philosophical conservative may know nothing of Classicism and may yet use many of its tenets to criticize literature. The versions of literary theory listed above (ie feminist, Marxist, or ecological) all attempt to read between the lines and lay current thought at the feet of ancient peoples. Classicism tends to be more literal--when I write "I was born in the city of Pergamon at the feet of Mount Parnassus" what I mean is "I was born in the city of Pergamon at the feet of Mount Parnassus." It doesn't mean that I am crushed by the patriarchy, exploited by the merchant class of Pergamon or aghast at the rape of beautiful Parnassus by my vile city. It just means what it says. Secondary or tertiary meanings are gleaned through larger context, but it is wrong to project current beliefs on people who never heard of them. The fact that women are more equal today than ever before in human history is not a function of societal evolution. It is a result of technology. A woman with a pistol is more than the equal of a 300lb 7 foot tall man with a baseball bat. Wolves aren't baying at the window. The Rule of Law and a bourgeois neighbor provide an astonishing degree of safety. This is Classicism at work--it's Marcus Aurelius writ large. "Ask of each particular thing what is it in itself; in it's material and nature." Jesus provided the best clue for it as well. "Love God with all your heart...and love thy neighbor as thyself. This is the Law and the Prophets." But when attempting to boil away the fat and see the core, one has to be very careful about what gets tossed and what gets kept. In addition, Classicism does not attempt to find a particular belief system in anything. It is perfectly willing to see that while Galens was an fool who meant well, the Venerable Bede was a true scholar. It is not fractured the way leftist theory is fractured because it does not insist on seeing all things through a single prism. The world doesn't boil down to feminist and patriarchy, class struggle is a red herring, and environmentalism is camoflage for neo-pagan socialism. Each one has a world-view that it sees in everything, and therefore those who follow these forms of criticism can understand nothing. It doesn't bother me that the Crusaders killed everybody in Jerusalem. That was perfectly just according to the rules of war that the knew. Jerusalem didn't surrender when it was perfectly obvious that it was lost. That is an insult of the first degree, and every man who died trying to take the city after it was already lost was a superfluous casualty. Therefore there was no mercy for those who murdered those men. It's strange to see things that way now, but instead of harshly judging them by my own standards I look at things through their perspective and do not condemn. They were wrong, but they were ignorant. They had been deluded by their own tradition and a corrupt church, but in their own context they were justified. It's only after the fact that it's obvious that the Church was corrupt. There were some who were appalled, but these few priests were well-educated and cultured, despite the fact that they denied these things to so many others. Their crocodile tears were not very impressive, however, since they're the ones who unleashed the beast. The idea that the Crusaders themselves should have known better is ridiculous, because atrocities as great were performed in several well-educated and highly civilized societies in the last 50 years. And all this because they abandoned classical critical thinking to indulge in fantasy ideologies like marxism, nazism, and their modern philosophical derivative radical environmentalism. Even today more than a hundred thousand people, most of them children, die every year because of environmentalism. The banning of DDT has caused these deaths, and no two months ago starving people in Africa either refused or were denied food because it was "GM frankenfood." I wonder if they'd be any less dead even if perfectly safe food turned out to be dangerous. Even if GM food was 10% deadly, it would still be better than 50% starved to death. Classicism has been undergoing an underground revival. Critical thinking is making its way back into the world slowly but surely, because the body-count of the fantasy-dreamers grows ever larger as its fingers destroy whatever it touches. Dead White Men ought to be judged on the merits, not on their gender or skin color. All literature should be judged in the same way--how does it relate to the world as it really is. Writing is the one medium by which one human being can come to understand another, which is psychology enough without attempting to use unproven fantasies, that are falsely ennobled by the title theories, to psychoanalyze the writers. Perhaps most writers really do mean what they say, even when they're lying. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 03 Apr 2003 09:39:01 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "For example, here's what many Saints would say if they found out their elders quorum instructor had gone skinnydipping at a nearby hot spring. "That's evil--he shouldn't have done that." Instead of saying: "The aversion to nudity is a cultural influence based on an apostate belief. I was raised to be uncomfortable with nudity, so I don't want to do it, but if my elders quorum instructor indulged in a little innocent, nonsexual skinnydipping, what's that to me?" " Well, I have to confess here. At my house, located deep in the surburbs of Centerville, Utah, I have a backyard pool in which, it is well known, you have to skinny-dip to become an offical member of the Succulent Wild Woman Club. So far the club contains me, my two duaghters, my seven nieces, four women from my water aerobics class and the neighbor's nephew who was the only one foolhardy enough to skinny-dip in broad daylight and who has never been told that makes him an official member of the club. The rest of us wait until after 10:00 PM on a dark night because most of us can't claim to skinny-dip. Rather, we chunky-dunk. Who wants to see that in broad daylight? Certainly not my neighbors. I didn't want to see my neighbor's nephew either, so I closed the blinds when I realized this strange person who was uninvited in my pool was also unclothed. I have to forgive him. He's sixteen, from out of state and it was a really hot day. He was roofing on his uncle's roof and the temptation of the sparkling blue cool was too much for him. By the way, it's the same neighbor as the one who throws the beer parties on Sunday afternoons, borrowing my chairs that say "property of the Centerville Utah Stake" on them. Nephew went home, neighbor apologized for his behavior, to which I replied "no problem. I was only momentarily worried when I glanced out and saw him floating face down. I thought he was a dead body." I didn't mention the bare butt part. When The Body sat up and threw his long hair back off his face, I sighed with relief and called my husband at work to say "there is a naked young man in the pool. I don't have any idea who it is." Hubby, of course, being an ex-cop wanted me to call the cops, but first he wanted me to go out and confront the young man. "Are you kidding?" I exploded. He's butt-nekkid and I don't have a clue who he is. I'll just keep an eye out and lock the doors. Soon the young man left, taking his clothes with him. Later I spotted him on the neighbor's roof. Mystery solved. Hey, I was the one who told all my neighbors "come swimming any time you want" because they put up with me teaching water aerobics 3 times a day. The Naked Nephew was the only one to ever take me up on it. And so, yes, I am an Evil 1st Councilor in the Young Women's presidency who corrupted the President by coercing her into joining the Succulent Wild Woman Club, and we both hold temple recommends. Just for the record, I nixed the suggestion of a skinny-dipping activity for the Young Women (their suggestion, not mine). I figure I don't want to get permission slips from the parents. However, I did tell the girls who were interested that if they wanted to bring their mommy some hot summer night they were welcome to use the pool. This is a women's only event, in case you haven't figured it out yet. Culture Schmulture. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:58:25 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > > I just wanted to share an interesting newspaper article. I think it's the > first time a reporter has accurately represented my points of view. > Ironically, the reporter is a student at UVSC. > > Here's the link: > http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/17/3e77815bc874b?in_archive=1 Quotes from the article: ======== "Don't worry what other people say about what you do, as long as your work is honest," said Dutcher. "As long as I feel that the Lord accepts me, everyone else can go to hell." He compared sitting in a theater to sitting in church. He hopes he is not alone in his desire to share a unique LDS perspective with the world at large. "We are created to create...I believe we have been given a challenge by President Kimball (former LDS prophet) and even the Lord to share our talents with the world." Dutcher finished his remarks with a call for more LDS artists to put out honest work, flaws and all. "Don't be concerned with the looks your Relief Society President is going to give you, you should be working for yourself. In the end it only matters what you think of yourself and what the Lord thinks of you." ======== Hey, that's what I said in a recent message on suffering artists. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] DN: Entrepreneur Makes a Good LDS Living Date: 03 Apr 2003 14:42:20 -0700 Entrepreneur makes a good LDS Living By Dennis Romboy Deseret News staff writer PROVO - Matt Kennedy is (LDS) living large. Some 180,000 subscribers receive daily e-mail from his Web site, ldsliving.com. As many as 7,000 customers a month order books, videos, CDs, software and jewelry from the site. More than 10,000 subscribe to his fledgling magazine, LDS Living. Another 8,000 have e-mail addresses from his new ISP ending in @ldsliving.com. And thousands of morning television channel surfers might soon click across a new program, LDS Living. Kennedy figures his growing company will make about $5 million this year, up $1.5 million from 2002. Not bad for a one-time Catholic altar boy who ran away from home at age 14. "It's easy and it's fun," said Kennedy, wearing a golf shirt and khaki shorts in his East Bay office/warehouse. "And it's a dang lot of money." The LDS products market is thriving, though no one seems to be able to put a dollar value on the industry that has sprouted up around The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "I know it's big, at least multi-multi-million dollar," said Doyl Peck, president of Sounds of Zion, the largest distributor of Latter-day Saint goods. "Whether it's $100 million or $200 million or what, I really don't know." Most companies that deal in LDS-oriented products are private and don't divulge financial information. Covenant Communications publishes about 60 LDS-oriented books a year, triple that of a decade ago. Marketing Vice President Robby Nichols says the market is growing, though not exploding at the moment. Independent books stores, he said, come and go. Still, "life's been good to us. No question." Kennedy's best explanation for the boom is that LDS Church membership - some 11 million strong - has reached a critical mass. "There's just enough Mormons now," he said. Provo-based LDS Living has doubled its earnings in each of its first four years. It has sold some 190,000 VHS and DVD copies of "The Singles Ward," a movie the company co-produced. The movie soundtrack has sold 70,000 copies. "That's a gold record in the LDS market," Kennedy said. LDS Living has other plans to strike while it's hot. Kennedy has a line of interactive scriptural software to appeal to what he calls the "Nickelodeon generation." The company also is dabbling in the national market with PDA software containing various versions of the Bible and famous political speeches. LDS Living also is "really, really close" to putting together a daytime TV show featuring family, cooking and book segments, he said. Ben Peterson, who runs an online dating service called ldsmingle.com, describes Kennedy as someone who thinks outside the box. "He's very dynamic, very intelligent." Kennedy, 35, attributes business success to hard work and being in the right place at the right time. "I'm constantly standing on the platform waiting for the train to stop," he said. But it's hard for him to pick out the most serendipitous moment in his King Midas life. Maybe it was the day a three-wheeler crashed near him while he slept in an alfalfa field to which he had run to escape alcoholic parents. The boy who wrecked his vehicle turned out to be a school acquaintance. He invited the runaway to take a shower at his house. Kennedy wound up spending his teenage years living with the family. They were members of the LDS Church. Or the day a date asked him at age 19 when he planned to turn in his missionary papers for the church, though unbeknownst to her, he wasn't a member. He joined a short time later and served a mission in Japan. Or the day he met a Japanese businessman on his mission who later helped him launch a lucrative business. The man called Kennedy one day asking him to ship American products for resale in Japan. Kennedy stumbled across 600 pairs of L.L. Bean jeans for $14 a pair. He figured he'd mark them up $2 or $3. The Japanese man offered $53 a pair, netting Kennedy about $25,000. Kennedy later formed a company that exported goods, mostly camping gear, to Japan. In 1996, it did $41 million worth of business. When the Asian economy crashed two years later, so did the company. He emerged relatively unscathed. Looking for a new gig, Kennedy stumbled into selling LDS products with a goofy idea for a missionary door knocker. As a missionary in Japan, the Arizona native didn't like to remove his gloves in the winter so he carried a rock or golf ball to tap on doors. He had 1,000 handball-sized brass globes made. Although they didn't sell quickly, his customers routinely asked if he had other LDS items to sell. He didn't. But not for long. An LDS day planner, which he designed on his home computer, was his first real venture. Selling only on the Internet, it took off immediately. But it didn't bring in big money. Because the Web site was not set to accept credit cards, Kennedy billed customers. At least 60 percent never paid. Maybe Kennedy's luckiest break was when a spurned Internet advertising sales rep turned around to make a last-ditch plea to give her company a try before walking out the door. For some reason, he changed his mind. The $1,700 per month fee paid off quickly. Kennedy did $40,000 in sales on the first e-mail ad. "It just grew out of that door knocker into this," Kennedy said as workers busily maneuver through piles of boxes to fill hundreds of orders. "It's a living." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 03 Apr 2003 11:23:13 -0700 (MST) Lisa Tait wrote: >>> taitfam@houston.rr.com 03/31/03 11:52AM >>> How do you think the Corianton story would look if one of us novelized it today? What are some other BofM stories that might lend themselves to fictional treatment? >>>>>>>>>> I know of two novelizations: Randall Hall's _Cory Davidson_ and my missionary series. (Only the first two books in the series were published: _The MTC: Set Apart_ and _Into the Field_, so I have still to get my Corry together with Isabella in print.) Ironically, Randall Hall is now my boss in CES. Ben Parkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Re: Books on Tape Date: 03 Apr 2003 12:19:36 -0700 At 09:37 PM 4/1/03 -0500, you wrote: >I believe what we actually checked out was the book-on-tape read by >Barbara Rosenblat--and that is why I enjoyed listening to it. I love >Barbara Rosenblat (and George Guidel). Rosenblatt is a wonderful reader! She extracts every possible nuance and bit of humor. Elizabeth Peters says she can't wait to hear her own books read by Rosenblatt because she enjoys them so much more! I know everyone has heard me say this, but you've gotta listen to the Amelia Peabody Emerson series! I've heard Rosenblatt read books with English accents, American accents, German accents--she even read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn in a Brooklyn accent. Amanda Quick is an old favorite of mine, but I like her earlier books better. She recently has written a few in which the characters--in Regency England, no less--wind up not as husband and wife, but as "business partners" and occasional co-fornicators. Excuse me, but those are not romances! Ewwwww! (OTOH, she does write pretty funny sex scenes.) Other readers I like are Davina Porter, who must have made enough to retire on from reading all the unabridged Diana Gabaldon books, and the guy who reads the Jan Karon books. I forget his name right now, but he sure does sound just right for Father Tim. I've listened to quite a few LDS novels on tape, but I don't usually enjoy the narrator. They usually are not skilled actors like Rosenblatt, who uses different voices and plays all the parts. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: RE: [AML] Anita STANSFIELD, _To Love Again_ (Review) Date: 03 Apr 2003 13:25:22 -0700 Quoting Jeff Needle : > This review is very much appreciated. It gives me something to look for in > her books. > > The comment below was puzzling. If Deseret Book is willing to special order > books, why remove titles from their review archive? These were books sold > by their outlet, and they are still willing to order them. Very curious > indeed. > > ---------------- > Jeffrey Needle > jeff.needle@general.com I don't have any "insider" information. But when I checked their website just before sending the review, the book itself was not available. It had been there only a few days before. I don't know if there are links to reviews for books that DB no longer offers, but these reviews were available as part of the "page" for the book. It was my understanding previous to this that the book would still be available on the web or via special order, just not physically at DB stores. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 03 Apr 2003 13:54:11 -0800 Jongiorgi Enos has, in a nutshell, defined the growing genre of literary or creative nonfiction! And I would agree with his lengthy comments, and, I would agree with his comment at the end of his post that his disagreement with me is merely "semantic." And ... I messed up. Jongiorgi caught it. Yikes. Please substitute the word "straight" with "literary" and you'll have understood my real intentions here, I believe. Literary nonficiton is indeed the more flexible subgenre; straight nonfiction is the more rigid, with its own set of compositional perameters. As I look back at this statement now, I realize that what was in my head and what is in the actual email response are vastly differing. I would contend ever so slightly, however, with the notion that literary nonfiction doesn't need to be factual. Within the creative peramaters of the literary nonfiction genre, an attempt at truth must still be pursued by the writer--and there is broad interpretation of the writers "attempt at truth." Otherwise it would be fiction, or historical fiction. This attempt at truth with a literary nonfiction text can be portrayed, as Maxine Hong Kingston does in her "Woman Warrior, Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts," utizilizing the fictional elements of myth and dream. Is Kingston's memoir fictional because she uses myth and dream? Or is it nonfictional? I believe it is more nonfictional because of her *attempt* at portraying her own account of growing up female and Chinese-American. The nonfictive elements of her life--the actual, factual, truthful elements--drive this narrative, but artfully so, with many of the conventions of fiction (characterization, story arc, myth, dream, scene, dialogue, etc.). So, I think we largely agree here. I was imprecise with my language defining two types of nonfiction. Travis Manning ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:20 PM > > Travis K. Manning said: > > "There is an unwritten contract that exists between writers and readers of > literary nonfiction (I am distinguishing literary nonfictive genres like > memoir and personal essay, from 'straight' nonfiction like autobiography and > most journalism). This unwritten contract requires the writer of literary > NF to be as exacting and detailed as is possible." > > I believe the exact opposite to be true. > > Travis' comments are correct, but completly reversed, so I have probably > misunderstood him, and I suspect it is I that got confused. But to make > sure, I'll restate it how I see it, and we'll see if there is agreement or > not.... -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 03 Apr 2003 15:04:27 -0800 .Mr. Manning's comments regarding my first scriptural example (the people of Benjamin crying as one voice) seems very likely--that King Benjamin had a written covenant the people were asked to accept and that, perhaps, they all spoke it together simultaneously. This is a very reasonable explanation, and I adopt it as my working assumption regarding these verses. As for my second example (the runners sent to investigate the alleged murder of the chief judge), I claimed that the thoughts expressed between these runners as they ran full tilt were probably the truth of their sentiments and not the actual words. If I understand his rebuttal, Mr. Manning agrees with me. What I believe he is actually taking issue with is my word choice, suggesting as I did that Mormon "got away" with something. What I suggested he "got away" with was telling the truth without using a word-for-word transcription of the runners' actual dialogue. Not that he somehow lied and invalidated the Book of Mormon or even 1/10th of that statement. I'm concerned that anyone interpreted me in this way. In fact, the whole purpose of my original post (which I thought I titled "Validity of Memory and the Book of Mormon") was that nonfiction does not mean taperecorded transcription, but actual events, honestly told. This is the contract with the reader Mr Manning spoke of, and I agree with him that Mormon never broke that contract. I don't know of any "discrepancies" in the Book of Mormon that need rectifying, and I certainly don't amuse myself by pretending I would be the one to so rectify. And that's the truth. ====================================================================== ************************************************* Yes, Theric, I think I misunderstood your intent: "If Mormon can get away with it so can we." My take was different than your intention, it appears. I would agree that nonfiction does not mean "taperecorded transcription, but actual events, honestly told." I agree with this. As I state in my response to Jongiorgi Enos' post to these same comments, the writer attempting literary nonfiction must, however, make an attempt at truth. Literary nonfiction writing allows the nonfiction writer to carry nearly all the tools of the fiction writer in his writing tool box, but the fiction tools must be precisely identified and applied when making such an attempt. Meaning, the reader needs to know if a literary nonfictionist is employing fictional tools. For example, in Eugene England's essay "Gooseberry Creek: a Narrative of Hope," England relays an experience of taking his granddaughter, Charlotte, fishing. But the fishing expedition is a fictional event. The actual event never happened. If the reader is not careful, s/he will not have noticed that at the very beginning of the essay England clues the reader in to what he is doing: "Charlotte is our oldest granddaughter, named for her grandmother. When she was baptized just after she turned eight four years ago, I promised her that the summer after her twelfth birthday I would take her on a day-long trip into the wilderness to teach her to fly-fish. We will go on Monday, August 17, 1998. This is how I imagine the trip, my vision of how I hope she will remember it: "We drive south from Provo on U.S. Highway 89, through Spanish Fork Canyon and the ghost town of Thistle, to Fairview at the head of the San Pitch Valley. As we turn east up Cottonwood Canyon, we are quickly surrounded by stands of scrub oak and mountain maple. Even after we drive into the shadow of the steep range of the Wasatch Mountains ahead of us--the western edge of Utah's high plateau country--the greens of the oak leaves stand out rich and varied, a few branches shading off toward copper and red though it is still summer. We are silent, climbing slowly along the deep cuts the dugway makes in the north side of the canyon and glancing far down to our right at the groves of aspen and darker spruce and fir that gradually increase to fill the south side of the canyon as we climb...." Is this Eugene England personal essay depicting "an actual event, honestly told"? Or, if he is "imagining" this fishing trip, shouldn't it be considered more of a fictional account? My answer: no, this nonfictional personal essay is not fiction, though, it does employ the more often used fictional tool of imagining, or imagination; it's almost a daydream, a calculated daydream. Again my question: Is this essay fiction or nonfiction? Nonfiction, because the author is making an attempt at telling the truth, his own perceived truth, his own imagined truth, based distinctly on a real place, Gooseberry Creek, with which the author is intimately familiar. Gooseberry Creek is a real place, an actual stream, in the setting the author is beginning to unveil in the second paragraph, above. But the author is employing some fictional tools here to "hammer out" his nonfictional narrative. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 03 Apr 2003 18:47:16 -0500 I could see a lot of parents, even if they didn't actually condemn her, trying to keep their young men from having a serious relationship with her. They might not think it was her fault, but they would still consider her damaged. And to a point, they are right to be concerned. Anyone contemplating a serious relationship with a person, and though she is still young I think that would be their concern, who has been through this kind of trauma, or divorce, or abuse, or depression ......... should approach the relationship with some caution. Caution isn't quite the right word. I mean, they should understand the situation and the possible emotional and physical ramifications and at least have some sort of mental understanding of what they may be facing. No, before anyone sends me hate mail, I am not saying someone shouldn't enter a relationship with a person who has been through trauma. My sister had a kidney failure when she was nineteen. Her husband "couldn't handle it" and they divorced. A few years later she met a wonderful guy, who knowing at least a bit of what life could be life, made an informed decision to marry her. They had a wonderful 15 years together before she died last year. There is a chance in every marriage for unforeseen difficulties. Extended unemployment, trauma of various sorts, infidelity. Obviously you can't know everything you will have to face going in, but you can at least know about the stuff that there is to know. I suppose that is one function of biography and fiction. You can, through someone else's writing, wear someone else's shoes. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 03 Apr 2003 19:01:29 EST For what it's worth, there is in the minds of many this idea that rape victims are somehow soiled goods. I had a friend who was raped, and when she told her fiance that she had been raped several years previously, he broke off the engagement because she was damaged goods. He felt that he deserved someone "pure" because he hadn't ever engaged in the act--willingly or unwillingly. I told him that as far as the Lord was concerned, he was guilty of the larger sin--in condemning her for something she couldn't help. That I for one, wouldn't want her to marry him then because of his attitude making her life miserable, but that he needed to repent of some mighty self-righteous attitudes. She went on to serve a mission and be married in the temple to someone else. But while not everyone blames the victim, there are enough that someone who is already struggling with a sense of self-worth over the rape & perhaps other things may see these few/many (depending on which ward one happens to be in) as proving that they're not worth much. Write the stories, folks, and reveal the pain inflicted on the victim by the self-serving who are searching for ways to make themselves feel better about their own miserable lives (why else would they want to tear down someone else's). Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 03 Apr 2003 16:19:08 -0800 ---Original Message From: Robert Slaven (from Jacob Proffitt's reply): > Robert Slaven wrote: OTOH, how many parents from her=20 > ward/stake/SLC generally will tell their young men "Stay away=20 > from her, she's tainted" or "after what she's been through,=20 > she'll mess you up" or whatever it is they might say. > I wouldn't be at all surprised if she felt "Well, I'm=20 > 'damaged goods' anyway, so there's no point going home." She=20 > may have thought that on her own thanks to our cultural=20 > hang-ups, her captors may have planted the idea in her head,=20 > or (most likely) both fed off of each other. Wow, I'm really glad I do not live in Robert's Ward (or know a lot of = people like that). The psychological brain washing done by the two people who kidnapped her = may be the ultimate culprit behind the feelings mentioned (if they are = there - being "tainted"). I would hope the Bishop, her family, and a = truly inspired councilor (when the time comes) will be able to help her = change her mind. Will there be comments like this (tainted)? Maybe, but = one would hope these people would realize how severely God will judge = them for these remarks. Hopefully Elizabeth and her family are strong = enough for this kind of bottom dwelling people. > Jacob wrote: I *hope* she didn't get that message from our doctrine. = It'd represent a > serious mis-understanding of what was supposed to be taught. If we're > teaching our teens that rape is always the woman's fault then we're in = some > serious trouble. I fell like Jacob. Anyone who interprets our doctrine in such a way that = child molestation and rape are the fault of the girl or woman needs to = examine this feeling and there understanding. It did not come from any = of the revelations or doctrines taught now or in the past. > Robert Slaven wrote: She's going to have people whispering=20 > behind her back for at least the next decade. If I were her=20 > dad, I'd be seriously looking into home-schooling her through=20 > high school, and then making sure any post-sec takes place outside=20 > of Utah. And I don't even want to think about what she might have to = go=20 > through at church from fellow Young Women over the next few years. I do agree with Robert. There are those girls who will do this because = they feel threatened by Elizabeth and will use anything to get an edge. = Any young priesthood holder who doesn't call them to repentance and = listens to this muck (or passes on this ill conceived gossip) needs to = know God will not hold them guiltless for the soul of this young girl if = she is damaged in any way (mentally or otherwise). > Jacob wrote: Huh? I kind of agree with the leaving Utah for post-sec = because that'll > help even out the reactions and make it easier to concentrate on, you = know, > school. I can't *imagine*, though, a significant portion of our Young = Women > treating her poorly because of the ordeal she endured. One or two = *maybe*, > but they'd be snots to everybody regardless of their circumstances. I'm not sure I agree with the leaving Utah part for post secondary. She = may want to but hopefully it would be for her own educational reasons = and not to "escape" in any form of the word. When she is ready she will = want to be back in high school with her friends. She may want to do home = schooling for a time but this would be a bad thing for the long run = since she needs to confront this "demon" and cope with the = problem/gossipy girls and boys. My general feeling is this young lady = will be massively protected and anyone who says even the smallest hint = of her being tainted will be confronted by her dearest friends and even = reported to local Bishops, Seminary Teachers, and school officials. I = saw a massive show of support for her the day of and following her being = rescued and her abductors arrested. Love can overcome a lot of things. = That is what makes this Gospel and the Church so great is when it works = the way the Lord wants it to and people are healed through love, = prayers, fasting, and Education by the Spirit. Can you imagine the = feeling she would have about herself if the Lord blessed her with a = personal revelation about her worth and how she is not damaged (above = and beyond a Patriarchal Blessing)? What a book that would make. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 03 Apr 2003 18:14:55 -0700 I hope I'm misunderstanding this post because, if I'm not -- if Jongiorgi is actually saying that the author is the last to know his own work, then why should any of us even try to write motivated characters? Let's just make our serial killer a guy who -- I don't know -- always plays Monopoly after he kills someone. Why? Author: "I don't know. YOU figure it out!" If, otoh, Jon's saying that, despite the author's best efforts to carefully delineate his protagonist, the author *still* can't totally describe a character, then I will agree. I remember when my play "Matters of the Heart" was directed by Thomas Rogers eons ago. I had tried hard to make the play's only female character a real person. Not being a woman (despite what the jocks at my high school said when I took modern dance in my senior year), I was uncertain that I had written the woman's part real enough. But, I HAD tried. Under Tom's expert direction and Betty Joe Smith's wonderful acting, Elizabeth Baines turned out to be a remarkably well-rounded and complete female, thinking the way females think (or so say all the women who've seen the show). This is not to say that Tom and Betty Joe didn't add many things I had never thought off, but I am pretty sure that if I hadn't made the effort to make my character as real as I could, they wouldn't have been able to do such a good job in fleshing her out. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 03 Apr 2003 20:43:45 -0500 Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: "I obviously need to read my issues of Dialogue and get a subscription to Sunstone if I want to survive in the church. My family and church friends and my ward members seem to think so differently than I do. I feel more and more isolated and more and more like I don't belong. On-line community can help. But is it enough? I think real face to face conversation and friendship is what I need. . . . Let's face it the sense of community and belonging that the church provides is one of the strongest positive things that people experience from membership. But when you start to feel that you don't belong, it goes in exactly the other way. In other words, I need people and where am I going to find them? More and more the people that think like I do are not LDS. I keep trying to keep a foot in both camps, but it is pulling me apart. So thank you John Williams for giving me a a chance today to feel not completely alone!" Gae Lyn, here's another person feeling glad to be not quite so alone after John Williams's post (and next year I'll be at UCI where John and his wife and the Remy's are; I am counting myself lucky knowing they are there). I wanted to respond here because I can see the posts coming. The somewhat outraged response that of course the church is not as homogenous as you paint it to be. of course you are welcome and there is a place in it for you. of course of course of course. and if you feel otherwise, you are being blind and incapable of appreciating people for who they really are. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those posts won't come. but i wanted to respond anyway. and the people who may respond in that vein are right in a way. individuals are never as like one another as they appear to be when they are seen in a group. but the group does have a character--there are characteristics of the *group* even if those characteristics do not necessarily belong to every member of the group. that's how i can be the liberal femi-nazi intellectual radical i am and still call myself a mormon (hyperbole, people--that's what my family jokingly calls me, but it's only half-jokingly). unfortunately the mormon "group character" is not very welcoming to those who don't fit it and who are not afraid of showing that they don't fit it. and while there are individuals within the group who will tolerate and befriend and fellowship (i hate that word) the ones who think differently, that's not enough. i want friends. i want people who i can talk to and discuss issues with. i want people who understand me and appreciate me for who and what i am, even when they don't agree. what i feel at church is kind of a behind-my-back head-shaking tolerance. i get it from my family all the time. i am an aberration. my beliefs are aberrations. someday i will realize that my beliefs are wrong and i will then simply agree with mainstream opinions within the church cause they are right. i could list a lot of my beliefs--ethical and political and personal and religious--that 90% of the mormon population would shake their heads at. i don't want to be accepted in spite of my "aberrations". i don't want to be treated like some day i will change and in the mean time i just have to be loved so much. i just want to be loved without a thought given to the time when i will see the "light". and you know what, i've experienced it. in my apartments. in my ward. in my FHE groups. and in my humble opinion, a community that welcomes someone all the while hoping and expecting and waiting for the day when that someone changes is not a community at all. what we need is some simple acceptance. no strings attached. kind of like the acceptance i find from my god. an acceptance of difference. not of wrongness. a recognition that a difference of opinion is actually a good thing, not a bad thing to be stamped out. it is something to be embraced and fostered so that it will bloom into a fuller understanding of the world for both parties. for two years i let the lack of communion with others at church tear me apart, forcing my anxiety so high that i left church angry instead of uplifted. but i've let go of that now. i've realized that the mormon emphasis on community does not have to exsist only within ward and stake boundaries. or within shared identities. since i moved back to utah last may, i have found 2 new friends. they are the people i connect with, the people i share with. i did not meet them at church. i worship at church. i find my community elsewhere. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wes Rook" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 03 Apr 2003 18:05:26 -0800 Richard Dutcher wrote: : I just wanted to share an interesting newspaper article. I think it's the : first time a reporter has accurately represented my points of view. : Ironically, the reporter is a student at UVSC. : Thanks for sharing, Richard. Your remarks in the article were very inspiring for someone like myself, who recieved a very nasty letter from Deseret Book questioning my testimony after submitting a novel which was based on my own TRUE missionary experiences. I have a new favorite quote to hang above my computer: "As long as I feel that the Lord accepts me, everyone else can go to hell." -- Richard Dutcher. That's the best quote I've seen in a long time. I'm putting it right next to the Teddy Roosevelt quote you sent me a few weeks ago, Richard. Thanks for the inspiration. Wes Rook Sacramento, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:51:37 EST In a message dated 4/2/2003 10:42:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu writes: > Point is, you're more or less picking one really good film and honoring it, > and if you're going to do that, I think character counts. I think it > matters...The Pianist was a wonderful film, and it was beautifully > directed. Ten other films were as good, and as well directed. So count > everything, and don't give the Oscar to a convicted pedophile. > I respectfully disagree. Also having seen all the films, in my opinion "The Pianist" was "the best", so beautiful and so powerful. I had several thoughts after I had seen the film that I'd like to share. First of all, I will never again allow myself any sympathy for the "no R-rated movies rule." Not that I had much sympathy before. But this was such a wonderful film. I can't imagine anyone watching this film and not coming away from the experience a better human being, a more caring human being. And, as a result, a little closer to God. Another thing I feel very strongly about is that if awards are going to be given out for "Best Director" or "Best Writer" or "Best Novel" or whatever, the judges should try to be honest and impartial. In my opinion, if a convicted mass-murderer writes a novel that is truly the most accomplished novel published in a given year, then the award should go to the mass-murderer. We shouldn't let him out of prison or excuse him for what he has done, but neither should we deny the work. Frankly, I don't think the author's character has anything to do with it. Only if he's a plagiarist should he be denied the recognition. Otherwise, let's re-title the awards. Maybe "Best Director Who Is Also A Fine Human Being" or "Best Novel Written by a Person Who Has Never Been Caught Doing Something Wrong." Having said that, I think it is interesting that Roman Polanski, who once sexually forced himself on a 13-year-old girl, has crafted the most beautiful, sincere, spiritual, and wrenchingly human film of the year. Perhaps our judgment of his character is flawed. Perhaps Roman Polanski is a basically good man who made a very, very bad mistake. Perhaps a man is more than his sins. For my sake, I certainly hope so. Personally, I don't believe the man who made "The Pianist" can be dismissed as evil. The fruit is too good for the tree to be bad. Let's leave the judgment of Roman Polanski to God and, in the meantime, thank him for a beautiful film. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:35:49 -0700 > Some questions to ask yourself if you want to be a great Mormon artist. Okay, I'll bite. Of course I already consider myself such, otherwise I couldn't be writing the great mormon novel at this time. I think creativity requires a certain confidence, which may be the basis of make-believe. > Do you worry that you will offend people with what you right? I'm sure that I will offend by right, But yes, I worry about offending people with what I write. Evidence: I worry that I offended Dutcher by my memoir in Irreantum. He told me that I hadn't offended me, but he didn't say that he liked the piece, or even read it. So how do I know that there isn't latent OFFENCE just waiting to happen if he or his wife or his biship reads it and is offended? I'm worried. I wasn't worried when I wrote it because I didn't know anyone would ever read it. > Do you stress over correct language used by your characters? (profanity, > etc.) Only on the 15th draft. Until then I let it flow. > Do you find yourself saying, "I can't write that. People will think > Mormons are weird?" No. I start with the assumption that people think we're weird. I want to describe it so we are understood. Not that we are normal, but understood. > Must all your Mormon characters always have the right answers? How could they disagree if they did? > Do you wonder if your mother will get embarrassed over the scene you > just wrote? Absolutely. I even had my mother read a near-final draft. She was jealous of my sister who read it before her. She told me that a couple of lines were too strong. She was right--I think. So I rewrote them. Am I a mama's boy? No more than the next guy. Would I have listened to her if she had corrected a solution to a differential equation? No. But if it offends her sensability, why not reconsider? That said, I know when I was younger, I wouldn't dare let my mother read anything I wrote. After a while, the mother/son relationship matures more into and adult/adult relationship. > Do you work hard at making your villains as well-rounded as your > protagonists? I'm not quite sure I have written about villians. I was planning to write a children's adventure story, and different people told me a villian would work nicely against the boys, but I can't do it. > Do you feel compelled to have all loose threads of doubt, sin, etc. > neatly wrapped up at the end of your story? Not all threads. But if you don't have some things wrapped up, how do you know you are at the end of the story? > Do you ever ask yourself, "What would the Brethren say if they read > this?" No. I don't really know any Brethren. As far as I know, they don't know me. As proof, I wrote that review of Elder Eyring's book. (Time to worry about giving offense again). > Your answers to those questions may make the difference between becoming > a great artist and well, just an artist. Thom, do you know these truths because you are a Mormon and have all the answers? (see question above) Can't we allow a few "loose threads of doubt" on the questions. I think someone could fail this litmus test and still do great art. I also think there is no singe road to success or art. You do art and you can write the rules. Did I offend you, Thom, by my answers? Will you click your tongue and think, "Well, HE can't do great art." Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:58:13 -0700 Okay Jongiorgi, where will you draw the line? We have the right to watch a video in our home. Do we have the right to get up in the middle and visit the bathroom? Do we have the right to shut our eyes in certain places? Do we have the right to fast forward over certain parts? Do we have the right to skip a scene in the DVD version? Do we have the right to destroy our copy of the movie? Do we have the right to cut an offending portion from the movie ourselves? (Do we have the right to cut those tags off our matresses?) Do we have the right to let someone do if for us? Do we have the right to pay someone minimum wage to do it for us? Just tell me where you draw the line. Mattress police. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] re: Mormons and Jews Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:22:36 -0800 On this thread about Mormons and Jews, a few thoughts: 1. It seems to me that the Jews have been around at least a few years longer than the Mormons. My history may be wrong . 2. After you've been through as much as we've been through, you develop something of a sense of humor about the whole thing. And when you've been the butt of as many jokes as we have, even your enemies eventually learn the vocabulary -- they do, after all, need to mock you properly. 3. Jewish humor is often explicitly Jewish. Mormon humor, if it exists outside the Mormon circumference, looks like Donny and Marie, Mormon all the way, but not explicitly Mormon. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 03 Apr 2003 23:07:39 -0700 P. J. O'Rourke does make good arguments and is funny. Have you read any of Jonah Goldberg's funny stuff? He writes for National Review, as well. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Line from Samuelsen... Date: 03 Apr 2003 23:19:17 -0700 Barbara Hume asked >I've been trying to remember a great line from Eric's play The Way We're >Wired. It goes something like this: "You're single for one of three >reasons: you're divorced, you're widowed, or you never married. In other >words, you're a failure, a pity case, or a loser." How does it go? I don't >think I have it in the most effective order, anyway. >barbara hume I may not be the first to respond to this, but if I may have the pleasure of answering the question (since I had the pleasure of saying it again and again during February), I'd be delighted. The line is "In Mormon culture, there's three ways you become a single adult. You never married, or you were widowed, or you're divorced. In other words, you're either a loser, a pity case, or a failure." One of the great lines in Mormon literature. We love you, Eric!! Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 04 Apr 2003 01:30:51 -0500 >Richard Hopkins wrote: >This sounds interesting. However, those of us who do not live in academia do >not quickly translate these buzz words. Could you rewrite this paragraph >with complete translations of all the buzz words so we can all get an idea >of what you're talking about. This might actually lead to some thoughts, >though one never knows around here. :-) Right on, Richard. As Alan Mitchell so aptly put it, "Any tin-pan intellectual can act serious, in fact seriousness is their commodity." Let me repent, then, of my tin-pan intellectualis "seriousness". I'll also warn you that what follows (as the understanding of a grad student just getting started) may be *wildly* inaccurate, and invite any of those better read than I am to please correct me. (I'd rather hear it from you now than my dissertation committee a couple of years from now.) More substantively, what I'm envisioning is an answer (or an approach to an answer) to the question of where literature and literary studies might go, now that one might say it's reached the end of it's ironic rope. Modernism, a literary movement that began (depending on whom you ask) in the very late nineteenth/early twentieth century (and which we arguably are still in, now), has often been characterized by its emphasis on its own self-awareness--its critical awareness of (in other words, its ironic distance from) the problems of using language to talk about the real world. Deconstructionism is what it sounds like--a critical project that advocates the deconstruction of what it would call the myth that a word can have a definite and transmittable meaning. (This ironic worldview is opposed to what a Mexican critic and poet named Octavio Paz, for one, spoke of as the pre-modern(ist) "analogic" mode of art, which operates under the assumption that words have meanings in and of themselves, that they have an inherent connection to the world they describe, or at least that they function as analogies for the concepts they describe, that there's a one-to-one coincidence between word and thing/concept.) So along comes postmodernism, which (again, depending on whom you ask) is either a movement against modernism or simply the inevitable end result of modernism's own path. Postmodernism is characterized generally by an even greater sense of the ironic, of the chasm between words and the world (or, in an interesting flip, the idea that the world _is_ words). I mentioned "the move toward the cyber/post-human in the most extreme branches of cultural studies," by which I meant the move--in a branch of literary/social criticism that focuses on the cultural function of all sorts of artistic (and meaning by this word lots of things more conservative critics would not) production--by some of its more extreme adherents, toward a reconception of the human as both less rational and more and more machinelike (even more and more machine) than it has traditionally been thought. Postmodernism has been around for fifty years, give or take, and people are now wondering what comes next. What comes after post-modernism? Post-post-modernism? My idea, then, is to propose an answer to that question, and suggest that some contemporary art--my singling out of Caribbean and Latina/o border cultures is just a reflection of my own interests and limited knowledge--is beginning to move away from the extreme irony of modernism/postmodernism. It's returning, perhaps, to something pre-ironic, but the return is not innocent, that is, it's not simply a move back in time--it's a return with difference. It's not a return to New Criticism, which is a movement in the early mid-20th century that operated on the assumption that whatever a text had to say could be found in the text--it favored the "close reading" and wasn't interested, say, in the way the politics of the era affected what an author wrote, etc. Nor is it a return to religious essentialism, which would try to argue, maybe, for a word (or, by extension, a poem) having an absolute and inherent meaning. That said, I'm not sure how to characterize where literature might be going, which is why I'd be glad to hear anyone's ideas. (I really don't have a thesis yet!) I'd like to look at family histories (those both implicit and explicit) in literature, and wonder if there might be something there that would argue for an essential humanity. I think there is, however, a place for a more conservative literary theory (alongside, not instead of, a "liberal" one)--a need, even, if the academy is ever going to be useful (in both an instrumental and non-instrumental way) to society. This is probably a reflection of the school I'm at (Penn State, a generally more conservative place, I've been told), but it seems like many of the other grad students I work with are interested in this, too. I was (I'm ashamed to admit, since I have always railed against this attitude about the "mission field") surprised at how many of them are both strongly religious and compelled to champion the validity of some absolute other than radical (and, in its worst incarnations, nihilistic) relativism. I'll quit there. I hope I've explained myself a little better. I'm sorry for the buzzword-arrhea, and I appreciate you calling me on it. (I hope this wasn't worse!) Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 03 Apr 2003 12:43:07 -0700 There is little or no classicist criticism in the university right now because conservatives are pretty much locked out of most liberal arts seats and especially literary seats. Even at the community college level, believe it or not. I used to work with an educational computer dealer and strangely enough I find out the political bent of pretty much everyone I meet, even casually. I can't imagine why. If you want to find conservative literary critics (philosophical rather than political) you'll have to hit the internet. Most of the think tanks, some of the smaller, less well known classical liberal colleges and a bunch of free enterprise sites have book, movie and television criticism in the classical sense. I am not talking about Brent Bozell, but rather James Bowman or David Konig. Bennett is well known mainly because he's respected by a lot of journalists, which is not a recommendation in my view. I've read the _Book of Virtues_ and it's okay but hardly classic. It's for children, to begin with, and it's way too careful for me. You're right that conservatism is mainly reactionary, but this is not something that bothers me. Trying to prevent socialists from wrecking the world and killing another 150 million people is a noble cause in and of itself, regardless of its philosophical underpinnings. You assume that all conservative philosophy is derived from Christianity, but that is utterly false. What is known as conservatism today is a strange compound of Stoicism, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Burke, Locke, Smith, Jefferson and Hamilton. And a whole lot more. Conservatism is big tent--no goose-stepping allowed. You might notice that most of these are (or were) foes--Burke and Locke, Zeno and Plato, Jefferson and Hamilton. This is still the case within the conservative movement and even more within the Republican party. There are many different religion and philosophies embedded in the conservative movement because we all agree on one thing--we're not going to have our religion and lifestyles dictated by the left. In the literary sense this amounts to criticizing from a classical perspective not because everybody agrees with all classical beliefs, but because the road is and was important. The way the world came about teaches about the way it is. By declaring Year 0 in France (and Cambodia, etc) and in effect denying the value of anything ever learned before 1789 AD the left has lost the link to its roots, which are still all visible to a conservative. That's why Classicism, that's why the regard for history and virtues. Oh, and as far as Camille Paglia goes, who cares whether she's a pagan or a lesbian? That would not exclude her from being conservative (though she really isn't philosophically conservative). She just said some nasty things about some leftists and was excommunicated. There are lots of people like here who are welcomed to the conservative side of things but that doesn't make them conservative. Some recent examples are Tammy Bruce and Christopher Hitchens. Neither are conservative--Bruce is a lesbian feminist and Hitchens is a Stalinist atheist. They are both published by conservative magazines and exiled from liberal magazines, though Hitchens has made something of a comeback lately. I couldn't disagree with them more, except they found something out through their exile and are on the path set by David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh and a million others. It takes a lot of mugging to make a leftist see reality but it can be done, and the puritanically rigid dogmas of the left are making even the most dogmatic step back. The reason I mention all this is because of the absolutely close-minded way you describe conservatives in your post. Supposedly liberals are open-minded and free-thinking. At least every one I've ever met claimed to be, while simultaneously being as narrow-minded and reflexive as it is possible to be. Your picture comes right out of the liberal (even Democratic Party) stereotype, without any deviation at all. I could never be a liberal because I could never be so uncritical. You're perfectly right that most liberals (by which I mean illiberal leftists) see conservative anything as prefixed by "reactionary fundamentalist" but that proves nothing except their own bigotry. I don't think you are such a bigot. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 11:15 America/Phoenix, Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: > I'm very interested in this question of conservative literary theory, > though I've felt constrained from joining this thread because, well, > I'm not a conservative. Here's where I see conservative literary > theory right now, though I think it's not what you're thinking of; > it's actually more a fundamentalist literary theory. It's a theory > based on the notion that there exits an absolute one-on-one > correlation between what one reads (or reads) and what one does. I > think of William Bennett, for example, and the Book of Virtues. The > theory there seems to be that there exist certain canonized texts, > 'classics,' which are called classics because they clearly and > unmistakably set our for us certain absolute moral principles. Read > the text, apply its moral to your life, and you're a better person, > and we're a better society. And most contemporary literature doesn't > have that, so it's best dismissed as exemplifying 'moral relativism.' > > Okay, I'm setting up Bennett as a straw man, and attacking his book > (which I've not read all the way through, though I have started > reading it a couple of times) and conservative theory along with it, > and that's not a nice thing to do. But guys like Michael Medved are > just that boneheaded, and when he comes to speak at BYU, he's SRO in > our biggest house. > > Now, let me also acknowledge of course that there's a lot of > boneheaded Marxist, Marxist feminist, radical feminist, radical > lesbian feminist, post-colonialist, Marxist post-colonialist and > radical lesbian Marxist post-colonialist feminist criticism floating > around the academy these days. I yield to no one in my admiration for > the infinite ability of academics to write idiotically. But that > criticism, a lot of the bad stuff, comes out of the same place that > Bennett seems to me to be coming from. I see it all the time in > professonal organizations I belong to: papers that point out that > David Mamet is clearly a sexist pig, because he doesn't write very > interesting female characters anyway, and besides he wrote Oleanna, a > play in which a professor gets fired because of a false accusation by > a feminist student, so he's a bad guy, so we can't let our students > read him or they're going to catch that oh-so-virulent sexist pig > virus. I'm not kidding; I've heard papers that bad. But the point is, > they're coming from the same critical stance really that Bennett is, > at least in my probably reductive and simplistic opinion. > > Point in part is, for a lotta folks, when you write 'conservative > literary theory' they read 'reactionary fundamentalist literary > theory.' I mean, conservatism is in part cultural, a reaction against > certain presumably retrograde cultural trends that can easily (and not > always inaccurately) be demonized as 'anti-family.' We see it a lot > in film criticism, or television criticism. In Mormon cultural > circles, there's a lot of anti-TV rhetoric and a lot of anti-Hollywood > rhetoric; it even surfaced here, on the List, when we got into the > R-rated movie thread (which believe me I don't want restarted). Like > it or not, that rhetoric is usually labeled 'conservative.' Bill > Bennett is usually labeled a 'conservative cultural critic.' > > If y'all don't want to go there, and I sense you don't, you need to > clarify that position. There are actual ideas behind the ideology > which we call political conservatism. Those ideas could well provide > the philosophical basis for literary criticism. So who are you > citing? 'Liberal' criticism, I gather, is the stuff derived from > Derrida and Foucault and Althuzzer and them thar guys. Real > philosophers, whose ideas have very broad implications and > applications, which is why post-modern and post-structuralist ideas > permeate every part of the academy. So who are your guys? Camille > Paglia, maybe? She's a self-declared pagan and lesbian, but she > loathes Foucault and is not an uninteresting thinker. Levinas? But > be careful there, we lefties have already claimed him. > > Interesting project, though. Keep us posted. > > Eric Samuelsen > > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-List Overload Date: 07 Apr 2003 16:21:44 -0500 Folks, There are currently over 60 posts in the in-box. That's over two full days of messages. Many of these represent multiple posts from some of our most frequent (and valued) contributors to AML-List. Frankly, I'm not entirely certain what to do about the current situation. This comes at a time when I am swamped with work for the classes I'm teaching and for my own independent contracting. Dealing with things equitably--screening for only one or two posts per person, creating compilation posts, judging which of several posts from the same person is most AML-List-worthy--is time-consuming, and I don't have that time right now. What I will probably do is to try to do a bit of the above, as I'm able. Some messages may go into overflow; depending on list load, they may never make it out again. If you feel strongly about something that hasn't appeared after several days, email me again; I may have lost it. (Please include the text in the new message.) In the meantime, brief and/or off-topic messages are likely not to make it out. And please think and weigh, on your own, which of the various comments you might make is the one you care most about, and do some self-pruning in that respect. Thanks for your participation. I'm sorry if I sound dismayed; it's wonderful that the conversation is taking off so. And thanks also for your understanding. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jen Wahlquist" Subject: RE: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 03 Apr 2003 23:48:22 -0700 Richard Dutcher wrote: "I'm interested in hearing what you Mormon writers are reading at the moment, what novels you've enjoyed recently, and what novels you haven't enjoyed. It would be fun to get a quick snapshot of our collective reading." How lucky you are, those who have real time for reading! I'm trying not to be envious of your lists of currently read books. Mine will be more slender. Here's what I've read lately: Green Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson (I know he won either the Hugo or the Nebula for his Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars series, and I enjoyed the first half of this one, but by the second half I was hoping for some sort of plot and/or character development to happen -- in addition to all the marvellous descriptions of taming the wild red planet. Unfortunately, he saves the action for the last 40 or 50 pages of a long book.) The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, by Brady Udall (Apparently most people think this is a hysterically funny book. I did laugh a couple of times, but found more pathos than humor. Udall does write with fine style.) Alexander Hamilton: A Life, by a historian whose name I have forgotten. Same author who wrote Thomas Jefferson: A Life. Published 2003. (I read this so I could give a review for my mother's book club, and she asked to borrow it afterwards, so I can't look up the name. Anyway, the book presents a different view of Hamilton from that in McCullough's John Adams (Hamilton and Adams were political enemies). First chapter covers the fatal duel with Aaron Burr, then traces Hamilton's history from his illegitimate birth on a Caribbean sugar island to his education at King's College (later Columbia), to his fortunate marriage to an heiress, his service as George Washington's Aide de Camp during the Revolutionary War, and so on. I enjoyed reading the book, and now give Hamilton a familiar nod and sometimes a wink each time I spend a $10 bill.) William Cooper's Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic, by Alan Taylor. (Won the Pulitzer in 1995. A delightful read. Great detail. Taylor must have researched for five years, at least. William Cooper was the developer father of James Fenimore Cooper.) Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 11, 2002. (Just arrived in the mail. Particularly enjoyed Diane Wirth's article on "Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God, and Jesus Christ," probably because I occasionally include the Mayan Popul Vuh and Title of the Lords of Totonicapan in my World Mythology class, and see many clues to a possible history and influence of Christ in those ancient works.) Valhalla Rising, by Clive Cussler. (Picked this up at the grocery store on a whim. Typical adventure novel with lots of rising action and little, if any, character development. Cussler must have a lot of moxy to dare inserting himself as a character in his own novel. What haunted me was how parts of the novel foreshadowed 9-11, yet it was published a couple of months before.) A Natural History of Love, by Diane Ackerman. (Received this book as a gift last month, and am finding it to be better reading than expected. Actually, it's well-researched, well-written, and fascinating.) --Jen Wahlquist -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 03 Apr 2003 21:31:12 -0800 Alan Rex Mitchell: " So Sheri Dew is right, and conservative, to say they want books that show consequences. I am afraid of this kind of witchhunting, scared to death of it, because I don't trust the judge. But a critic maybe could analyze a book based on a "consequences" scale, as an intellectual exercise. The book of Mosiah could rate high on the scale because of Noah's death, but might score low because his priests got away with murder AND the Lamanite girls." Except that they didn't get away. 400 years later their descendents were still being hunted and burned at the stake whenever they were identified, in complete fulfillment of Abinadi's prophesy. So, "Mosiah" fits the bill: the ultimate comeuppance story. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Russell" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 04 Apr 2003 00:00:01 -0700 In fact, that >might be an interesting way to define conservative literary theory. You >could call it neo-post-modernism--concerned with the distance separating >"other" while reaching out towards universal chaos-touched themes of shared >culture and identity. > >Jacob Proffitt > I like this "neo-post-modernism." But one thing I would add to the themes of shared culture and identity is shared responsibility. It seems like Derrida and friends, through their insistence on everyone as "other", have created a world of moral relativism where, as Derrida himself has said, "responsibility becomes irresponsible." I think an important part of conservatism is, not necessarily "family values" whatever that means, but some sense of shared responsibility that is inherent and relatively non-subjective. Basically, I think it tries to preserve some form of ethical grounding where liberalism has often let it float away. Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Marden Clark Bibliography Date: 03 Apr 2003 23:49:56 -0800 On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:15:56 -0500 "Kent S. Larsen II" writes: > > Harlow: > > Could you provide a bibliography of your father's work? > > I think many of us would love a list of what he wrote. > > Kent OK, thanks for asking. Here's a partial bibliography taken from the BYU Library Catalog, Church magazines cd, www.harktheherald.com, memory, and my collection of Irreantums. Some of the entries are incomplete. I thought I had a copy of his vitae on the cd backup I made of his files, but I don't find it. This doesn't include about 367 newspaper columns, an interview in Century 2 or Inscape, and a few other things. There are also quite a few unpublished poems and essays, and some stories. BOOKS Doctoral Dissertation on the novels of Robert Penn Warren PN 29.02 .C5384 1949 1949 (Masters thesis) Elements of Aristotelian tragedy in Melville's Moby Dick 808.04 Cla 1970 About language : contexts for college writers with Soren Cox and Marshall Craig AS 36 .B75 A2 vol.2 no.2 1972 (Redd monograph) Modern and classic: the "wooing both ways" PE 1417 .C624 1975 1975 About language: contexts for college writing 2d ed. with Soren Cox and Marshall Craig PS 3553 .L2864 M6 1979 (Poems) Moods: of late BX 8688.1 .P7518 1980 1980 Poems of praise : poems in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with Hart, Edward LeRoy, 1916- BX 8688.3 .C548 1984 1984 (Stories) Morgan triumphs AC 901 .A1a no.2189 1988 (Poetry chapbook) Christmas voices BX 8688.4 .C548L 1992 1992 Liberating form: Mormon essays about literature MSS SC 3015 1999 (Manuscript or typescript) Autobiography, 1999 Razor Sharp (unpublished collection of poems) I'd Rather Be . . . (unpublished collection of newspaper columns and essays touching on politics) POEMS BX 8605.1 .B76b vol.4 no.2 1964 (BYU Studies) Sunset BX 8605.1 .B76b vol. 1 no. 2 1962 (BYU Studies) Late on Mother's Day BX 8605.1 .B87b vol. 6 no. 3-4 1965 (BYU Studies) Late on Father's Day BX 8605.1 .B76b vol. 8 no. 1 1967 (BYU Studies) Sonnet: to peace BX 8605.1 .B76b vol. 8 no. 1 1967 (BYU Studies) Astronomy BX 8605.1 .B76b Vol. 14 no. 3 1974 (BYU Studies) Three poems To Kevin: Newly a Missionary, Ensign, Jan. 1976, 13 Too Late on Father's Day, Ensign, July 1977, 60 BX 8605.1 .D541 Vol.11 no.1 1978 (Dialogue) God's plenty BX 8605.1 .Su74 Vol.3 no.6 1978 (Dialogue) Wasatch BX 8605.1 .B76b Vol. 20 no. 1 1979 (Dialogue) Black hole BX 8605.1 .B76b Vol. 22 no. 4 1982 (Dialogue) Christmas voices BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.18 no.3 1985 (Dialogue) Lightning barbs BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.18 no.1 1985 (Dialogue) This is my body BX8605.1 .B76b Vol.25 no.1 1986 (BYU Studies) For the earth BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.21 no.2 1988 (Dialogue) August 6 Light Leaves, Irreantum 1:1 March 1999, 24 Living Words for Easter, Irreantum 1:1 March 1999, 23 BX 8605.1 .Su74 no.119 2001 (Sunstone) To Brian, lying dying ESSAYS BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.5 no.2 1970 (Dialogue) Some implications of human freedom BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.7 no.4 1972 (Dialogue) On the Mormon commitment to education BX 8605.1 .B76b Vol. 15 no. 1 1974 (BYU Studies) Liberating form Liberating Form, Ensign, June 1977, 43-45 BX 8605.1 .Su74 Vol.5 no.2 1980 (Sunstone) The new Mormon mysticism BX 8605.1 .Su74 Vol.7 no.6 1982 (Sunstone) Whose yoke is easy? BX8688 .P941 1979-82 1983 (AML Annual) Paradox and tragedy in Mormonism BX8688 .P941 1979-82 1983 (AML Annual) Toward a more perfect order within : being the confession of an unregenerate but not unrepentant mistruster of Mormon literature BX 8605.1 .D541 Vol.16 no.4 1983 (Dialogue) Toward a more perfect order within : being the confessions of an unregenerate but not unrepentant mistruster of Mormon literature BX8605.1 .D541 vol.20 no.3 1987 (Dialogue) "I'd rather be..." LITERARY CRITICISM BX 8605.1 .B76b vol.1 no.1 1959 (BYU Studies) The wages of sin in Hawthorne BX 8605.1 .B76b vol. 4 no. 1 1961 (BYU Studies) Religious implications in the novels of Robert Penn Warren BX8608 .A1 no.2579 1964 The conversions of God : a poem Larson, Clinton F., 1919- Tragic Effect in "The Hairy Ape" PS 2384 .M62 A1 no.133 1976 Blending cadences : rhythm and structure in Moby Dick BX 8605.1 .B76b Vol. 19 no. 2 1979 [Book review of] History as a tool in critical interpretation: a symposium Good-hearted Criticism from Goodheart, Literature and Belief (Review of a book by Eugene Goodheart) STORIES BX 8605.1 .D541 Vol.17 no.3 1984 (Dialogue) Much of a river Casino (unpublished) Aryan Jew (unpublished) Tim and Dringo, the Elf of the Spring-o (unpublished children's story) ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS UA OH 160 1985 Oral history, 1995-1991 Smith, Oliver R. UA OH 77 1982 Armin Hill oral history interview, may 25, 1982 Hill, Armin J, (Armin John), 1912- MATTER UNORGANIZED COLUMNS IN THE DAILY HERALD (the last 32 of about 400) (www.harktheherald.com) Momentous experiences in life adding up, January 05, 2002 Appreciation strengthened by great teachers, January 12, 2002 Stirring music can make simple words profound, January 19, 2002 New dryer adds headaches along with satisfaction, January 26, 2002 'Lord of the Rings' filled with symbolism, February 02, 2002 Reflection brings sorrow for large overindulgence, February 09, 2002 God doesn't see winner and losers, just his children, February 16, 2002 Weapons can't create security for the world, February 23, 2002 Olympic images bring pride over work well done, March 02, 2002 Learning a big lesson from a small creature, March 09, 2002 Spring's promise makes footsteps in the memory, March 16, 2002 Scripture adds meaning and richness to life, March 23, 2002 Neighbor leaves behind much to be pleased with, March 30, 2002 Easter deserves greatest thanks, notice from all, April 06, 2002 Knowledge helps prevent, solve daily challenges, April 13, 2002 Car accident reaffirms faith in Lord's love, April 20, 2002 Lack of guile makes 'uncle' memorable, April 27, 2002 Difference in homes, houses sparks memory, May 04, 2002 Saving three ducklings brings man satisfaction, May 11, 2002 Bees' residence in walls of home gets split review, May 18, 2002 Birds' openness counters masked human nature, May 25, 2002 Bees' presence provides chance for education, June 01, 2002 Two tree stumps reminders of good friendship, June 08, 2002 Beauty apparent in many different forms of creation, June 15, 2002 Quiet time gives opportunity to appreciate family, June 22, 2002 Reflection on beliefs caused by observing nature, June 29, 2002 Dreams mirror experiences in our memories, July 06, 2002 New marriage is the melding of two families, July 13, 2002 Difficult births show dichotomy of Lord's plans, July 20, 2002 Common bond breaks the walls between religions, July 27, 2002 Marion Hanks endeared by life of serving others, August 03, 2002 Way man lived his life recalled after final hours, August 10, 2002 ABOUT BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.13 no.3 1980 (Dialogue) [Book review of] Moods : Of late, by Marden J. Clark Bradford, Mary Lythgoe, 1930- BX 8605.1 .Su74 Vol.6 no.3 1981 (Sunstone) [Book review of] Moods : of late, by Marden Clark Saderup, Dian. BX 8605.1 .Su74 vol.13 no.2 1989 (Sunstone) [Book review of] Christmas voices, by Marden J. Clark; Tinder dry poems, by Dennis Marden Clark; A Zipper of haze, by Timothy Liu Collings, Michael R. BX 8605.1 .D541 vol.23 no.1 1990 (Dialogue) [Book review of] A zipper of haze, by Timothy Liu ; Tinder, by Dennis Marden Clark ; Christmas voices, by Marden J. Clark Christmas, R. A. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 04 Apr 2003 00:37:12 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >There's lots of great stuff in the story of Ammon and Lamoni, >what with >dis-arming the sheep thieves, a king apparently dying and >coming back to >life, and so on. As explored in my play, A Sceptre, A Sword, A Scented Rose, first performed at BYU in 1973. Great story. And I had a lot of fun taking a story that's only two chapters in the BofM and turning into a two and one half hour play. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Yale Mormonism Conference Date: 04 Apr 2003 10:23:42 -0600 Seeing announcements for things like this just kills me because I want to be there! Please, oh please, keep us updated, anyone, if you hear of the proceedings being published, links to articles about the conference, etc. Or if anyone on the list was able to be there, I for one would appreciate hearing more about what happened, off list if it's not topical enough. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] _Stones_ Performances Date: 04 Apr 2003 09:38:35 -0700 At 11:53 AM 4/2/03 -0700, you wrote: >You've got at least one person out here who is dying to see the show, but >I'm pretty much attached to a little baby at present. I'm looking forward to >when she's old enough to leave with a baby sitter for date night! How about this? Leave hubby with baby. It's his baby, too. He's not baby-sitting, he's doing his job. Go to the show with a girlfriend, or with a slew of girlfriends. This play is great. The performances are great. Take lots and lots of tissues. I saw this show last night for the second time, and was just as moved as the first time. This time I was prepared, and distributed tissues to audience members around me. Best thing--Scott gave me a hug after the play. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 04 Apr 2003 09:57:04 -0700 At 10:55 PM 4/2/03 -0800, you wrote: >Just as Irreantum only picks up a = >few rights when they agree with you to publish your short story (First >North American English Language Serial Rights, and nothing more), you have >only acquired a few rights when you bought the tape or DVD. For me, this brings up a point totally unrelated to what Jon is trying to get across. If Irranteum publishes a work of mine, what rights do they have, since they didn't buy any rights? Is it simply a gentleman's agreement that I won't publish it anywhere else before it appears in Irranteum? Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 04 Apr 2003 10:50:43 -0700 This was a great little diatribe by Jongiorgio, and I learned a lot from = it. My question is this; you bought the videotape, and with it, certain = rights. But you also bought a thing, an artifact. I mean, if I use the = videotape to tie up a burglar, that's okay, right, because it has nothing = to do with viewing the movie. =20 So . . .can I take a pair of scissors and hack up the tape any old way and = then splice it back together, and then throw it away. . . . So . . . can I hack it up, splice it back together, then watch it, then = throw it away. . . .=20 So . . . can I watch it, hack it up, splice it together, watch it, then = keep it . . .=20 I'm with you, first, in that I don't want the Cleanflicks thread restarted,= and second, in that I could care less about the Cleanflicks case, because = it does not and never will have anything to do with my life. I just think = it's intriguing to get your perspective on where the law draws the = line.=20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 04 Apr 2003 10:54:54 -0700 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: On a completely side note, I am VASTLY curious as to the additions that Margaret is going to add to her novelization of BC. Marilyn Brown writes: Again, I am totally honored to be mixed up with Margaret Young. She's still my twin, only Young and gorgeous, etc. I appreciated these questions from Mr. Enos! He's very astute. Nobody knows everything. And guess what? Our language gets in the way of whatever we do know. So it's all a crap shoot. But I am enjoying coming closer to MY VIEW. Cheers! Lurker, (and author of BC, the novel), Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] Re: Wanting to Be Jews Date: 04 Apr 2003 11:52:06 -0700 I'm sure (as from reading some of O.S. Card's missives on the subject, not personal experience) that there are Baptist/Evangelical strongholds where Mormons are singled out for vituperation, but Jews and Catholics are just as, or more, likely to be on the receiving end of that kind of enmity. But for the most part, I wouldn't even say we are misunderstood. Let alone hated. I grew up in New York, and nobody I knew (the other 99 percent of the population) hated Mormons. They didn't know who we were, to start with. I lived far enough east of Palmyra that the average person was less informed about Mormons than he was about, say, Sikhs. It's because of those real-world demographics that the only discernable Mormon "culture" remains that of Utah. This is reinforced by the narrow definition of who a "real" Mormon is--most commonly a species of "Utah Mormon." A Jew/Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim, to compare, does not have his religious beliefs or culture pre-determined or pre-assigned by where or whether he shows up for worship services, or whether or to what theological hierarchy he swears allegiance. (That may determine your membership in a sect of the religion, but not any kind of right to belong to the larger religion and exercise its rites.) Of course, we assert that Mormon theology is identifiably unique, though it often seems to be a state secret. When I attended BYU in the early 1980s, it was still part and parcel of every GA's message that we were peculiar in our beliefs, in our religious culture, and if the world out there didn't like it, tough. Be proud of the fact. But by the time I had graduated we were no longer a "peculiar people"; we were "the same only different," with an emphasis on "mostly the same." Since then, this trend has only become more marked. Nowadays, you're only likely to hear of Mormon theology outside of a strictly Mormon context when some outside group objects to the execution of this or that tenet. And so far, the church has gone out of its way to accommodate those complaints and assuage the complainers. It doesn't strike me as a good way to create the identifiable religious culture you need to build the symbolic language that a catholic artistic vision (i.e., reaching beyond the Wasatch Front) demands. At the same time (reserving the right to contradict myself), I think if we simply stopped apologizing for our religious language, most people would stop being put off by it. If George Lucas can invent a half-baked theology and get millions of kids to start counting the number of Jedi angels on the head of a pin, then I think most people could easily grasp the technicalities of Mormon society without overt explication. It reminds me of a genre of pop-anthropology best sellers in Japan during the 1980s called Nihonjin-ron, which basically argued that the Japanese were so unique that only the Japanese could appreciate how special they really were. Well, no. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 04 Apr 2003 11:52:54 -0700 (MST) See Barbara's comment below. My response: In my Poetry of the Restpred Gospel class, we recently explored Joseph Smith as the kind of poet described by Emerson in his essay on the personality and character of the artist (The Poet). There, the artist is described as the knower, the doer, and the sayer. Similarly, the seer (another term for poet in the Romantic period) is one who sees things more clearly and deeply and accurately than other people and articulates that vision to others. I don't think the artist is above the laws of man and God, but he often moves rapidly beyond them, tracing, as Thoreau suggests in Civil Disobedience, the currents of the bible and constitution back to their source. The poet is like the automaton in Blade-Runner who said, "I've seen things." This does not mean that you have to go out and deliberately break laws so you can have horrific experiences to talk about, but it does mean that the writer has to be, as Henry James says, a person upon whom nothing is lost. There is sufficient horror (or humor) in normal, every day life to fill volumes. Emily Dickinson, living the life of a nun, saw it all. Seeing things, however, is not without its cost, and that is why there are so many maimed and wounded poets and artists among us. The price of the vision may be the eye that beheld it. No one knows this better than Paris, and the isolation he feels is the same as that poet who said: A damsel with a dulcimer In a vision once I saw: for the response to him is the same: "His flashing eyes, his floating hair! Weave a circle round him thrice, and close your eyes with holy dread, For he on honey-dew hath fed, And drunk the milk of paradise. Regards, Fred Pinnegar > At 08:58 PM 3/29/03 -0700, you wrote: > >But I believe the expectations we have of artists as human beings must > >be different from the rest. They must be freer to see the truth and > >point it out, or truth will not be fully seen. They must be freer to > >explore and understand the ugliness of the human condition, even if it > >means personal experience, or the ugliness will never be recognized and > >rooted out--it will fester and grow and destroy countless lives. > > Freer in what way? Surely you don't mean free of the moral laws that govern > people. It's been tyrants and oppressors like Napoleon who've said that > they were different--that the laws applying to "ordinary" people were not > meant for them. An artist or writer or musician or filmmaker is no more > justified in deliberately sinning than is anyone else. Your comment implies > that only the artist is capable of saving civilization, based on his > having wallowed in the gutter. I don't like the typical meek and mild LDS > literature any more than you do, but anytime someone says that he should > not be subject to the same laws as everyone else, I think he needs to think > carefully about that viewpoint. > > barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 04 Apr 2003 12:08:53 -0700 I have my students write stories about the scriptural characters we don't hear much about--or at least from a perspective we don't usually get (such as Goliath's or Delilah's or Leah's). The results have been occasionally good, but I would say that for the most part, it is dangerous for writers to take on a world they don't know. Often, I get dialogue with lots of "thee's" and "thou's" in it--and it almost always feels created, not a thing like real speech. The writer's imagination seems to strain towards bringing people to life without much understanding of their real contexts. Frankly, I think it's a dangerous prospect. Though I've seen the exercise bring about a few good stories, I would highly recommend against anyone trying to do a whole novel based on these stories. We get into problems of hero worship, clich=E9, and message-over-content. Now that I think of it, David Woolley has already written some novels set in or around the Book of Mormon, as has another guy--who was going to do 46 volumes, right? I haven't read any of their works. Do they have problems with the things I've identified? ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 04 Apr 2003 14:54:58 EST In a message dated 4/3/03 9:28:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, jongiorgi@sunset.net writes: > "When asked about movie editing by companies like Clean Flicks, in order = > to make more family friendly films, Dutcher had this to say, "I don't = > like it, but I recognize their right to do it." Then he gave an example = > that you could buy the "Mona Lisa" and then by rights destroy it because = > it's yours, but that doesn't make it right." > > Okay. Let's get something straight.. > > Buying a video is absolutely NOTHING like buying the Mona Lisa. There is = > absolutely no legal equivalent.=20 > Jon, Had the rest of my comments regarding this controversy been printed, you would have seen that I explained much the same thing. In this quoted section of my comments, I was merely trying to communicate one's freedom to do whatever one wants with one's own bought-and-paid-for property, whether it is one of 10 million copies of "Titanic" or the original Mona Lisa. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 04 Apr 2003 15:22:14 EST In a message dated 4/3/03 9:16:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > Richard, I think your perception that "People don't > hate Greeks like they hate Mormons" is a mis-perception. I don't > believe we are hated. I just think we are misunderstood. Thom, Come join me the next time I open a film in Phoenix or in the Bible Belt. Or New York City. We are misunderstood and we are hated. Not by the masses, of course, but by a very vocal minority. Actually, in New York we are not hated as much as we are purposefully ignored. I guess that's an improvement. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] George W. GIVENS, _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ (Review) Date: 04 Apr 2003 13:40:57 -0800 George W. Givens _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ Published by Bonneville Books, Springville, UT Distributed by Cedar Fort copyright 2002 softcover 282 pages ISBN: 1-55517-651-8 $15.95 Reviewed by Travis Manning I recently started reading _500 Little-Known Facts in Mormon History_ by George W. Givens while on an airplane to Washington D.C. I was enroute to visit my brother attending college at Southern Virginia University, that new, growing Mormon-affiliated university gathering steam on the east coast. Givens lives just 40 miles south of Buena Vista (home to SVU) in Lynchburg, VA, three hours west of D.C. Had I read the About the Author section in the back matter of the book, perhaps I would have stopped by Lynchburg for some hot cocoa and a chat. _Little-Known Facts_ is a hodge-podge of Mormon history tidbits and anecdotal shorts you can put in your Gee Whiz File; 500 such tidbits to be exact. Organized chronoligically, these interesting snippets of fact and story related to members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, covering a 92-year period between 1813 and 1921--pre-First Vision to post World War II. In the books' Table of Contents, the author further divides up the 500 snippets into the following 11 subsections: (1) The Beginning (1813-1831); (2) Seeking Sanctuary (1832-1838); (3) The Nauvoo Era (1839-1846); (4) The Uprooting (1846-1847); (5) Asylum At Last (1848-1852); (6) The End of Discretion (1852-1857); (7) The End of Autonomy (1857-1861); (8) Striving For Integration (1861-1870); (9) Striving For Respect (1870-1877); (10) The Church Survives (1877-1890); (11) A New Era Begins (1891-1921). I couldn't help but think this book would be perfect reading for those bathroom junkies (like my brother-in-law) that receive "serious literary insight" while contemplating other important matters. Let me give you an example: "A Century Early (1813) The story of the operation on young Joseph for osteomyelitis usually revolves around Joseph's stoicism. Less mentioned is the amazing surgical procedures by one of the foremost surgeons in the country. Doctor Nathan Smith of Dartmouth Medical School was probably the only surgeon capable of such a pioneering procedures at a time when surgery was not a medical specialty. Much could be deduced about a seven-year-old future prophet from an impoverished family ending up in the hands of such a skilled medical pioneer at that time, but it is a fact that such work as he performed on young Joseph would not be successfully repeated until the early twentieth century." I had troubling reading _Little-Known Facts_ all the way through. In fact, I didn't read it all the way through. For me, it's not a book you pick up and read front cover to back, like a novel or other nonficiton narrative (or, if it were translated into Chinese, back cover to front). I see this book as a resource instructors could potentially use in Gospel Doctrine lessons or other Sunday School classes, as teaser questions, or engaging starter quotes. Or, as short spiritual thoughts for family home evening, though not all quotes lend themselves to spiritual purposes, many of them do. If I was fishing for an interesting story to emphasize a point in a church talk or other church presentation, I would not hesitate to pull _Little-Known Facts_ from the shelf to supplement my material. Givens writes in the Preface that his intention for this anthology of mini-stories was to "make Mormon history readable and interesting," and I believe he has largely done so. In his Introduction, he continues by explaining that he assumes readers already have some "familiarity with the more prominent early pioneers as well as some of the most notorious apostates." This book is probably not one that you give to your non-member neighbor who knows nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; nor is it a text you'd put under the Christmas tree for your 8-year old niece or nephew. The reading level for the book is closer to a middle-grade, junior high-age student, and above. Missionaries might also find this approach to church history quick and relatively painless, depending upon their attention span and prior church history reading experience, though the book is appropriate for teens and adults of all ages. There are no pictures or graphics of any kind, other than the photo on the front cover of the book of one of the, what appears to be, original sunstones. I found a snippet on Abraham Lincoln particularly interesting: "Lincoln and Polygamy (1857) The Latter-day Saints had good reason perhaps to like Abraham Lincoln even before he, as President, enacted his three-word policy of 'Let them alone.' In a rebuttal to a previous speech by Stephen A. Douglas, who appeared to support the extension of slavery under the guise of popular sovereignty, Lincoln addressed a large crowd in Springfield, Illinois in 1857. 'There is nothing,' he said, 'in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge's 'sacred right of self-government' for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose?' This did not mean Lincoln supported polygamy but merely that if popular sovereignty was desirable, the people in Utah should decide the issue." Givens has spent over 20 years teaching American History in schools before opening what became the "largest family-owned bookstore in Virginia." Givens has authored several other church history books, including: _Out of Palmyra: a Convert Looks at the Prophetic Calling of Joseph Smith_; _Nauvoo Fact Book: Questions and Answers for Nauvoo Enthusiasts_; and, _In Old Nauvoo: Everyday Life in the City of Joseph_. His _Little-Known Facts_ is obviously a biproduct of his other historical research, based on like content. Despite typos in the Table of Contents and Preface, I was able to digest much of this collection, though the going was slow because of the abrupt nature and structure of its content. A handy References and Index allow the nibbling reader, or the focused reader, assistance with tracking down additional resources outside the text, and specific page references within it. If _Little-Known Facts_ had been published by the New York clique, I suppose they may have re-titled this book something like: "Early Mormonism for Dummies: 500 Quick Facts;" or, "Points to Ponder While on the Potty: Early Mormonism in a Nutshell." I'll close with this tidbit about Winston Churchill and the Mormons: "Churchill And The Saints (1910) Twenty years after the Manifesto halting plural marriage in 1890, polygamy was still a major charge being made against the church--especially in England. During the year 1910, eight debates took place in Parliament on the 'Mormon Problem' in which the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill was asked what he proposed to do. 'Was he aware,' a member asked, of Mormon efforts to induce English women and girls to go to America and if so was he taking steps to stop them?' Replying to the implication that it was being done for Immoral purpose, Churchill said he had determined it was not true and there was no ground for action. His reply prompted the 'Liverpool Post and Mercury' to say, 'The Home Secretary has an intelligent understanding of the situation and is friendly to the Church.'" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Jeffrey S. Savage, _INTO THE FIRE_ (Review) Date: 04 Apr 2003 14:54:27 -0800 [MOD: Let me point out that those with a different take on Jeffrey Savage's book--or any other book for that matter--should feel free to write additional reviews reflecting their own experience. I personally think the AML-List book review archive is all the more valuable when it reflects a diversity of opinions, all well-expressed!] I feel like I need to chime in with Annette to say that I _really_ liked Jeff's book. At the time I read it we were studying the book of Job in SS and I felt like the book echoed many of my thoughts as I considered a modern-day application of Job's story. There were a few sentimental moments at the end (as would be expected with a mainstream LDS novel), but I thought the writing was good and the plot was better than most. I am definitely looking forward to more of Jeff's books! Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Aitken, Neil" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 04 Apr 2003 15:50:00 -0800 I think for me, the people in the scriptures that seem most real are those who face and deal with a less than perfect world in a heroic yet human fashion. For example, Moroni. I enjoy reading through Moroni's writings in both Mormon and Moroni. I was reading through Mormon 8 this morning and was struck by the very real humanity and pathos with which Moroni writes of his father's death and the death of his people. One can feel his sorrow and frustration in the words. Again and again he begins to write but cannot complete his account without returning to the death of his father. I can't help but feel that Moroni viewed Mormon as not just father, but also a cherished mentor, a valued friend, and a trusted companion. To have such a close friend and father torn away by the violence of war certainly adds to my appreciation of Moroni's dedication to the work. Even in such a dark place, he pushes on for another 40 years -- a remarkable and rather silent accomplishment in my opinion. Perhaps it was the topical nature of these passages, or simply an awareness of my own relationship with my father, but these words moved me and helped me see Moroni in a new light and see as well just how much lies just below the surface of the BofM . The account of Mormon and Moroni in the last years of the Nephite nation seems an incredibly powerful story that would hold meaning and significance to an audience much larger than just the typical Mormon member. In some respects it is a war story, in other respects it is an account of the spiritual journey of two men. For me at least, it calls to mind images from "A Thin Red Line" and asks important questions about faith, integrity, hope, and courage in a dark world. Other figures in the BofM: ========================= *Zoram - a third party look at the events leading to their exodus and their settling in a new land. *Mulek - how did Mulek (of the royal line of king Zedekiah) end up in the New World, and what brought their civilization to the sorry state the Nephites found them in. *Hagoth - the great explorer and possible settler of the Polynesian islands. Reading Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki always makes me think of Hagoth and his travels. *Teancum - feels like Tom Clancy doesn't it? :) *Limhi - it already feels somewhat Shakespearean - a little like Hamlet in fact *Ether - the last days of the Jaredites have always felt like a compelling story that needed to be told, Ether's interactions with Coriantumr and his prophecy of that their lands would be given to others (Nephites) *Coriantumr - after the fall of the Jaredites, Coriantumr wandered for years and was eventually found by the Mulekites who could not speak his language. Interesting settings: ======================== *The land of Desolation - ie. where the Jaredite nation was dwelt and was destroyed *Easter Island - there is an interesting legend on Easter Island which speaks of two races who inhabited the island before the Europeans came-- a light-skinned race and a dark-skinned race. Eventually the light-skinned race was over-thrown at the height of their decadence by the dark-skinned race. My two pennies worth, Neil Aitken -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 04 Apr 2003 17:09:20 -0700 Barbara Hume wrote: > Freer in what way? Surely you don't mean free of the moral laws that govern > people. It's been tyrants and oppressors like Napoleon who've said that > they were different--that the laws applying to "ordinary" people were not > meant for them. An artist or writer or musician or filmmaker is no more > justified in deliberately sinning than is anyone else. I'd hoped I was being clearer than that. I tried to be clear that I don't believe the artist has carte blanche to do what he wants and expect no eternal consequences from it. I thought I said that the artist is as responsible for his sins as anyone, either by suffering the natural consequences or repenting so they can be avoided. The freedom I mean is freedom from cultural expectations that everyone must tow the line in a certain way. The expectation that because one church authority needs to avoid PG movies the night before interviewing youth so he can feel the promptings of the spirit, that everyone else should adhere to that standard. They must be free to ask questions others are afraid to ask without being called heretical, free to examine the ugly areas of life so they can understand them and present them to their audience in ways that are safer to ingest. They have to be free to contemplate all aspects of the human condition without worrying if they are spiritually in tune enough to be bishops and Relief Society presidents. They have to be free to write things like "bash" or "The Backslider" without their bishop calling them in for scrutiny. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] J. Scott BRONSON, _Stones_ (Review) Date: 04 Apr 2003 18:56:27 -0700 Stones a play by J. Scott Bronson performed at the Center Street Theater "Competition for General Conference" As I write this, the next installment of General Conference is less than twenty-four hours away. Millions of Latter-day Saints will turn to those sermons for spiritual inspiration and insight. This April, General Conference has some significant competition. Not that competition is the best word to use. It's not like it's an either/or proposition. Go ahead and drink in the spiritual nourishment of the Conference sessions. But you would be a fool--yes, a fool--if you pass on an extra helping of nourishment that's available to anyone who can get to Orem, Utah, and back within one evening's drive. I'm talking about the Center Street Theater's production of J. Scott Bronson's play _Stones_. This play could be described as good, it could be described as moving, powerful, or even great. It could be, but every one of those descriptions would be inadequate. To adequately describe _Stones_, you must resort to words like consummate, brilliant, archtypical. This play is transcendent. Bronson has written a quintessential piece of LDS drama that does what all pieces of LDS drama should aspire to. It presents two scenes from Biblical times, one between Abraham and Isaac, and one between Jesus and Mary. Both scenes involve common themes: obedience to God, sacrifice, death, understanding, the love between parent and child. But I will give no synopses of these two plays-within-a-play. I won't attempt to steal their thunder by spilling any more beans than I already have. I will only say that _Stones_ has everything you could possibly want from a play. You want emotion? Deep, powerful, significant emotions will ooze from the walls and drench you in a monsoon of them. Don't leave home without your kleenex. You want insight? You will think thoughts you've never thought, realize things that never occurred to you, understand familiar stories in ways that will make them--not feel new--but _be_ new. You want symbolism? _Stones_ reeks of symbolism. _Stones_ gives Isaiah himself a run for his money on symbolism. You want irony? Mind-bending irony skitters out of the woodwork where you never saw it coming. You want good acting? You will discover superlative acting. You want to care? You will care about Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, and Mary in ways you never thought of before. You want redemption? It's there for the taking, but at a hefty price. You'll understand the price, and you'll rejoice in those that paid it. You want spiritual fulfillment? There'll be enough there to give General Conference some competition. Humor? There's even a few laughs. But not many. They don't belong there. You'll even get fine music that accentuates the experience perfectly, specially written for the performance. But only between the two plays. No mortal music could enhance the power of the simple, direct performance that will blow you away. It can only punctuate it as you contemplate the transcendent experience you just had. If you don't get any of this out of experiencing _Stones_, check your pulse. You are dead. _Stones_ is a masterful example of how vital art is to one's emotional, intellectual, and spiritual development. _Stones_ works on you in ways that worship services never could, important as they are. _Stones_ shows all LDS playwrites how it's done. For a couple of hours, Bronson is the master. DO NOT MISS THIS PLAY. Am I selling _Stones_ too much? Am I building it up so high that it cannot meet expectations, as so often happens? No, not this play. It can't be built up too much. It will transcend any expectation. Every member of the church should attend _Stones_ like every member of the church should view General Conference. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 04 Apr 2003 20:59:15 -0500 It seems that is often the case when they are read by the authors. Tracie ----- Original Message ----- > > I have also had the sad experience of having a terrible reader destroy the > enjoyment of a book for me. This is rare, but it has happened a few times > when a reader is so flat and dead or nasally or bland or just plain > cotton-pickin' awful, that I hated the book in a way that had nothing to do > with the book itself. Interesting. > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: Re: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 05 Apr 2003 05:20:33 +0000 I'm having trouble sorting out who wrote what, sorry, so I'm quoting w/o attribution > >This is the first reason I think we want to be Jews: Vocabulary. Wouldn't >it be wonderful to sit down to write a story and not have to define Relief >Society or stake president or sealing or baptism for the dead or high >councilman or any of a thousand other uniquely Mormon terms? I just workshopped a short story for a graduate level writing class that had the terms "Relief Society," "home teachers," "Primary program," etc and a few references to temple garments. Other than a few specific questions about garments (which I'd deliberately left unclear in the story), nobody seemed to be puzzled by the use of the terms. I like to think they were as clear as they needed to be in the context - or, at least, that any confusion they created was not important to the meaning of the fiction. At least, they were no less familiar to my audience than a lot of Judaism-specific terms were to me whan I first read Philip Roth as a high school student. Yet "Defender of the Faith" was a story that really resonated with me as a Mormon growing up in a non-Mormon culture (rural South), whether I knew shabbat from shul or not. If anything, the apparent exoticism of "Mormon culture" actually seems to help writers like Walter Kirn to succeed in "mainstream" lit. Kirn is seen as reporting from the fringes of American society, or something, when in fact the little of his work that I've been able to stomach seems embarassingly ignorant of even the basics of the faith (in one story, he has the elders in the ward assembling to elect a new bishop when the current bishop disappears. I say, what?) I don't mean to pick on one writer in particular, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to get away with very inaccurate represenations of Mormonism, just because there presumably aren't enough people of Mormon background in the audience for this type of literature - at least, not people who actually care about accurate representation. [Carrie Pruett] _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] BofM and DNA (Comp 1) (was: BofM in Mormon Lit) Date: 07 Apr 2003 18:08:33 -0500 [MOD: This isn't a topic I'm particularly desirous to get into here on AML-List, particularly not at a high-volume time such as this is. However, the original comment was a legitimate part of the BofM in Mormon Lit thread, so I feel I ought to allow some opportunity for response. Please keep in mind that the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc., are off-topic for this list except as they relate strictly to Mormon literary topics. Please. Oh please. Oh please please please please...] >From iaw2@email.byu.edu Fri Apr 04 19:10:30 2003 > Something addressing the recent DNA issue: how can the Book of Mormon be > historically accurate even when no Jewish DNA exists among the natives > in America? I've already worked out the scenario, but I hate the idea of > doing research to evoke the culture accurately, so I don't know if I'll > ever write it. Actually, some DNA in the America's is actually "Jewish" - but that doesn't nessecarily mean it came from Jews. KUER's Radio West had a great program on this - the last person interviewed briefly discussed this idea. here's the link: text: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html Here's a transcritption of the relevant part: Fabrizio: What about, have you first seen any elements, I don't even know what we would call it, Hebrew/Jewish DNA. Woodward: That's an interesting hypothesis that I think has been set up incorrectly. Let me tell you what I think is going on in that the hypothesis, as I read it, is that, because we have not seen any Hebrew DNA in native Americans therefore the Book of Mormon cannot be true. That is certainly a simplistic view of the hypothesis but that's what I keep getting fed back to me, that that's what people are thinking. But I wonder what would happen if we tried to turn that around. What if we said if there is evidence of Hebrew DNA in the Americas then the Book of Mormon is true. I don't think anybody would accept the reverse of that hypothesis, and the reality is, and I'm going to say this, and then I'm going to come back and clarify it, there has been Hebrew DNA found in the Americas. o.k. Tom mentioned some of the Y chromosome DNA by far, there's one particular marker that we find on the Y chromosome - 199T we call it - that is very characteristic of native Americans of a large proportion of native Americans carry that. However, Tom has mentioned the story about the Lemba in South Africa and the Cohen marker well it turns out that the Cohen marker on the Y chromosome which certainly seems to be an Israelite haplotype DNA marker that has been found in the Americas. It's been found in Columbia, that work was published a little over a year ago. Now, do I claim that that's Lehi's DNA, absolutely not. I think that there's a much more clear explanation of that data but I use it to emphasize my point, yes, there has been Hebrew DNA found in the Americas. Does that prove the Book of Mormon correct? No. But I think we have to be very careful when we turn it around the other way and say because we have not found any Hebrew DNA in the Americas then the Book of Mormon is incorrect and so I still believe that there's a tremendous amount of information yet to come from the DNA information, the DNA story in native Americans. --ivan wolfe >From Jacob@proffitt.com Sun Apr 06 13:47:51 2003 Easy schmeasy. I'll even go two different answers just for kicks. Note that I don't really care if either is correct and I'm not even willing = to concede the hypothesis (that no Jewish DNA exists among the natives in America--something I'd consider pretty much unprovable really). First, the miraculous answer: We can posit that God monkeyed with the Lamanite DNA while making them darker than the Nephites. Who knows what = all the changes entailed--they can have been quite wide-reaching. And we = know that at one point, the two peoples switched places almost entirely to = where the righteous (designated Nephites) were almost entirely genetically Lamanites whereas those who were robbers and living to prey on others = were almost entirely genetically Nephites. Which means that most of what's = left of those people come from the genetically altered strain. So, then, no = big surprise that they don't bear much semblance to Jewish populations = today. Second, the rationalist answer: You can't use genetics to prove *lack* = of inheritance past a very narrow range of generations. You can use = genetics to prove a connection by showing the strains that have remained, but = that's an entirely different case and pretty fortunate when such traces exist. Populations that have been separated for over 2,500 years with periodic infusions of outside genetic material cannot be adequately compared. On = the Native American side, assuming the Book of Mormon to be true, we know of = a number of possible cross-strains including pre-flood Jaredites (who = probably didn't actually cross at all, but *might* have). Adding historical = records, we also know of a number of Asian/Russian migrations that are more = recent and would therefore leave more definite traces in the overall = population. On the population we currently consider Jewish, there's even wider = genetic variation introduced by years of captivity and dispersal. It'd be hard = to say with much certainty what exactly *does* represent basic Jewish = genetic content that would be representative of over 2,500 years ago. You can *speculate* on what it might be, and you can probably rebuild some of = the genetic tree by digging up graves and so on, but that's going to = necessarily be indefinite (because you can't really tell Jewish remains from = non-Jewish remains and even if you could, you can't build an idea of an entire population based on the very small percentage that left identifiable = remains that we can test). Oh, and for *both* cases, it's clear from the Book of Mormon that Lehi = was from the Tribe of Manasseh, so the whole genetics of the Jewish = population isn't going to be relevant unless you can also show that the Tribe of = Judah was genetically similar to the Tribe of Manasseh. The Tribe of Manasseh *start* *off* only 1/4 related because Manasseh was the son of Judah's half-brother). Even more telling considering that Joseph married an Egyptian woman so Manasseh's half from his mother is likely *very* = different from that of Judah's genetic make-up. Of course, cross-breeding is more-or-less a given in later generations, but even so, they *did* = maintain different identities and tracked genealogy with some fervor all the way = down to the time of Lehi (and you can make a case for less likely = cross-breeding of the Ephraim and Manasseh lines due to their royal Egyptian heritage). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 04 Apr 2003 23:40:57 EST Richard wrote: "Jacob said (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a moot question=20 > because the orthodox=20 > Jewish doctrine is wrong, the community is worshipping in=20 > falsehood, and=20 > therefor Gitai has done nothing wrong and is better off outside the=20 > community." Jacob replies: "Oh, I didn't say any of that." Then what did you mean, Jacob, when you said this: "I don't believe at all=20 that his soul is on the line...To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as=20 presented, bear in mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred." Or this: "His doctrine is wrong, you see."=A0 If I misunderstood you, surely you can see how I might have arrived at my=20 conclusions. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Re: Elizabeth Smart Date: 05 Apr 2003 05:41:36 +0000 >For what it's worth, there is in the minds of many this idea that rape >victims are somehow soiled goods. I had a friend who was raped, and >when >she told her fiance that she had been raped several years >previously, he >broke off the engagement because she was damaged >goods. He felt that he >deserved someone "pure" because he hadn't >ever engaged in the >act--willingly or unwillingly. >Karen Tippets That's really appalling, although I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure it's not the opinion of the majority, but there are certainly aspects of LDS culture that encourage such Victorian (literally, think "Tess of the Durbervilles") ideas. Taking it a step further, isn't it almost as bad to consider a young woman who isn't a virgin to be "tainted" in any circumstances? I recall being taught that someone who had transgressed the law of chastity, gone to the bishop, and repented was forgiven in the eyes of God. Why not the eyes of men? I mean, it seems to me that if repentance works, there shouldn't BE such thing as "soiled goods." Does anybody consider that Mormon boys who sow "wild oats" before going on their missions (and we've all known our share) are equally tainted? Is it even an issue in the minds of most potential brides? incidentally, though it's certainly not Mormon lit by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly "R-rated" in terms of content, the novel "Mystic River" by Dennis Lehane addresses a lot of the issues that I see raised by the Smart case. In that novel, the abducted-and-returned character is male, carrie _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Williams" Subject: RE: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 04 Apr 2003 21:55:30 -0800 I wanted to thank Gae Lyn and Amelia for their heartfelt responses. Obviously, there are dangers in majoritarian forms of culture (or religion) that demand assimilation rather than accommodating for diversification, and their responses are apt dramatizations of those dangers. Still, I did want to point out that while I often feel like I am one of a very small group of "liberal" thinking Mormons, I nonetheless feel love and solidarity among my more "conservative" sisters and brothers. In fact, I think it is precisely that difficult, often painful interaction between people that we would not have otherwise chosen to associate with that makes our church "true" (by which I mean capable of inducing the kind of spiritual growth we all need to become more like God). As Mormons, we are quite often placed in situations (and with people) that we would not have otherwise welcomed; and we are encouraged to approach the situation with an open heart and mind. It often produces conflict, and it often requires efforts of reconciliation. In short, you learn to love people that you would not otherwise love. That's why Mormon "community" is so valuable, and painful. It helps to remember sometimes that the purpose of the church is to BOTH comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Some of us, as it happens, are just a lot more talented at the latter (and literary folk always are, hee hee). -John Williams UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 05 Apr 2003 02:29:39 EST In a message dated 4/4/2003 9:59:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, alan@trilobyte.net writes: > I worry about offending people with what I write. Evidence: I worry > that I offended Dutcher by my memoir in Irreantum. He told me that I hadn't > offended me, but he didn't say that he liked the piece, or even read it. So > how do I know that there isn't latent OFFENCE just waiting to happen if he > or his wife or his biship reads it and is offended? Alan, I did read the memoir in Irreantum and I did like it. In fact, I smiled through the entire piece and even laughed out loud a couple of times. So, honestly, I took no offense. My wife also enjoyed it and took no offense. I can't speak for my bishop, though. Now that you mention it, he has been a little stern lately. It's probably your fault. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 04 Apr 2003 23:02:33 -0700 I am not at all shocked by Robert Slaven's statements. I have had too much experience with Mormons who have the attitude described below. For a real-life experience, read this article at http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon40.html. I am aware that Rick Ross is a man hell-bent on exposing the LDS church as a cult; however, he quotes from a Salt Lake City paper, The City Weekly, which although not exactly unbiased, I think this particular article is truthful. --Jennifer Breinholt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 04 Apr 2003 14:36:37 EST Jacob@Proffitt.com writes: "Oh, I didn't say any of that...I didn't say he had done nothing wrong, only that he probably didn't believe he had (and what artist that breaks withtheir community believes they have done so wrongly?)...What I *did* say is that exploring Gitai's experience isn't one that will be useful to faithful LDS artists due to our belief that we belong to the one True church. Further, I said that we actually *are* right..." Jacob, For a second there I thought I had misunderstood you, which was actually comforting to me because I almost always agree with your posts. But then, as you continued to explain, you expressed yourself in such a way that I still find the "true" attitude you espouse (not you personally) as arrogant and unteachable. I believe Gitai's experience is extremely relevant to the LDS artist, if the artist is interested in expressing his/her honest thoughts and feelings and not in just becoming a propaganda machine. Our art may require that we criticize or reveal unpopular aspects of our culture, which is what Gitai did in his culture. This kind of criticism has a tendency to brand the author as an outsider or apostate, even if he/she still desires to be actively involved in the community. Again, I don't know Gitai's history. We are assuming that he voluntarily left his community. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he was trying to point out elements of apostacy within his own religion and, as a result, was labeled an apostate himself. Maybe he was a committed Jew who was excommunicated for raising a warning voice. Such things have happened to LDS writers. I don't have a problem with LDS artists believing we are "right." But I do have a problem in our believing that other religious artists are wrong and that their philosophies are inferior. Despite your protestations, I still interpret your argument in this way. Seriously, how can we remain teachable while harboring such attitudes? Perhaps this attitude has contributed to some of our (and the mainstream Christian community's) crappy art. We are so sure we are right and chosen that we really aren't open to what this whole wide world of ours has to teach us. Surely Judaism and almost every other religion on this earth has some truth to share with us, truth that we haven't recognized or understood yet. And surely some untruths have wriggled their way into Mormonism. I can easily see how a committed LDS artist, with a very Mormon passion for truth, could suddenly find himself no longer Mormon. An unwilling "apostate." Personally, I find "Kadosh" and it's director's (unconfirmed) plight frighteningly relevant. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 08 Apr 2003 13:23:02 -0600 [MOD: Please see my note at the end of this post before writing any responses.] Sorry, Laird, but we need to chat. First of all, I was pretty careful to distinguish between literary = criticism based on philosophical conservatism, and what I called 'fundament= alist reactionary criticism,' a la Bill Bennett. For most folks interested= in literary criticism, when you say 'conservative literary criticism,' = they think of someone like Bennett. That's a public relations issue, = primarily, which I believe that those interested in a more nuanced = conservative (or what you call classical) criticism need to address. =20 You referred to the 'absolutely close-minded=20 way you describe conservatives in your post.' and continued in the same = vein. >Supposedly liberals are open-minded and free-thinking. At least every = >one I've ever met claimed to be, while simultaneously being as narrow->min= ded and=20 >reflexive as it is possible to be. Your picture comes right out of = the=20 >liberal (even Democratic Party) stereotype, without any deviation at=20 >all. =20 Precisely so. I was describing the more or less mainstream way in which = the term 'conservative literary criticism' is likely to be viewed. I = wasn't endorsing it; on the contrary, I was saying that it would interestin= g to read more nuanced conservative criticism. I'd appreciate it if you'd = read my posts a little more carefully before launching this sort of ad = hominem attack. >I could never be a liberal because I could never be so=20 >uncritical. You're perfectly right that most liberals (by which I = mean=20 >illiberal leftists) see conservative anything as prefixed by=20 >"reactionary fundamentalist" but that proves nothing except their own=20 >bigotry. I don't think you are such a bigot. Well, I hope I'm not. I'm trying very hard not to be. =20 What I think is that there are some dogmatic and foolish ways to read = texts (right or left) and that there are more illuminating ways to read = texts, and that neither side has a monopoly on either foolishness or = wisdom. I've read P. J. O'Rourke, and I think he's a brilliant travel = essayist, a very interesting social critic, an extremely funny popular = entertainer, and a pretty boring dogmatist. I've read David Horowitz, and = I think he's a ranter and a raver, and no more interesting than other = ranters and ravers. =20 It's very nice to be told that, as a liberal, I support the mass murders = of Marxism. Thanks for that. Wouldn't it be more accurate to acknowledge = that Hitler was a monster of the right, Stalin a monster of the left, and = that you and I are both agreeably anti-monster? =20 You've written at some length in your posts about 'classicism.' What = exactly do you mean by that? A literary criticism derived from, say, = Plato's Republic, Aristotle's The Poetics and Horace's Ars Poetica, with a = smattering of Plutarch and Cicero, an immersion in Stoicism and Epicurianis= m and neo-Platonism, a grounding in Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, a nod to = the Tractatus Coislinianus, seasoned by readings of Aeschylus-Terence = (incl.). Or do you mean neo-classical criticism, including Robortello, = Scaliger, Guarini, Castelvetro, Sir Phllip Sidney and the whole Corneille/A= cademy nexus? Personally, I find the unities rather tiresome, but if = that's what you're accessing, let's have at it. =20 >It's been around for an awful long time and was never=20 >intellectually defeated. =20 And it's still taught in the academy, is still the focus of major academic = conferences, and remains viable and relevant to the study of classical = texts. I know, because I've attended those conferences.=20 >As in so many other areas, most leftists never=20 >engaged Classicism intellectually, they merely engaged in ad hominem=20 >attacks, slandered the motives of Classicism's proponents, and then=20 >ignored any counter-arguments. =20 Wow. Sounds like quite the struggle there. What on earth are you talking = about? >Classicism deals in universals, while=20 >all post-modern and leftist criticism deals with relatives and denies=20 >the existence of universals. =20 What's a 'universal?' Sophocles was a fifth century (BCE) Greek, writing = about local concerns, accessing the myths of his culture. His work = (Antigone, say) can still be performed, and an audience today can and does = respond to it. Not all audiences, obviously, get it, and not all = performances are successful, but it's still regarded as rather a good = play. Is it 'universal?' Certainly not. My own religious beliefs and = practices do not require me to bury a relative in a certain way, with a = certain ceremony, to allow his soul to pass over to Hades. I do not = believe in Zeus or Athena. Politically, the play has some resonance. I'm = a liberal, and I like this particular play. It hasn't a universal appeal, = nothing can have, but it does still resonate with some cultures today, and = that's saying a great deal. If I also point out that Antigone's rebellion = is in part an expansion on 5th century Greek constructions of gender, that = doesn't make me a moral relativist; it makes me a scholar trying to = understand a difficult and richly nuanced text. =20 >A philosophical conservative may know=20 >nothing of Classicism and may yet use many of its tenets to criticize=20 >literature. The versions of literary theory listed above (ie feminist,=20= >Marxist, or ecological) all attempt to read between the lines and lay=20 >current thought at the feet of ancient peoples. =20 Nonsense. I cannot approach any text from any perspective other than that = of a 21st century white American male. What I can do is access the = insights of a variety of philosophical perspectives. They will not allow = me to read any text purely; they will instead give me the multiple = perspectives of a series of misreadings. But then, all readings are, at = some level, misreadings. Criticism isn't a straight line to a single, = discernable, point; it's a series of circlings, towards an ever-moving = target, dimly illumined. >Classicism tends to be=20 >more literal--when I write "I was born in the city of Pergamon at the=20 >feet of Mount Parnassus" what I mean is "I was born in the city of=20 >Pergamon at the feet of Mount Parnassus." It doesn't mean that I am=20 >crushed by the patriarchy, exploited by the merchant class of Pergamon=20 >or aghast at the rape of beautiful Parnassus by my vile city. =20 "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught = somewhat in all the learning of my father." What that does not mean is = 'gosh, I sure had a swell Dad.' What it means is, I was born into a = wealthy family, sufficiently wealthy that I was able to receive an = education, unilke other residents of Jerusalem in my time period. The = sentence has class implications and it has gender implications (no mention = of Mom's education.) Knowing that that text has class and gender = implications enriches my understanding of that particular text. That's = all that criticism is trying to do. =20 >The fact that women are more equal today than=20 >ever before in human history is not a function of societal evolution. =20 >It is a result of technology. =20 Certainly. Good for technology. And since we have the benefit of both = that technology and that equality, we cannot help but look at texts from = the past from the perspective of our day. >But when attempting to=20 >boil away the fat and see the core, one has to be very careful about=20 >what gets tossed and what gets kept. =20 Is this really how you see reading? As an exercise in tossing stuff? >In addition, Classicism does not attempt to find a particular belief = system >in anything.=20 So it's contentless? What about all those universals? >It is not fractured the way=20 >leftist theory is fractured because it does not insist on seeing all=20 >things through a single prism. The world doesn't boil down to feminist=20= >and patriarchy, class struggle is a red herring, and environmentalism=20 >is camoflage for neo-pagan socialism. =20 Those would be several prisms, would they not? Each of which offers a = different perspective on texts, providing more, not less, insight? > It doesn't bother me that the Crusaders killed everybody in Jerusalem. = =20 It rather does bother me, I'm afraid. >That was perfectly just according to the rules of war that the knew. = >Jerusalem didn't surrender when it was perfectly obvious that it was = lost. >That is an insult of the first degree, and every man who died = trying to >take the city after it was already lost was a superfluous = casualty. >Therefore there was no mercy for those who murdered those men. = It's >strange to see things that way now, but instead of harshly judging = them >by my own standards I look at things through their perspective and = do >not=20 >condemn. They were wrong, but they were ignorant. They had been=20 >deluded by their own tradition and a corrupt church, but in their own=20 >context they were justified. It's only after the fact that it's=20 >obvious that the Church was corrupt. =20 Okay, so leftists are moral relativists, who do not believe in universals; = if we did believe in universals we'd understand and not condemn an act of = historical genocide. These universals require us to look tolerantly at = the horrors of history. See classicism requires us to look at the = Crusaders from their own perspective. =20 Only? That's it? I can't bring any insight from my day into a study of = the Crusades? No, see, I can't, because as a leftist, I can only bring a = single prism into my study of the Crusades. A single Marxist/feminist/envi= ronmentalist prism. That's not three prisms, it's one, without body parts = or passions, one presumes. I'm not capable ideologically to look at = something like medieval rules of combat engagement from a medieval = perspective. No, I'm blinded by gender studies, or something. =20 Let me just say as your common, or garden, medievalist, that this is utter = balderdash. Tell David Bevington that he can't understand the Crusades = because he's too post-modern or something. But be prepared to duck. >There were some who were=20 >appalled, but these few priests were well-educated and cultured,=20 >despite the fact that they denied these things to so many others. =20 >Their crocodile tears were not very impressive, however, since they're=20 >the ones who unleashed the beast. The idea that the Crusaders=20 >themselves should have known better is ridiculous, because atrocities=20 >as great were performed in several well-educated and highly civilized=20 >societies in the last 50 years. =20 Okay, so some medieval writers were appalled by the Crusades, but we = shouldn't judge those who weren't, because after all we had Hitler and = Stalin.=20 >And all this because they abandoned classical critical thinking to = indulge >in fantasy ideologies like marxism, nazism, and their modern = philosophical=20 >derivative radical environmentalism. =20 I'll agree with you this far; 'good critical thinking skills, widely = practiced, might have prevented the rise of power of Lenin or Hitler. = Which would have been, in both instances, a moral good.' =20 >Even today more than a hundred thousand people, most of them >children, = die every year because of environmentalism. The banning of >DDT has = caused these deaths, and no two months ago starving people in >Africa = either refused or were denied food because it was "GM >>frankenfood." =20 Welcome to modern conservatism, a fact free zone. =20 >Classicism has been undergoing an underground revival. =20 Glad to hear it. It's actually been pretty mainstream all along, but = there you go. =20 >Critical thinking is making its way back into the world slowly but = surely,=20 >because the body-count of the fantasy-dreamers grows ever larger as >its = fingers destroy whatever it touches. =20 I haven't the faintest idea what this last sentence means, unless you're = saying that bad literary criticism leads to Hitler or something. Which, = come to think of it, isn't far off. A good close reading, by Neville = Chamberlain, of Mein Kampf, might have had some salutary results. >Dead White Men ought to be judged on the merits, not on their gender >or = skin color. =20 I rather think that all Dead White Men are rather unpalatably skeletal = right now, and are mostly of merit nutritionally, for earthworms. >All literature should be judged in the same way--how does it relate to = the >world as it really is. Writing is the one medium by which one human = >being can come to understand another,=20 There you go. I agree with that wholeheartedly. We're not so different, = you and I. >which is psychology enough without attempting to=20 >use unproven fantasies, that are falsely ennobled by the title=20 >theories, to psychoanalyze the writers. Perhaps most writers really = do=20 >mean what they say, even when they're lying. Well, it was nice to throw psycho-analytic criticism into the prism. = We're really refracting some light here, aren't we? =20 Look, I'm a liberal, sort of, and you're a conservative, sort of. I think = politically the facts are on my side and you think politically the facts = are on your side. We don't agree politically. We both read the same = classical texts, and we both respond to them, though probably differently. = I read a lot of literary criticism, and I think a lot of it is awful and = a lot of it is really valuable, and a lot is in-between. Either way, the = goal is to illuminate the text, and when criticism doesn't, I don't care = for it. But this whole-sale bashing of the academy is just silly. You = don't know what you're talking about. Neither does George Will, or Ann = Coulter, or David Horowitz, or whoever it is you're reading regarding this = stuff. I attend a lot of academic conferences and when really loopy = papers are read, the reaction from everyone is a lot of muffled chuckles, = and rolled eyes, and gossip afterwards. That's just the way it works. I don't want to make enemies, and I am interested in any good literary = criticism, from whatever source. Who's good? I respond to your passion, and to your obvious love of literature. Let's = make a deal. You stop bashing me and I'll stop bashing you. Okay? Eric Samuelsen [MOD: This has been a pretty rough exchange. I let Jim get pretty intense in his post, which I might have ruled out of order on another day or another thread, because it seemed to me to be expressing one particular view of what a conservative literary theory might be or the ideas it might rest on. I'm allowing Eric here to respond pretty much in kind--on the grounds that this thread is pretty central to AML-List topics. At this point, however, I must sound a note of warning: We need to focus on the literary. A discussion of the political, as political, is off-topic for this list. And we need to be careful not to put words in each other's mouths, and not to describe each other's positions in ways that are disrespectful. I sense the potential for this discussion to go downhill, so I'm asking that everyone exercise care in where we go and how we talk about this stuff, from this point on out.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 08 Apr 2003 12:36:49 -0800 >===== Original Message From RichardDutcher@aol.com ===== >Personally, I find "Kadosh" and it's director's (unconfirmed) plight >frighteningly relevant. Well, I gotta fess up. I trusted my friend too far. He had told me that Gitai was from the ultra-orthodox community represented in the film, but I looked into his history a few days ago and found out that Gitai was raised as a secular Jew. So he is not in the position I thought he was in. But even though this story is not true literally, I think it's a story that happens often enough to be of concern to the Mormon artist. What happens when you are an unwilling apostate? I think Jacob Proffit made a good point that there is a difference between being ostracized by your community, and actually being rejected by God. It would be interesting to hear the stories of people who still love the Church, but have been forced out because of their art. What do they think of the condition of their souls? What does the Church think? As I read through some interviews with Gitai, I saw that one the points of his film is to criticize what he sees as the fundamental mistreatment of women in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. So he was making a comment on us too. But that makes me ask another question, related to the one I've already asked. Gitai took it upon himself to critique a culture that he was only peripherally a part of, but his efforts still produced (in my opinion) great art. How much a part of a culture do you have to be to deal with it ethically and well? It seems that the greatest art should be produced by people within the culture that the art is using as its backdrop. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Re: BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 04 Apr 2003 23:19:47 -0800 > Kathy and Jerry Tyner wrote: > > Although I love reading much > > of Nephi's writings, personally if I had had to deal with him in real life > > I'd bet I'd find him irritating. Of course, since there was condensation > > of the BOM, all we tend to get from him is repent, study, repent, study, > > be perfect, repent, study......he always came off as pushy to me, sort > > of super-Elder if you will. > > Now that's a Book of Mormon novel or movie I'd love to see. Maybe Orson > Scott Card will write it. He sure made Isaac irritating in _Rebekah_. > OSC did write it. See books 1-3 of his 'Homecoming' series, namely _The Memory of Earth_, _The Call of Earth_, and _The Ships of Earth_. And yes, Nephi ('Nafai' in the books) was an irritating little twit many times. In fact, I don't know where I read it, but OSC explicitly said once that one of the key thoughts he had in mind when writing the Homecoming series was that he figured Nephi *must* have been a major source of irritation to Laman and Lemuel, and he tried to capture that in the books. (For the uninitiated, these books are about a planet where a 'family' [family relationships are, uhh, not 'usual' in the society they grew up in] leaves the big city after the patriarchal character has a vision. They end up at a place where some spaceships have been mothballed, and they're going to fly them back to Earth. But they are explicitly 'based' on the Book of Mormon.) Now I need to read _Rebekah_. I borrowed it from the library a month or two ago, but had absolutely no time to read it. Sigh. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Pope Gregory VII wrote a letter to the bishop of Rheims in the eleventh century in which he told how the barons of the time were literally destroying Europe in thousands of private wars and feuds and raids on each others' castles and lands and serfs, and how, when he protested what they were doing, they asked him in all seriousness, If we don't do this, what else is there for us to do? - Hugh Nibley, 'Our Glory or Our Condemnation', Approaching Zion --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 05 Apr 2003 01:08:51 -0800 On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:46:11 Jongiorgi Enos writes: > And this was part of my point. Who are we but who we say we are? And > how are some vultures and parasites in our society able to use this fact > to create characters which they then use to prey on the innocent in > chat rooms? I have occasionally thought of creating a new character and subscribing him to the List. I could call him, say, O. Turner Bachmann. I'm master of several different styles, and I could create a character who uses no puns, no euphuism, doesn't ransacke art and nature for the most heterogeneous of ideas to yoke by violence together, and has a completely different e-mail address than myself. Indeed, maybe I've already done that. Ever notice how theric jepson just suddenly started posting one day, and then recently asked, "How can you tell if Theric Jepson is even a real person? Have you met me?" Now, of course, I expect theric to reply to this defending his identity, but if I created him I could create his defense of identity as well. We could have an enormous row over who was real and who invented. It would be fascinating to have a flame war with myself--indeed, I've thought of my newly invented character as an on-list nemesis, a character who would savage me, or at least be a foil--though my Jacob Proffitt and Laird Jim personae do that quite nicely. (Too bad I didn't have time to maintain the Jim Picht persona. That guy turned out some great travelogues. Speaking of travelogues, that Lynn Gardner persona should be getting back from the mission field soon.) > [MOD: Jongiorgi is crediting me with too much intelligence here... > By the way, do you all notice that I'm the one character in this > ongoing epistolary novel who's allowed to interrupt other people?] Another of my great successes in creating a persona. > Who has created whom? The writer or the written? > > Anyway, I love your postmodernist leanings, o mysterious = > theric-of-the-lower-case name! thank you. hollow cluck, who, under his ee cummings persona wrote an epistolary novel about aml-list called the enormous cyber-room. aka h. soderborg clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 05 Apr 2003 00:05:53 -0800 Alan Rex Mitchell asks: > Okay Jongiorgi, where will you draw the line? > > We have the right to watch a video in our home. > Do we have the right to get up in the middle and visit the bathroom? > Do we have the right to shut our eyes in certain places? > Do we have the right to fast forward over certain parts? > Do we have the right to skip a scene in the DVD version? > Do we have the right to destroy our copy of the movie? > Do we have the right to cut an offending portion from the movie ourselves? > (Do we have the right to cut those tags off our matresses?) > Do we have the right to let someone do if for us? > Do we have the right to pay someone minimum wage to do it for us? > > Just tell me where you draw the line. Mattress police. Answer: You CAN cut those tags off of the mattress... but if you get CAUGHT, you will go to hell. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 05 Apr 2003 00:56:32 -0800 On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:01:02 -0800 Robert Slaven writes: > "All art is propaganda." [My hero George Orwell again, from his > essay 'Charles Dickens'.] Thanks for the attribution, Robert. We've discussed this before but I didn't have time to say much. I still don't have time to say much, except that "All x is y" statements are generally meaningless for the same reason that D. Michael Martindale pointed out the statement "Everything is art" is meaningless. Statements that include everything in one category remove the distinctions that make the category useful. But I'm going to talk about this in my usual roundabout shawmy way. Towards the end of my mission, in a used bookstore in New Haven CT (the place where the people from The City (and there is only one The City, everywhere else is something else) come to spend a day in the country and the people from everywhere else in the area come to spend a day in the big city) I found a book called _An American Dialogue_ by Robert McAfee Brown and Gustave Weigel, S.J. Very interesting book, though I haven't read all of it. Rev. Brown says Protestants tend to get upset when Catholics say the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals, because the Protestants recognize that any social issue can be defined as a matter of faith and morals, which means the Pope can make pronouncements on all kinds of political issues, which is dangerous in a country based on separation of church and state. The book is an attempt to get past the rhetoric about Great and Abominable Snowman of the Devil and tunnels filled with baby bones running between convents and monestaries and actually talk to each other. > To apply it specifically to AML-List, "all writing has > some kind of political message". It's just as accurate to say all art is religious as it is to say all art is political, and it's also, if you define religion in political terms, quite accurate to say all religion is political or all politics is religious. But there's a very important difference between politics and religion, at least in LDS culture. If someone doesn't like the decisions a politician makes, that person can sit down and work out a plan to depose the politician, even to take the politician's place. And there is not the slightest lack of patriotism in this replacing one ruler with another, even if that politician is a president, even in time of war. Freely contested, open mudslinging elections are The American Way. But if that same person doesn't like the decisions a bishop or stake president or other church leader makes and works to have that leader removed from office and replaced that action is almost always a sign of apostasy. (An exception might be if a leader were involved in some serious transgression, such as embezzling tithing. And even then, a ward clerk who suspected such and mounted a campaign among the ward members to replace the bishop--rather than, say, talking to the SP--would probably not be acting in a manner consistent with sustaining the leaders of the Church.) > (If you don't believe me, send me something to read and I'll tell > you what political message it may have.) Ok, here's a news story, a report of a political meeting. Tell me what political message it contains, and I'll almost guarantee that at least one reader got the opposite message from it: >>>> Lindon has recently installed a traffic circle at the intersection of 4th East and 4th North that has some residents upset and some pleased. Carol Lloyd, who lives on 400 North and 7th East, spoke to the city council on behalf of herself and neighbors who feel the circle is "an accident waiting to happen." She said, "I've been halfway into the roundabout several times and someone's coming in the other direction and not even hesitated." Later she told a reporter, "Roundabouts back East, and where I've traveled usually will have two lanes, one where you yield and another where you execute the roundabout." She reiterated her belief that there will be an accident. "The person who wanted it, and that's the person with the little farm there on the southwest corner, is going to be able to sit on his porch and watch someone get killed." Jim Dain, who lives in the house Lloyd described, told other city council members on August 1st that they would get complaints and they have. Toby Bath told the other council members on August 15th, "I've had some flack recently and it's upset me, but I don't think a two week trial period is long enough." He noted that the police department has not had any calls about the traffic circle, though Dain has. "I understand someone put a sign on his lawn saying, ‘Traffic roundabouts suck.'" Other residents aren't complaining, though. R. J. Hone, who lives one house south of the circle on the north side of the street says, "It has certainly slowed traffic down." And it needs slowing, says his son Rob, because people coming into the intersection southbound or westbound are coming off hills. He notes that in the past 10 years "there's twenty times as many cars coming off the hill and they still drive just as fast." R. J. Hone says the biggest problem he sees is people not yielding to each other, and the northeast corner is too narrow, about 11 feet, where the other three are about 22 feet. "There's been some screeches, horn honkings and hollering going on," he says, but thinks the circle is much needed. "Before they put that in it wasn't anything to have cars coming down there 60 or 70 miles an hour," Hone said, adding that when he was on the Lindon police force, back when Lindon had a police force, "I'd come home at night, back into the driveway and write six or seven tickets." Hone said he's heard that if the circle becomes permanent the city has some attractive landscaping plans, including a flagpole. <<<<< I have more to say about this, partly because while I lean towards the paw I favor I'm fairly non-political, and what I really want to do is share stories. That's been a big theme in my writing for the last ten years. Yes, I know you can analyze any piece of writing for its political assumptions, but you can also find opposing political assumptions in any piece of writing. One example; at the end of the preface to _Marxism and Literary Criticism_ Terry Eagleton pleads with his readers not to apply marxist theory to Marxism itself, lest Marxism, the scientific theory of human freedom, become just another academic approach to dabble in. That caution/plea is almost identical to the cautions/pleas Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer and others were giving Mormon historians in the mid-80s about the need to show God's hand in the Church's history, and Eagleton gave it for precisely the same reason--he doesn't want to see his salvation religion secularized. This was the subject of my first AML paper, "The Necessity of Bearing Personal Testimony" (if anyone wants to read it drop me a note), and while Eagleton may not want to be lumped with very conservative religious folk, I implied in my conclusion that one reason for writing the paper is to suggest that even people we might consider our enemies have fundamental concerns quite similar to our own fundamental concerns. That ought to give us some pause, and what I want to do if I can get people to pause long enough is to tell stories which by their nature ("is you is or is you ain't my baby" just started playing on the radio--hmm, Diana Krall, I thought it was a guy's voice) opt for sharing human experience rather than propagating a viewpoint religious or political. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 05 Apr 2003 00:46:37 -0800 Travis K. Manning wrote: "Please substitute the word "straight" with "literary" and you'll have understood my real intentions here, I believe." I knew that had be it! From Travis's reading list on the "bedside table" thread, I see that he reads more of this genre than any of us! So I figured it must have been a thought-switcheroo! I'm sure we agree on all points! I have been playing with this concept of the delineation between fiction, truth, reality, memory, writing, the act of writing itself, etc., in various posts, as these are ideas which have been playing about in my mind lately. Some of these illusive philosophical issues spilled over into my thoughts the other night about "Authorial Omniscience" which Thom questioned, but then talked himself into agreeing with, with qualifications, over the course of his own post. But if I might add some quick tid-bit of thought about this concept of truth, fact, motivations, etc., which are so illusive for all human beings, and even, go figure, for writers, too. There is a classic Buddhist saying that goes something like: "If you meet the Buddha along the path, kill him." And the basic translation of this strange saying is that, "The moment that you think you know everything or understand everything, check again... kill that thought... you are probably still missing something." Yes, there is a certain amount of absolute confidence that we all possess or we would not be artists. I think it was Alex Mitchell who was talking about this recently. (Is this is why we -- read I -- so often come off as arrogant in our own posts?) But we would be completely non-functional if we allowed ourselves to be too wracked with pangs of self-doubt (pangs that, despite our confidence, continue to plague us all from time to time). However, to clarify a tiny bit the Omniscience idea, I think the moment that an author is absolutely convinced in his or her own mind that they have "met the Buddha" so-to-speak, that they know everything about their characters, that is the moment that their writing will begin to be tinged with a certain flavor of those negative qualities I mentioned in my other post. Which is what I was really saying. On the other hand, when an author achieves a kind of "Zen" recognition that he will never "meet that Buddha," when we acknowledge the inherent mystery of understanding each other, a kind of reverse paradox is achieved. Suddenly our writing is liberated into that state of truthful observation which actually reveals more about character motivation, even while inherently acknowledges a lack of a complete understanding of the same. Did I say that the author is the "last to know his own work"? Of course not. But if our work is a reflection of the world, are we the first to say that we know our world so completely? If so, then perhaps we are under the illusion of false Buddha's. By acknowledging that we may not have all of the answers but "This is what she SAID" or "This is what she DID" then, suddenly we create an illusion of a character that is sufficient for the day. But the moment an author thinks, and therefore writes as, if they know this character as omnisciently as God, the moment their writing will begin to smack of... but you know what, I already said all of this once, so forget it. All of this is probably too esoteric to matter worth a hill of beans, anyway. Just write. The rest can dangle. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 05 Apr 2003 11:53:00 -0700 At 08:43 PM 4/3/03 -0500, you wrote: >what we need is some simple acceptance. no strings attached. kind of >like the acceptance i find from my god. an acceptance of difference. not >of wrongness. a recognition that a difference of opinion is actually a >good thing, not a bad thing to be stamped out. it is something to be >embraced and fostered so that it will bloom into a fuller understanding of >the world for both parties. I have certainly encountered the mindset here in Happy Valley that there are two kinds of people--those who are safely conventional, "like us," and those who need to be fixed--but I've been pretty successful in ignoring it. I can remember when I had a similar belief myself, back when I was a very different person than I am now, and not someone I would enjoy knowing now. It's embarrassing to remember. I matured and came to my senses (at least about this issue), and chances are that many of those people who so annoy you now will eventually do so as well. It reminds me of a comment of Charlotte Bronte's that I have probably quoted on this list before: "Conventionality is not morality." When my son was growing up, he found his friends among the "rowdy" crowd. He said that they would do anything for you if you needed it, while his churchy friends were busy making judgmental remarks about everybody and feeling superior. What a challenge it is to parents to inculcate high standards in their children and teach them acceptance and lack of judmentalism at the same time! barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 05 Apr 2003 11:10:59 -0700 > >-----Original Message----- > >This brings up a subject we've discussed before, but which I > >still don't have a satisfying answer to. Is it necessary to > >suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or from the sins of > >others (usually both), to be a great artist? I don't believe > >suffering is necessary to be a competent artist, but what > >about true greatness? I raise the following objection to the proposition that extraordinary sin or sinning is a prerequisite for "great" art: it rests on the assertion that there are categories of sinning distinct and apart from what the rest of us do. This is a reassuring notion--"At least I'm not that bad," we can tell ourselves. It's a conceit that pops up in every Sunday School lesson about the Sermon on the Mount, when people start ruminating whether about we should forgive thief who breaks into our house, or Saddam Hussein. The real question is whether you can get along with your mother-in-law. But it is easier to philosophize about the abstract than the idiot who poached your parking space yesterday. One attraction of the big-sinner-as-storyteller is its confessional context. The more grotesque the crime (or suffering), the more willing we are to find in the confession evidence of verisimilitude: anybody willing to admit *that,* in other words, surely wouldn't lie about it. But it also leads to a common trap of literary fiction: that the grotesque must be "truer" than the ordinary (the same way that Hollywood has convinced itself that the gorier a war movie is, the more "realistic" it is). So "literary" Mormon fiction must concern itself with cynical doubting Thomases leading angst-ridden lives (yawn). The challenge of the artist of the ordinary life, perhaps, is that because we all live mostly ordinary lives, we can spot the fakes more easily. That's what makes it harder to create. Though I would argue again that the moral distance between all the varieties of sinners and sins is not what it seems to be. As C.S. Lewis observed, "A cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute." (To which he adds, "Of course, it is better to be neither.") The greatness of Shakespeare is that he makes us understand that the MacBeth, or Othello or Richard is not some incomprehensible "other." The bad guy we love to hate is the bad guy whose manner or attitude or boldness we find commendable enough to spend several intimate hours with. Interestingly, the "reality" of the portrayal has little to do with any real world "reality," else no stage play would be "believable." Or fantasy, or romance, or science fiction saga. The sense that Mormon art often falters on this score I think is a recognition that we (as artists) are letting our desires for what wish we were (or ought to be) overcome our knowledge of what we know we are in the most ordinary sense. Eugene Woodbury http://www.eugenewoodbury.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 05 Apr 2003 09:35:32 -0700 > Robert Slaven wrote: OTOH, how many parents from her > ward/stake/SLC generally will tell their young men "Stay away > from her, she's tainted" or "after what she's been through, > she'll mess you up" or whatever it is they might say. > I wouldn't be at all surprised if she felt "Well, I'm > 'damaged goods' anyway, so there's no point going home." She > may have thought that on her own thanks to our cultural > hang-ups, her captors may have planted the idea in her head, > or (most likely) both fed off of each other. That will happen. I don't think it will spoken much. People will avoid her somewhat mostly because they don't know what to say. A few will avoid her because of the damaged goods thing. A few will avoid her because her presence suggests that bad things can happen in Zion and they would rather not have to deal with that idea. She will come to avoid people for pretty much the same reasons. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 05 Apr 2003 14:03:20 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > Having said that, I think it is interesting that Roman Polanski, who once > sexually forced himself on a 13-year-old girl, has crafted the most > beautiful, sincere, spiritual, and wrenchingly human film of the year. > Perhaps our judgment of his character is flawed. Perhaps Roman Polanski is a > basically good man who made a very, very bad mistake. I never really paid much attention to the Polanski controversy. Then just found out that he committed his crime years and years and years ago. With all the hullaballoo over it, I thought it has been a recent thing. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Polanski has repented of his sin since then? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 05 Apr 2003 18:06:30 -0500 Jacob wrote: I *hope* she didn't get that message from our doctrine. It'd represent a serious mis-understanding of what was supposed to be taught. If we're teaching our teens that rape is always the woman's fault then we're in some serious trouble. and then Jerry Tyner wrote in response: I feel like Jacob. Anyone who interprets our doctrine in such a way that child molestation and rape are the fault of the girl or woman needs to examine this feeling and there understanding. It did not come from any of the revelations or doctrines taught now or in the past. I almost responded to Jacob but I was short on time that night so I didn't. I'll respond to both Jacob and Jerry here. I agree fully. Our doctrine does not support the idea that a victim of rape or sexual abuse or any other sinful act is responsible or guilty in any form. But I will draw a distinction between our doctrine and the way in which some of our doctrine is taught. As a young woman and as a young single adult I have often been instructed by my bishops and other leaders about obeying the law of chastity. I would say that about 99% of the time that law is presented in terms of keeping oneself pure. And keeping oneself pure is defined as abstaining from sexual acts prohibited by the law of chastity. And most of the time we are told that we deserve someone else who is pure. I do not disagree with any of this. What I take issue with is the fact that rarely have I had my biships or my leaders go on and explain that purity can exist in spite of having participated in sexual acts. That purity has much more to do with a state of mind and soul than it has to do with what acts have been engaged in. Unfortunately, the result of associating purity with abstinence and impurity with sexual activity is that anyone who has any experience with sex, regardless of what the acts are, carries a little bit of the taint of impurity. it's an association we are taught to make. And even though we mentally realize that a victim is not impure or that repentance returns someone to a state of purity, too often the associations exist on a subconsious level where they cannot be dealt with because we are unaware of them. I'm not such a pessimist that I think Elizabeth Smart will be treated as an outcast. Her case is much more nuanced than that and it has been so widely publicized that people will be more aware of her powerlessness and her status as a victim. But i do think it is a reality that within Mormonism there is a tendency to link sexual experience before marriage with impurity and that tendency is much stronger that we admit or even realize. it has nothing to do with doctrine. just with our imperfect ways of teaching and understanding doctrine. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 05 Apr 2003 16:02:51 -0800 (PST) --- Nan McCulloch wrote: > P. J. O'Rourke does make good arguments and is funny. Have you read any > of > Jonah Goldberg's funny stuff? He writes for National Review, as well. > A good source of conservative literary criticism is "The New Criterion." http://www.newcriterion.com It was founded by Hilton Kramer, former art critic of "The New York Times" and a leading "neo-conservative." (And there ain't a hell of a lot of "theory" in his magazine.) I guess you could say he is a Modernist who disapproves of the politicial side of hard-core post-modernism. As Justin Halverson notes, a lot of literary theory is just nihilism in drag. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: RE: [AML] Words and Music Date: 05 Apr 2003 16:18:51 -0800 (PST) --- David Hansen wrote: > The OTC performance was bittersweet for me knowing that it would be > Barlow > Bradford's last performance with OTC. (He didn't mention it at the > concert, > BTW.) [snip] > This is one of the reasons I love AML-List: you find out a lot of information you just don't get anywhere else. I'm not sure another literary list would be as successful because this one enjoys the cachet of affiliation with a respected institution (AML) thus attracting some truly gifted people, and a moderator with common sense who insures that all voices get heard, not just the most strident. I sensed there was something different about the Mahler concert (especially when Bradford was overcome by emotion at the beginning) but had no idea what was behind it. I hope the church doesn't begin to see music (or the arts in general) as a merely "utilitarian" missionary tool. For one thing, I'm pretty sure the great majority of those in the Tabernacle that night were church members of varying degrees of activity. The goodwill generated by these concerts in the community surely outweighs any numerical count of "referrals" gotten at one of them. And Utah Chamber Artists sounds cool. I'll definitely check them out. Thanks again, ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 05 Apr 2003 00:20:11 -0800 Barbara Hume noted: "I've listened to quite a few LDS novels on tape, but I don't usually enjoy the narrator. They usually are not skilled actors like Rosenblatt, who uses different voices and plays all the parts." Just a note in passing to anyone out there who produces LDS books-on-tape... there are a few of us professional actors and experienced readers who would love to be hired to use different voices and play all of the parts... Give us a call some time! Jongiorgi & friends -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ (Utah production) Date: 05 Apr 2003 16:47:04 -0800 (PST) Weber State University in Ogden, Utah is presenting what it calls "the first Utah production" of Neil LaBute's controversial plays, "Bash" on May 1-3. Details can be found at: http://departments.weber.edu/performingarts/Events/NewsReleases/0430%20Bash.htm ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Aagard Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 05 Apr 2003 17:48:13 -0800 (PST) --- RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > Having said that, I think it is interesting that > Roman Polanski, who once > sexually forced himself on a 13-year-old girl, has > crafted the most > beautiful, sincere, spiritual, and wrenchingly human > film of the year. > Perhaps our judgment of his character is flawed. > Perhaps Roman Polanski is a > basically good man who made a very, very bad > mistake. > > Perhaps a man is more than his sins. Definitely, a man is more than his sins, but what about paying for your crime? What about paying for your sins? Polanski raped a girl, a girl, and skipped town. Yeah, there was a plea bargain that might have kept him out of jail but fearing the risk of being incarcerated, he left the country. Is that paying for your sins? (Is this what Deseret Book is worried about?) Polanski most probably would have been serving jail time when he made _Tess_. That seems a lot like getting away with your sins. Admittedly, the girl who is now a woman who suffers the most from Polanski's transgression, said that his film shouldn't be judged by his crime. So, _The Pianist_ stands alone to be judged by its own merits, but what about the movies he made when he should have been in jail? _The Pianist_ reflects Polanski's experiences as a Polish Jew during World War II. Everybody recognizes the Holocaust as a tragedy, but what about the raping of a young woman? Will Polanski make a film about his own lecherous and vile actions? Will anybody watch it? I hope not. Mary Aagard __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 05 Apr 2003 21:38:19 -0700 Richard Dutcher writes Perhaps a man is more than his sins. For my sake, I certainly hope so. Personally, I don't believe the man who made "The Pianist" can be dismissed as evil. The fruit is too good for the tree to be bad. Let's leave the judgment of Roman Polanski to God and, in the meantime, thank him for a beautiful film. Bravo! Well said! IMHO I think all too often we judge a book not only by the cover, but the name, and reputation of the author. The cover is really only to keep off the dust, and what has a person's private and personal life got to do with the quality of their artistic works? If that has anything to do with how we choose what we read or see, then we are going to have to throw out an awful lot of very inspiring work. Thank you for your crystal clear insight Richard, By the way I loved both of your films GA & BC Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] DN: Entrepreneur Makes a Good LDS Living Date: 06 Apr 2003 13:23:54 -0400 The scary thing for me is that I'm on his list about 4 times with different addresses and never subscribed once. My e-mail lists have been added to his list twice, causing massive, self-generating e-mail loops that generated thousands of e-mail messages an hour. The question I have is: How has Kennedy been so successful in getting 180,000 subscribers to his e-mail lists? Is there a connection between that fact and my address showing up on his list regularly and without permission? Kent At 2:42 PM -0700 4/3/03, you wrote: >Entrepreneur makes a good LDS Living >By Dennis Romboy >Deseret News staff writer > > PROVO - Matt Kennedy is (LDS) living large. > Some 180,000 subscribers receive daily e-mail from his Web site, >ldsliving.com. As many as 7,000 customers a month order books, videos, CDs, >software and jewelry from the site. More than 10,000 subscribe to his >fledgling magazine, LDS Living. Another 8,000 have e-mail addresses from his >new ISP ending in @ldsliving.com. And thousands of morning television >channel surfers might soon click across a new program, LDS Living. -- Subscribe to Mormon email lists: Send command to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Mormon-Index subscribe mormon-index Mormon-News subscribe mormon-news Mormon-Humor subscribe mormon-humor LDSClerks subscribe ldsclerks LDSPrimary subscribe ldsprimary See http://www.MormonsToday.com/mormon-lists/ for more information. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: RE: [AML] Sugar Beet Readership Date: 06 Apr 2003 13:24:57 -0400 As I mentioned before, this is a FICTION. There isn't any concentration in Virginia. Its simply that all AOL subscribers appear to be in Virginia because of the way the Internet works. Kent At 10:44 AM -0500 4/3/03, you wrote: >Clearly these results show that the farther away from Utah you are >the more likely you are to like The Sugar Beet's type of humor. I >laugh like crazy at some of it and am a bit offended by some, which >is only right because Arkansas is about half way to the east coast. >(It couldn't be that those Virginians are really working in D.C. and >come into contact with lots of different folks who infect them with >all sorts of "funny" ideas.) > >Cathryn Lane > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- Subscribe to Mormon email lists: Send command to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Mormon-Index subscribe mormon-index Mormon-News subscribe mormon-news Mormon-Humor subscribe mormon-humor LDSClerks subscribe ldsclerks LDSPrimary subscribe ldsprimary See http://www.MormonsToday.com/mormon-lists/ for more information. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 06 Apr 2003 13:55:06 -0600 ---Original Message From: Nan McCulloch >=20 > P. J. O'Rourke does make good arguments and is funny. Have=20 > you read any of Jonah Goldberg's funny stuff? He writes for=20 > National Review, as well. Oooo. I can't identify Goldberg's stuff off the top of my head, but = that reminds me of Dennis Praeger who deserves a closer look. I find it interesting in general that some of the best conservative thought comes = from culturally Jewish authors. Particularly interesting when the general = Jewish cultural population tends to be much more liberal. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 06 Apr 2003 14:14:24 -0600 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan >=20 > Fine article. But, Richard, I think your perception that=20 > "People don't hate Greeks like they hate Mormons" is a=20 > mis-perception. I don't believe we are hated. I just think=20 > we are misunderstood. We are perceived by the world at large=20 > to be people of a monolithic ideology and lifestyle. The=20 > fact that there isn't an organiztion on the planet, nor ever=20 > has been, where everyone thinks and acts exactly alike, seems=20 > to escape most observers. =20 >=20 > The work you and others do will go a long way to raise those=20 > misperceptions and, eventually, will help us to be better=20 > understood by the world at large.=20 See, that quote resonated with me for some very specific reasons. = Though I'm not sure what exactly Richard was saying, one thing I've noticed on returning to Salt Lake City after some time away is how *very* = antagonistic certain groups really are towards the church. It isn't just = mis-perception, much of our opposition hates us for things they understand very well. I don't think that there's a *general* hatred of Mormons in the wider population, but there *is* a significant portion of the wider culture = that is arraigned in direct opposition to us. Gay and lesbian activists, for example, truly do hate the church and would pull wide-spread = demonstrations against any LDS film that had *anything* to do with marriage. They'd = paint it as homophobic, anti-gay propaganda no matter what it had to say. = Even conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan have no kind thought for the = church as I know very well and, er, personally. And *then* you have those who define themselves in opposition to the church. What you'd get with a = "Big Fat Mormon Wedding" is so much commotion surrounding it that any message would have a tough time penetrating that commotion. Stories and = coverage about the movie would feel obligated to cover the "controversy" as much = as they would the actual film. This did not happen with "Greek Wedding" = and so the message we received was an overwhelmingly positive one. One = conducive to us going to the movie to see what everyone liked so much. Should this negativity prevent us from producing good art? Heck no, and = I don't think that's what Richard is saying. What I think he's saying is = much wiser--that we'd better be aware of those elements that hate us so and = take that into account in our expectations and planning for the public dissemination of our art. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] re: Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 06 Apr 2003 19:08:51 -0600 I guess I'm still a little confused at what "conservative literary theory" is. I know there was a strong reaction amongst the left due to conservative use of postmodernism. We had a thread on that here last fall. The following link is a paper going through some of that. http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Postmodern.html Now I tend to cringe with such attacks since "postmodernism" is too vague a notion to be useful. Further deconstruction and other such things tend to get abused in literature to such an extent that it is hard to call what they do literary criticism. That isn't to deny real application of deconstruction or elements in "postmodernism." Further just as deconstruction devastated the neo-Marxists in France and elsewhere, it probably is having the same effect on those of a similar bent in the US. Hopefully this isn't what is meant by neo-conservativism though. I think few of the French making these criticisms of Freud or Marx could be considered conservative in any American sense of the term. Anyway, could someone perhaps clarify what it is exactly we are discussing? Onward to a few comments. ___ Jacob ___ | Conservativism isn't about blind adherence to tradition | and/or following historical precedence. It *is* about core | values and applying important traditional principals to new | and emerging circumstances. ___ Is this conservativism in the Bloom mold? i.e. that there are certain texts that were formative for our culture and that we ought to reinterpret *those* texts in light of present circumstances? Thus rather than focusing in on Joyce or Kafka as an analysis of modern life, we ought to reread Shakespeare though a modern lens? If this is what you mean then ends up offering many elements of critical legal hermeneutics to the more general literary community. After all in law we have to apply legal texts to new circumstances the authors may never have thought of. Yet because those texts are the "embodiment" of the community values they are what must be utilized to deal with new circumstances. The problem with Bloom's approach is probably highlighted by the parallel to law. While we certainly do have a literary "canon" we also pass new laws. Thus we have a situation very similar to law where we have old laws and new laws. While we ought not neglect old laws, neither do they gain precedence over new laws. The exception is with the constitution. However even there we have many amendments. One could well argue that perhaps literature ought to have some "critical canon." Yet that critical canon ought, like the constitution, be open ended. The debate then gets into what ought to be considered literary canon. Personally I think we ought to include Camus, Kafka, Hemmingway and others. (Joyce I'm more mixed about, if only because of the long background in philosophy and literature necessary to even be able to read him well) Perhaps that's not what you meant Jacob. Perhaps you meant that there is some "natural law" that ought to underlie both the "how" and "why" of our criticisms. ___ Jacob ___ | I'd claim Derrida, though conservatives would corrupt his | ideas by re-inserting some of the universalism he's | breaking down. In fact, that might be an interesting way | to define conservative literary theory. You could call it | neo-post-modernism--concerned with the distance separating | "other" while reaching out towards universal chaos-touched | themes of shared culture and identity. ___ I'm not quite sure what you mean by "universalism" here. However it certainly is possible to reformulate ones ideas even after the criticisms that certain strains of postmodernism have provided. There is, for example, a post-structuralist version of Freudeanism despite the devastating attacks on Freud that deconstructive readings provided. Same with Marxism, although what results has far less of a connection to Marx. I'd imagine the same could easily be true of neo-conservatism. (Assuming Alan's definition in terms of "natural law.") ___ Alan ___ | Political Conservatism, as defined by Geo Will, is an adherence | to principles of social and societal behaviors, also called | natural law. ___ Of course one big problem is that "natural law" is itself open to so many possible readings. Do we mean it in the sense of Aquinas? Of the Stoics? Or is it just an "intuition" based upon the structure of our evolved humanity? If the latter we end up in the odd position of considering Chomsky a neo-conservative. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] re: Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 06 Apr 2003 19:10:02 -0600 ___ Alan ___ | Mormon theology is similarly based on eternal principles but not | necessarily part of this thread. ___ Mormon theology has some absolutes. But it also has a strong element of the "arbitrary" through all facets. There is typically no Mormon equivalent of "the best of all possible worlds" for instance. Mormonism adopts a very pragmatic approach to divine order. Thus we have for any particular decision, many possible ways it could have been conducted. To the degree that what you call neo-conservatives assume a "univocal" presentation of natural law then I think that natural law incompatible with Mormonism. Which is not to suggest I'm discounting natural law in Mormonism - far from it. I'm just suggesting that the notion of natural law found in conservative Catholicism and Protestantism is most probably incompatible. Although perhaps this is just suggesting that Mormonism adopts a deconstructed form of "natural law" and that we are the proud holders of true neo-conservativism. Or perhaps not. ___ Alan ___ | Levinas? But be careful there, we lefties have already claimed him. ___ Hmm. Given the positions of Levinas, is it possible to "claim him" in that fashion? After all if Levinas gives us a discourse of the Other as Other can we claim an Other without removing them as Other? Put an other way, can one claim the Other without doing violence to the Other? And if claiming is doing this sort of violence, how can one say one is following Levinas? The very act of claiming Levinas becomes the very act of denying Levinas. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 07 Apr 2003 13:15:34 -0600 Quoting BJ Rowley : > > > > > >>PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? > >> > > One of Anita Stansfield's books deals with date rape at BYU. I thought > it was very well written. (can't remember the title) After reading these > posts, I can't help but wonder if it's one of the ones that DB banned, > or if it's still on the shelf. Anybody know? It's _By Love and Grace_. To my knowledge, it has not been pulled from their shelves. Three of Stansfield's books have been, though, including _To Love Again_, which I posted a review of a couple of weeks ago. I thought the man was a pretty stereotypical abuser, but the woman's feelings afterward were portrayed well. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit (was: Elizabeth Smart) Date: 07 Apr 2003 13:43:13 -0600 Quoting Ben and Jessie Christensen : > PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? You probably weren't expecting a huge discourse on the subject when you asked the question, but I wrote a column on the subject for AML-List several years ago. It never made it on the List, though, because it needed some polishing up. Shortly afterwards, AML-List discontinued all columns. So, hey, I'll just send it now. This is the unpolished version. The main problem it had before was that it was pretty lighthearted about such a serious subject. I want to say in advance that I do not wish to belittle anyone's pain or experience who may have had to deal with this awful thing in their own lives. Exactly who would commit such an act, and the repercussions in their lives and in the lives of the victims, is a complicated and tragic thing, and I hope that anyone who is struggling with such a problem will be able to find the healing that they so desperately need. Perhaps, even, you can speak up and share your story with others. I feel that our literature has come a long way, but we could use voices with deeper understanding of the subject. Also--there is a more complete review of Jack Weyland's _Brittany_ in the AML- List Review Archives. And this is by no means an exhaustive list of LDS novels on the subject. There may be others, though I'm not yet acquainted with them. ****************** Ravishing Men I currently own three LDS novels in which an act of rape occurs or almost occurs. (I did not do this on purpose.) Considering that LDS fiction has a reputation for artificial brightness, it's interesting that at least that many titles on this dark subject exist that have been produced by LDS publishers. Each of the books that I own gives some background on the would-be rapist, the "ravisher of women." Are these books trying to teach us something about what to watch out for? Jack Weyland's _Brittany_ definitely is, and perhaps the other two are too. At any rate, they each show us what a "ravisher of women" might be like. The first of these men is Danny, from Anita Stansfield's romance _By Love and Grace_ (Covenant, 1996). Here are the first descriptions that we get of Danny, through Sean (the hero) s eyes: <<<<<< Sean couldn't see this guy she was with at all, but halfway through the meal he started to get the impression they were arguing... Though he only caught disjointed words, it was evident the guy was trying to bully her into doing something she wasn't comfortable with. And the arrogant jerk wouldn't listen to anything she had to say. (p. 3) Sean spent the weekend speculating and stewing... He hated to think of her being on serious terms with this guy who had said things to her like, "You're a thoughtless, insensitive woman." And "You have no idea what you're talking about." The tone of his voice was clear in Sean's memory, and it made him angry. (p. 4) >>>>>> The depiction of Danny bothers me. On the one hand, he seems to be a decent guy in terms of appearance; at least, nothing amiss is reported. On the other hand, Stansfield is showing him to be an obviously rude and controlling person. The clincher for me is that he calls her things like "a thoughtless, insensitive woman" instead of more choice words that I won't mention. Would someone be willing to rape a woman but refuse to swear? even of the "he swore" variety? Well...maybe. Danny's character isn't deep enough to show why he might do that. And why has Tara (the heroine) gone out with him for so long if he treats her like this? This isn't the first time this has happened. She admits on page 9 that "there are times when I don't appreciate the way he treats me." Her explanation, "I've not gone out with anyone else for weeks...because I haven't been asked out by anyone worth going out with" (10) doesn't cut it. Why on earth does she feel that *Danny* is worth going out with? (She also mentions on page 9 that "we have fun together and he can make me laugh," but we never see any evidence of that.) The real reason is to facilitate the plot of the book, so she can have a history with Danny, have one date with Sean and have no guilt, have one more date with Danny and be attacked, and then have Sean ready and waiting to help her through the aftermath. It makes for a nice romance, but a cheap depiction of a rape and the motives and emotions that might have gone into the situation. The next ravishing man is Derek, from Jack Weyland's _Brittany_ (Deseret, 1997). In this book, sixteen-year-old Brittany goes out with Derek just to be nice, but the evening takes a disastrous turn that she must spend months to work through. Like Danny, Derek seems to have been deliberately given some bad characteristics. Space does not permit me to quote every passage containing Derek, but here are a few representative ones: <<<<<< He had big hands that often had either dirt or engine grease under the fingernails. His hair was longer than most boys in school. Brittany wouldn't have minded that, but he didn't take good care of it... (p. 28) He had kind of rough side to him that she didn't appreciate. Like the first day of class. Derek had tapped a boy next to him on the shoulder and showed him a nude figure of a woman in the textbook... (p. 29) >>>>>> Another example of Derek's bad side is on pages 29-30 when he tries to help Brittany cheat on a quiz. But here he almost innocently uses it for good, to help Brittany. He's actually shown to be a nice guy, with some rough edges: <<<<<< "I brought you something," he said, awkwardly thrusting a rose into her hand. "Thanks, Derek. That's real thoughtful of you." "No problem," he said. "I know girls like flowers." (p. 37) >>>>>> He also gives subtle signs of the directions his thoughts run, such as here after he watches Brittany perform in a school musical: <<<<<< "Good job, Brittany. I really enjoyed watching you prance around onstage." Brittany thought it was a strange thing to say. She would have expected him to say something about her voice or compliment her on her acting. (p. 37) >>>>>> And, in the actual Scene itself, he begins as charmingly as ever: "he came around behind the couch, she thought to watch her play Nintendo, but instead he bent over her and kissed her on the back of her neck" (p. 78). I do think that Weyland is heavy-handed in the bad characteristics that he gives to Derek. The way he presents them at times, especially the way he lists them on pages 28-30, is overbearing. It also bothers me that his personal grooming habits seem to be correlated to his moral standards. But in general, his flaws are well-chosen, and he has good characteristics as well. At times they all blend together and form a believable character, rather than a set of adjectives on two feet. He's never exactly appealing to Brittany, but he never seems like a terrible person before the assault, either. I think that's significant, and something worth pointing out to the youth who are supposed to be learning from this book: Little things that make you uncomfortable could be signs of bigger things. The third man is in _Run Away Home_, by Jennie Hansen (Covenant, 1993). Unlike the other two books, this is not a date rape story. This is a story of a grown woman, Megan, who was abused earlier in life by her alcoholic stepfather, Lee. Through several pages of flashbacks, we see that she had a very ugly childhood. Here's a description of Lee and how he treats Megan on her sixteenth birthday: <<<<<< Lee came into the kitchen where she sat nibbling on a stale doughnut. He stretched and scratched his belly where it protruded above his unsnapped jeans... "Happy birthday, baby," he whispered into her face, his foul breath making her want to retch. "I've got a surprise for my little girl. We're going on a picnic, just you and me." (p. 45) >>>>>> So far, Lee seems like a stereotypical alcoholic slob, but Hansen rounds out the picture as the story goes on. She goes on to describe Megan's mother's apparent indifference to the situation, and earlier tells how Megan, at age nine, was the primary caretaker of her baby brother Buddy because Lee and her mother didn't want to be bothered with him. <<<<<< Lee had driven all night. Megan held Buddy while he slept. His wet diaper soaked through her nightgown making it stick to her legs. When morning came Buddy cried for his bottle, but Lee wouldn't stop anywhere to buy milk for him. It was hot and Buddy was getting cranky when Lee finally stopped to buy gas for the car. Lee got a can of pop for Megan to put in Buddy's bottle. After that Buddy went back to sleep. (p. 39) >>>>>> It gets worse from here, but I won't spoil the story for anyone. Lee remains a nasty man with no redeeming qualities. Again, I find it troubling that this nasty man has to have nasty grooming habits; it could also be possible for him to be well-groomed. But in the context of the other awful things that he does, he's somewhat believable. So, we've seen three books where the "ravisher" is obvious to some degree. None of them paint exactly the same picture. Based on what these books tell us, a rapist is likely to have poor grooming habits, but not necessarily. He is likely to be openly rude most of the time, but not necessarily. He is likely to have obviously lower morals, but not necessarily. What the three books agree on is that the rapist is male, he is someone the woman already knows, and there are always warning signs that this guy means trouble. They may be vague enough that they don't worry a young woman, but to readers who know what will happen, they are like neon signs. So what about a book in which the rapist is unobvious, in which he (or she) is seemingly an upstanding Church member and completely trustworthy? I think this situation deserves exploration; not every would-be abuser will have Weyland's list of bad characteristics attached. Anita Stansfield addresses this somewhat in her book _Return to Love_ (Covenant, 1997). Here, Russell usually holds prominent positions at church and seems wonderful to ward members, but at home he beats his wife. He's pretty two-dimensional, though; he's all-good at church and all-bad at home. I think there is more that could be done on the subject. Perhaps even more important is to look at this at a slightly different angle. In each of the books that we've looked at, the young woman does not trust the man, at least not much. She may feel like he's okay to hang out with, but she doesn't trust him. What about women who do trust the man they're with, who might even be completely in love with him? This, too, is a situation that deserves to be addressed. Not that the books we've seen here are completely unrealistic. There are really people like Derek, who don't seem wonderful but do seem okay. There are really people like Lee, who are so far gone that they are plain awful. There are even really people like Danny, who look okay but really aren't very nice. But as we can see here, there can't be just one story about such physical abuse that will tell us all we need to know. Those who would do such a thing come in all shapes and sizes, with all kinds of backgrounds, motivations, feelings of remorse, and rationalizations. So do the victims. Each story is different. I'm not sure that we need a sudden flood of books on the subject, but I do think that we haven't yet said all that can or should be said. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 07 Apr 2003 15:40:08 -0600 -----Original Message----- <<< If Irranteum publishes a work of mine, what rights do they have, since they didn't buy any rights? Is it simply a gentleman's agreement that I won't publish it anywhere else before it appears in Irranteum? >>> Yeah, that's more or less right. We don't do anything official on rights, but we would be freaked out if someone submitted something to us without the understanding that we will take the customary first-time publication rights, with rights reverting to the author upon publication. And by the way, I'm surprised how many people pronounce the magazine IRR-AN-TEE-UM. In reality, it is IRR-EE-AN-TUM. Maybe we need one of those little pronunciation guidelines like the Ensign has. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 07 Apr 2003 15:17:05 -0700 << I thought all five films nominated this year were excellent films. I saw all of them and loved 'em. >> Can you tell me what there was to love about Chicago? I think it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I love musicals, too. It was so depressing to see so much creative talent wasted on such a horrible story. Every character was despicable. I went to see it with my mom, my m-i-l, and two sisters-in-law as a girl's night out. Everyone of us hated it and wanted to leave with the first 30 minutes (but none of us said so cuz we thought maybe the other were enjoying it somehow). If I'd been there with my husband we'd have not only walked out but demanded our money back. There were only two scenes that I found unobjectionable (that I remember). The puppet scene (very well done) and the scene with the husband singing--he has an interesting voice. My s-i-l on the way out said that maybe they were trying to make some type of commentary on corruption. If that's the case, they failed miserably, cuz I didn't see any. Does the movie differ much from the play? Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy and Jerry Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 07 Apr 2003 16:13:16 -0700 First, a disclaimer. I've only seen a few clips of The Pianst, not the whole movie, but what I've seen looked like a well-made picture. That said, a quibble with Richard's semantics. Mismatching one's socks is a mistake. Misplacing your keys likewise. Taking a wrong turn with your battalion and running into a firefight is a very, very, bad mistake. Taking nude photos of a 13 year old girl and then giving her part of a qualuude downed with champange before you first raped her vaginally and then sodomized her because you're afraid of getting her pregnant-that's a deliberate, monstrous choice. It's not that Roman Polanski's work didn't merit an oscar, it's that if he made it, it should've been after he paid his debt to society which he has saucily evaded for many years while enjoying a quality of life I doubt his victims enjoys. He said it was consensual. With a thirteen year old? That lets you know what an ability he posesses to rationalize and lie. Is that a necessary trait to have for great art? Hmmm. I also think it said a lot more about some big A-list names in Hollywood when they got to their feet in appreciation of Polanski's win. I doubt they'd feel that way if it had been their daughter, sister or niece that he violated. But I did see some folks in the gallery there looking real non-plussed about what they were witnessing. I give Adriane Brody a pass since he's much too young too remember either the Manson murders or the Polanski rape episode. I remember both. And I remember how terrified I was with the former until the suspects were caught. And as young as I was, it was perhaps the first time I can remember realizing that there was great evil that existed in the world. I also remember Roman Polanski defending his late wife and friends as not being part of the Hollywood crowd, not drug users and trying to make sure their memories and reputations were not sullied. Very ironic. The rape enraged me. Of all people, who should have known what lust for power and appetites can bring a person to if they let them? Compare that with Viktor Frankl, who like Polanski was a concentration camp survivor. But, who deliberately decided to make something profound out of his ordeal. In writing "Man's Search For Meaning", he sought to share what he had learned-that no matter the circumstances a person can choose their response. Do I still cut a lot of slack for some people and what they've gone through, absolutely. But it never excuses diliberately harming another. Now, the Mo-Lit connection. In constrast there is Anne Perry. Writer extraordinaire of Victorian murder mystery novels and column writer for online Meridian Magazine. She too, did a terrible thing. In her youth, she and a friend murdered the friend's difficult mother, on which the movie, Heavenly Creatures is based. I have seen an interview where she spoke of being on her knees everyday in prison begging God for forgiveness. She served a number of years when she was released, and found the Church while working in the United States. She has said that she was on experimental drugs at the time of the crime, but also said, that's no excuse. So, did she have do what she did to write the great novels she does? I'm sure she'd take it back if she could. Are artists somehow given a magic pass because of the title they bear? I doubt it. Now, can all of us take what sorrows and joys life has handed to us and weave that into our work? Of course. But why give someone an excuse just to find trouble and be weak because they are an artist? Trust me, temptation and trouble find everyone, they need not go looking for it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 05 Apr 2003 00:01:01 -0800 Richard Dutcher wrote: > "I'm interested in hearing what you Mormon writers are reading at > the moment Well, not the Graham Greene novel Richard mentioned, because they didn't have it at the PG Library, though I did find a children's book he did called, I think, The Little Train. (Better than Thomas the Tank Engine) and Rose Green said, > So, what about the rest of you? Besides AML-List, you mean? Well I've been working my way through that great novel about bathrooms and sore throats, Hairy Potty and the Chamber Pot of Sucrets, so I can soon read the follow up about hot brandy toddy cures for sore throats with my son, Hairy Potty and the Goblet of Fire. (After I get through Hairy Potty and the Poisoner of Ah-choo-cabinet-of-Dr-Caligary-Temple) I'm also reading _Black Diamond: The Story of the Negro Baseball Leagues_ by Patricia C. McKissack and Frederick McKissack, Jr. I've long wanted to know something about the Negro Leagues. I came across this book when my son was reading _Run Away Home_ in class, Patricia McKissack's novel about her g-g-gfather, possibly a Seminole, Mobile or Apache (she's not sure, but after studying it out in her mind for 20 years she settled on Apache) who took refuge with and African-American family. Apparently he ran away from the train that was carrying Geronimo and his people into exile in Florida. I also found Patricia and Frederick Sr.'s _Christmas in the Big House, Christmas in the Quarters_ enlightening. Three of the many things I learned were about hole schools (slaves would dig a hole in the woods, cover it with a blanket and have a school), families sold away from each other often got to see each other at Christmas (and the holidays were a good time to wade in the water, following the drinking gourd), and it was common practice to sell away young children as soon as they were big enougn to help in the kitchen. Which reminds me of the most poignant opening I've read to a novel in a long time. >>>> She had another name once but couldn't recall it. It was a sweet name only her mama used. Mama had said it like a sad song, braiding her hair, whispering, "Massa say he goin' put you in his pocket. That pocket like to hold every one of us before long, and all we be doin' is jingle." Mama pulled hard to get the braids tight. "He actin' crazy. Why he want to sell off my baby for? What might you do, so young? Fetch and Carry?" Mama finished the last braid. "If you was mine, I'd have you pluckin' flowers for the table. Nothin' but pluckin' flowers." "I _is_ yours." Mama turned her around and nodded. "Today you is." Tears made gold streaks down Mama's cheeks. "Some folk put young 'uns in the field where the cotton be taller'n they is. What they want with a baby anyhow?" The tears glistened. I cain't recollect my mama's face, and I don't reckon you goin' recollect mine. She did recollect it though, even after she forgot her sweet name. She recollected he mama's weeping face, her mama's stretched-out arms, her mama's legs running to beat the band when the horses pulled the cart away. <<<< And typing this out, knowing Margaret Young would likely be reading it, reminded me of that letter where Rilke wrote out one of Kappus's poems and sent it back to him so he could see his own work in someone else's hand. _Bound for Canaan_ is a wondefully subversive novel. I love the echoes of the temple in that opening sentence, especially since one of the sad things about the book is the yearning, the thwarted yearning, for temple blessings. The opening sentences are also deeply poignant because they echo the kind of pocket survivors of torture and sexual abuse create for themselves, to protect themselves while they search for the name that was destroyed by the torture. I stopped by Lindon A Lemon Tree Watson (named after a conversation with Sheer Luck Homes in a citrus grove) today (March 25--though this post was written over several days, today, for example is April 4) to pick up my son's home work and the librarian had a copy of _Wednesday_ (I think it's called--or Tuesday), a nearly wordless picture book, about frogs flying through town on lily pads. The last picture is wonderful. While I was laughing over that, Mrs. Walker drug me over to the Ws and pulled out 4 books by Audrey Wood, ill. Don Wood, which I read in this order, _The Napping House_ (wonderfully funny and joyous), _The Mouse, the Strawberry and the Very Hungry Bear_ (or something like that, also funny and well-illustrated), _Heckedy Peg_ (I love good fairy tales--though I could hear my sister telling me how western Christian culture persecutes witches.) When Heckedy Peg turns the children into food I looked back to the list of gifts they asked their mother to bring, and the gifts corresponded to the food they had been turned into. I knew that correspondence would be the key to turning them back, and found that key was turned most satisfactorily. And finally _King Bidgood's in the Bathtub_--also funny and wonderfully illustrated and with a fitting punchline. Then I saw Patricia Polacco's Pink and Say up on top of the range, but it had more words than the others and I figure I'll check it out of PG Lib. (But they don't have it, so back to school.) Looks like it's about a white child teaching a black child to read in Civil War times. I've been working my way through the Fall 1977 Dialogue (30:4, I think). I found "Building Wilkinson's University" by Gary James Bergera interesting, particularly its picture of Wilkinson's complex feelings toward the faculty, (he often didn't like or trust them, but my father remembers being at a party one night and someone needed to get somewhere and Wilkinson threw the man his keys and said, "Take my car") and his dealings with the board of trustees. Wilkinson tried to force my father out of BYU by keeping his salary artificially low for several years, but it backfired. He had forbidden faculty members to discuss their salaries with each other, so my father had no basis for comparison. (Ironically, I applied for an editing job a couple years ago and the first thing the interviewer said in calling me to set up the interview was that he had already been turned down by some fresh BAs who felt the salary was too low, a salary about what my father had been making at retirement 20 years earlier.) I found Chris Van Allsburg's Zathura at the liberry last knight (yes, I put a hold on Monty Python ik die holien graile--I don't know if I've spellt that right, It's been a long time, but not long enough to forget that moose bites can be painful), and can finally find out what happened to Danny and Walter Budwing. I read most of Paula Gunn Allen's The Song of the Turtle: American Indian Literature 1974-1994 in Jan and Feb. Need to read vol 1 The Voice of the Turtle, which ends at 1970. My brother Dennis (who checked Song out of the lieberry for me) wonders what happened in the four years between the two). One of the parts I didn't read was the excerpt from James Welch's _Winter in the Blood_. I asked Dennis if the Orem lieberry has a copy, and he said he has all of Welch's novels. He later told me that he wrote his story "Answer to Prayer" (in Levi Peterson's _Greening Wheat_) for Welch's class at the UW. I also want to read Welch's _The Heartsong of Charging Elk_, Michael Dorris and Louise Erdrich's novel (about Columbus, if I recall), and Martin Cruz Smith's _December 6_, about an American con artist in Japan who tries to stop the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. I need to finish _Stallion Gate_, which is about the birth of the A-bomb. Smith is quite interesting. I've got to read _Nightwing_ too, and get ahold of some of Louis Owens' non-fiction. I have read Tough Luck: Sitting Bull's Friend by Paris Anderson several times, and discussed it in my AML paper. I've read the first little bit of Mississippi Trial 1955, by Chris Crowe. I started reading The Angel and the Beehive by Armand Mauss. A little dry, but quite interesting. Das Neue Testament, Luthertext. I'm trying to read it through once a year, less than two pages a day, but I spent most of Januar finishing Offenbarung and I haven't been reading two pages every day so I'm just at Matthaeus 16. And since Easter is coming up, it may not be accidental that I have Reynolds Price's _The Collected Poems_ by the side of my writing chair, which my niece got me in hardback for Christmas a few years ago (expensive even at BYU Bookstore's 20% off Christmas sale) and which I bought in remaindered paperback for my father this past Christmas. There are poems in _Vital Provisions_ that I keep returning to. I especially like "Naked Boy" Where Jesus shows up on Passover morning to make a chicken coop for his friend. And I love the passage in "The Dream of a House" where the narrator says, "Will I be alone," and the angel opens the closet to show him a man Nailed to a T-shaped rig-- Full-grown, his face eyelevel with mine. Eyes clamped. He has borne on a body No stronger than mine every Offense a sane man would dread-- Flailed, pierced, gouged, crushed-- But he has the still bearable sweet Salt smell of blood from my own finger, Not yet brown, though his long Hair is stiff with clots, flesh blue. (In searching my stash of Juno messages, I note this is the third time I've posted this passage. I should also re-read Clinton Larson's "Crucifixion in Judea" from _The Lord of Experience_. As a sidenote, some of my father's early publications were introductions to some of Larson's volumes.) And I just found Arthur Ashe's Days of Grace at the PG Lib, so I can take it up where I left off several years ago in the UVSC lib's copy in the chapter, "The Burden of Race." Also, Robert C. Freeman and Dennis A. Wright's _Saints at War_ finally came in at the library. I saw the film, now I want to read the book. Another oral history I want to read is Studs Terkel's _The Good War_, and I need to finish Paul Fussell's _Wartime_, and get ahold of _The Great War and Modern Memory_, which I expect will be as engaging as _Wartime_. Harlow S. Clark No, really. Moose bites can be painful. Ask the Northern Exposure moosekeeper, or the acapella group moosebutter. We train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot --Spencer W. Kimball Renounce war and proclaim peace --Joseph Smith, August 6 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Works and Progress (was: Authorial Omniscience) Date: 07 Apr 2003 16:25:45 -0700 There is an interesting article in the latest issue of BYU Magazine = entitled "Works and Progress." The article features the groundbreaking = work of Dennis Packard, an BYU philosophy professor who's efforts = involve an interdisciplinary approach to the arts, merging his = philosophical theories with their practical applications in writing, = drama and film, all of which is informed by a gospel perspective or an = LDS slant, if you will, and this, I think, makes it interesting to the = Association for Mormon Letters. I will quote from reporter Todd Condie's = article in this essay, but interested parties can read the entire = article at the link below:=20 http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=3D18-spr03&keyword=3Dpackard I had the opportunity to work with Dennis Packard and his partner at the = time, David T. Warner, in one of their experimental workshops in 1996, = this particular incarnation of which was known as the Film Actor's = Theater of Los Angeles. Packard's workshop is now under the auspices of = BYU and is called "Lifesong" (their website is lifesong.byu.edu). My = experience working with them was life-changing and deeply informative; = and unlike many of life's life-changing and informative experiences, it = was also immensely pleasurable. There is an interesting aside. Our second daughter was born on the = opening night of the production which was a result of the FATLA's = activities that year. After being awake for a night and a day by my = wife's bedside as she struggled through a grueling 24-hour labor, David = brought my costume to the hospital just moments after Tadja Kathleen = decided to come out of her warm comfort and join us (in a geyser of = blood and water and one single, solitary cry) into the air of the cold, = cruel world. I changed my clothes in the delivery room lavatory, kissed = my exhausted wife and new baby girl goodbye, drove to the theater, and = with only minutes to spare, walked onto the stage and into the lights in = a daze of afterbirth. Blood and cries and feces and tears and joys and = life and birth and perfect babies and exhaustion and elation, all = swimming in a hot sea of lines and images, played about my brain in one, = fleeting, unrecoverable night of theater. Anyway. that's just an aside. My immediate interest in the Packard article comes from a series of = quotes and explanations Condie makes that jumped out at me as having = some connection to thoughts I've been having and trying to express = (probably ineffectively) on the list in various posts recently. = Packard's vocabulary is different than mine, but I think he gets at the = heart of some of my own impressions more directly and effectively. He = uses a term, in his philosophy of storytelling, that he calls, simply: = "generosity." To quote from Condie's article: "Generosity is the term that the philosopher Sartre used; it's a very = good term with religious roots," Packard says. Simply put, generosity = refers to an open attitude toward one's surroundings-an attitude of = willing malleability. A generous person does not approach the world with = the intent to mold it to his predetermined ideas but is instead = receptive to all the positive influences surrounding him. From a = synthesis of these influences, he forms his own actions and presence in = the world. Packard compares the idea to that of tenderheartedness as = found in the Book of Mormon. Being tenderhearted, or generous, entails = spiritual responsiveness, willingness to be influenced by the Spirit of = God, wherever it might originate. "Something satanic, like pornography, will try to captivate the = attention in such a way that there is no free response," says Packard. = "Good art is similar to scripture in that it invites us to consider and = then draws us out to openly respond. Because the generosity of the = artist evokes the generosity of the audience, a generous writer can't = manipulate his readers by determining what they should feel. He presents = the material in an open manner so that they can respond generously to = it, can complete it with their own response."=20 End of quote. To me this speaks somewhat along the lines of what I've been trying to = get at with my limited exploration of "Authorial Omniscience." I believe = that frequently, writers attempt a certain manipulation of their = audience, and that this tendency is arguably more often the case in LDS = literature than in general literature. That last statement is probably = contentious and improvable, so I'll acknowledge right away that I may be = wrong. What I'm more interested in discovering, is not the cases of conscious, = calculated attempts at authorial manipulation of an audience, but rather = those cases of "unconscious manipulation." Such Unconscious = Manipulation, as I will define it, IS something that I will argue is = more prevalent in LDS literature and may be effecting the overall = quality of our burgeoning writ. Conscious manipulation is that simple attempt by an author to order, = structure, describe or invent events in such a way as to achieve a = specifically desired reaction: shock value, a surprised guffaw, a = tear-jerking ending, etc. We all do it all of the time, and there may = not be anything wrong with this, especially when we are talking about = simple products of entertainment.=20 What I mean by unconscious manipulation, on the other hand, springs not = so much from an author's conscious efforts to structure the story to get = a certain response, but is a result of a subtle intellectual position of = an author which he carries around in himself at all times, and may not = be thinking about to any greater or lesser degree when he is writing. = This intellectual position, if it exists, is one which presumes a = certain understanding of the world. This kind of author is absolutely = convinced that the world turns in a certain way, that God is in his = heaven at a certain time and hour, and that all things are ordered as = the author expects them to be. Now such philosophical confidence, in daily life, and on a personal = level, is not a bad thing, and I don't mean to suggest it is. I feel it = myself, most of the time, and I think that anyone who has ever struggled = with testimony wishes that they could feel more secure in their nest of = doubt. Being confident about "the way things are" is a great comfort to = believers of any faith. Mormons are particularly adept at assuming this kind of generally = assured stance. The reason is that our theology is particularly broad = and has an impact in just about every facet of thought, and tends to = order the world in fairly delineated terms. All of Christianity tends to = do this to a greater or lesser extent: "Things are the way they are"; = "God decrees things, and so it is." But when you add to this general = confidence in the "there-is-a-law-decreed" idea, the additional = construct "this is the ONE TRUE church," then, of course, you get some = pretty bold people. Naturally.=20 Again, such boldness is not in-and-of-itself bad. Bold is good, if we = accept that there is INDEED one true church. This is not the forum to = debate that question; I think it is assumed that list members believe = such is the case or are comfortable with their colleagues believing it, = and I for one have already stated my belief as such, and will certainly = do so again. But, I think there are cautions which we should apply to ourselves, both = for caveat in our personal lives, and particularly with respect to our = artistic endeavors. To express these cautions, I'd like to embrace = Packard's concepts of "generosity" and "tenderheartedness." But first, = more about the bold philosophical stance and how it might affect authors = and critics. Some of this "boldness" of which I speak was reflected in a few of Jacob = Proffitt's remarks in the thread about the Kadosh movie review. Richard = Dutcher expressed some guarded concerns about the tenor of Proffitt's = comments, and Proffitt responded. While it is not my intent to directly = enter into that discussion, per se, it does form an example of what I'm = talking about, and so I'll include some summary quotes from their public = exchange. Dutcher said he couldn't "help recoiling at the underlying arrogance of = [Proffitt's] statement," in this case, specifically about an Orthodox = Jewish artist questioning his faith (or more particularly, the culture = his faith has evolved).=20 To which Proffitt replied: "Okay. But there's a reality beyond the = subjective. We *are* the true church. Sure that's an arrogant = statement--unless we're right." But Dutcher interpreted Proffitt's boldness as "minimiz[ing] another = artist's experience simply because his doctrine and his community are, = in our eyes, 'wrong.'" Dutcher went on to call this "a dehumanizing = act," saying: "By lessening his experience, we distance ourselves, we = empathize less. We certainly are not comforting the afflicted or = "mourning with those who mourn"." To which Proffitt replied: "I'm not minimizing his experience. Just = because it isn't an experience that relates well to our own doesn't make = it any less powerful to him. I *never* said that his pain was unimportant or that he doesn't deserve care and = concern. Nor did I say that his art is the less or that we can't watch = his film with respect. I didn't say that he has nothing to teach us. I = only said that his experience doesn't relate to our own in the specific = way expressed by Steven's query. I don't see how it is dehumanizing to = recognize that we are irreconcilably different in one specific way. We = are irreconcilably different from *everyone* in *some* way(s). It isn't = dehumanizing to recognize or point out that fact." To this entire exchange, I must admit some deep dilemmas. From a purely = personal point of view, Richard is a friend and some of my personal = knowledge colors my bias and makes me want to lean towards his way of = stating the case. From a purely philosophical point of view, it is = difficult to argue Proffitt's point that if we are the "one true church" = that sets us apart essentially and also allows us to say certain = "arrogant-but-true" things. (Actually, that phrasing is unfair: Proffitt = contends that if the statement is true, it ceases to be arrogant. But, = I'll stick with my way of saying it for the consciously manipulative = effect of it being more punchy and shocking!) Now back to my attempt to tie this in with Packard's concepts, and then = loop it back around to some of my own. Packard talks about an essential tenderheartedness that must become part = of the LDS artists' outlook and work. I believe such tenderheartedness = ties in with the Charity of Christ and the various scriptural = admonitions we are under to "mourn with those that mourn" such as = Richard quotes. Part of the admonition we are under is to learn about = other cultures, peoples, languages and religions. Some of the empathy we = will learn through this lifelong exercise will make us both better = Christians and help us better fulfill the three-fold mission of the = church, which is only one-third about ourselves, and two-thirds about = other people. I think artists are doubly charged with an admonition to sensitize = ourselves to the plights and lives of others. We have the difficult = charge to walk a balance such as Christ walked: where we dine with = sinners but do not condone sin; live in the world, but not of it; = befriend the walkers of a life not our own and love them, all the while = staying on our own chosen path. I don't know, then, that it is ever = truly constructive to make "arrogant-but-true" statements in our = personal lives. I think that an overly-quick assumption of our = "irreconcilable differences" might cause us to miss points of = commonality which are more ubiquitous than often imagined, and that = sensitivity and tenderheartedness towards the grief of others is always = informative in some way, regardless of how someone's experience is = related to our own. But that is just a personal opinion about living a = personal life. It is in our professional and amateur lives as writers, on the other = hand, that I am most concerned about in this essay, and here is the = theory that I have developed: As converted, philosophically and religiously confident = "arrogant-but-true" Mormons, our understandable security about the = nature of truth, the world, God, eternity, and our place in it, etc., = can have the tendency to make us less able observers (opposite of = judges) of the world around us. Furthermore, this empirical confidence = has a tendency to infuse our storytelling with an inherent didacticism = and/or an "unconscious manipulation" which our readers may not be able = to identify, but they know that it turns them off. Not only that, but in = our creation of characters based on the constructs which we hold to be = in a "reality beyond the subjective," we will, from time to time, miss = opportunities at genuinely truthful understanding and artistic insight, = because we are already so confident we know what the answers are, that = we fail to ask the most pertinent questions. So, that's the theory, and I may be wrong. Now, Packard is talking about the presentation of our ideals (through = characters) to others, not about our acceptance of other artist's ideals = through looking at their work: but the two exercises are intimately = related. While Proffitt and Dutcher were discussing a Mormon response to = a Jewish man's apostasy, and Packard is guiding young artists at BYU to = better present their own stories to the world, I think the two = activities inform each other. Back to Packard talking about his theory of storytelling (the "film = novel"): "A poetics seeks to explain what a type of literature consists of, what = the audience reaction should be to that type of writing, and what can be = used to invite that reaction," says Packard. "The purpose of a film = novel, as I explain it, is to engage a generous interpretive response. = How do you write film novels to invite that response? How do you film = them to do that?" "The method Packard developed to elicit this response involves a = tenderhearted approach to creating characters. He encourages student = writers to refrain from manipulating their fictional characters to = behave in certain ways. Instead, writers should respond naturally to = their characters as they emerge. As a result, characters won't force = situations to a desired end but will respond generously to each other = and to conflicts. The final result, Packard hopes, is that the audience = will also react to the story generously, allowing themselves to be = naturally moved by characters and affected by resolutions" "We, as a people, can't simply be negative about the entertainment = industry," Packard says. "We have to be enthusiastic about the very = finest stories and films; we have to study them and learn from them and = learn to create them. We want the world to experience the goodness of = God as it exhibits itself, not only from the Spirit itself, but from the = words of a child, the performance of an actor, the movement of a = cameraman." End of quote. I think this is partly what I meant when discussing the concept about an = author not knowing everything there is to know about the world his = characters live in, or their every motivation. Such a delicate, even = uncertain, method of observation, stripped of the arrogant confidence we = often times posses, will allow us, as artists, to gently achieve truth = without forcing it into obviously didactic constructs. Also, as an aside, I like the idea of a "tenderhearted approach" to the = work of others as well, even when those artists included expressions we = may find distasteful. We must ask "is there truth there?" before = rejecting it out of hand. But that's another discussion. I want to explore some other issues, somewhat related to this struggle = for our place as competent artists as well as active Latter-day Saints, = but I will continue that thought in another essay. To complete the = thought I'm trying to make here, let me share a personal experience with = respect to a story I've been struggling with.=20 But first, let me digress to say that, in relation to Packard's ideas = about telling stories openly and not forcing a certain response: I don't = think that every story HAS a conclusive response or resolution. I think = that there are some stories that defy easy categorization, that should = still be told. For example, many have been frustrated with Desert Books "banning" of = certain titles. Part of their policy statement is about making sure that = stories show good as good and evil as evil, and the consequences of sin. = But sometimes, the truth (in the finite) is infinitely more complex. = While the arrogant-but-true statement is that (and we all know it) "sin = does not pay" and "all sinners will have to pay up someday," those = truths are talking about the eternal scheme of things. In the short run, = sometimes it is not at all evident that this is the case. A bad man = might go on sinning for years and years and years in this life, and = never see the results until he's on the other side. If my story is just = about my one year with the guy, and all the terrible things he did to = me, my story will be: "I'm a good guy and terrible things happened to = me; this guy was bad and nothing bad happened to him." Such a story = would be banned by DB, but may yet be true, and it may also be = literarily important. I don't know. But I'm getting off track. Back to my personal experience story. Many of you will have heard of the highly-publicized story (in Utah) = about a BYU student who tried to poison his pregnant wife so that (if = she were dead) he would be more free to live a life of indulgence in = pornography. Do you remember hearing about that guy? Well, that man was a personal friend of mine. I helped throw the = bachelor party before his marriage to the girl he would ultimately = attempt to poison. I see his father in church every Sunday, a remarkably = cheerful man who has weathered this latest blow to his life well: other = than suddenly loosing about 25 pounds in two weeks like he was melting = in front of our eyes, his native cheer in the face of hell remains = unabated. I went running with Paul, the = attempted-murderer-porn-addicted-son, every morning for a time, along = the trails that have become so much a part of my life, and feature = prominently in my own memoir-writing. We laughed together, we played = together, we worshiped together; I liked and admired the man very much. = Now he is in jail for the attempted murder with poison of his wife and = unborn child. There is a history of mental instability in his family. His mother = committed suicide many years ago after constant bouts with severe = clinical depression. And so now Paul, in his turn, has gone, at least = temporarily, crazy. Did porn push him over the edge? Or would that have = happened anyway? Was it just a chemical imbalance in his brain, a mental = disease or physical malady? Or was he genuinely, in his conscious heart, = of murderous intent? What "made him do it"? Will he burn in hell = forever? Is there forgiveness for the act of attempting to kill your = wife and unborn child so that you would be more able to indulge in porn? = He did confess his ludicrously-botched, but multiple, attempts at = dual-murder to his bishop after a bout of guilt, so, crazy or not, maybe = he'll be saved some day through the Grace of Christ. The point is: I DON'T KNOW. I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But he was my friend. = I know his (soon to be former) wife. I know his family. He lived in my = town. Our ward was rocked by the news. Our little corner of the world, = our own little "Brigham City" could not believe we had a murderer in our = church! A man we loved and admired, turned attempted killer.=20 And what if he had succeeded?=20 The final questions are these: Can I write about this event? I feel the = need to. Could I write about it in the form of non-fiction? Could I = produce a documentary? Could I write a fictionalized story? And if so, = how would it end? Would I need to MAKE it end a certain way? Or could I = just let the story end as it has (so far) in real life, with him in a = Utah jail cell, and me sitting here, confused? And what would be more = artistically relevant? And what would DB publish? And should I care? I have answers to these questions, and others will certainly have = theirs. Generally, I think that true writers must write, and write what = they know, and write from the heart, but I will contend, again, that = authors (the good ones anyway) don't know any more about the world than = anyone else. I could write Paul's story knowing what I know now, which = is almost nothing, and it would be moving, disturbing, poignant, = dramatic, it might even have a point. I would hope that it would be = generous and tenderhearted. But very little would be neatly wrapped up = at the end. And sex, porn, murder and insanity would all be subject = matters. But it would be "Mormon Art." The "art" you might argue, but it = would have to be Mormon: all of the characters are. In "Brigham City," murder, deceit and insanity cause horror and pain. At = the end, Terry is dead and he did what he did, and while we have = suspicions and possibilities, no one is really sure why. But it doesn't = matter. Because the real story is about Wes Clayton, who has a personal = breakthrough of a deeply emotional and spiritual nature, as does his = community. And that, I think, was generous and tenderhearted, even = though many will say that the topic of serial murder cannot be either. An author with all of the answers could not write Brigham City, and if I = wait until I have all the answers, I will never write about Paul. = Sometimes we have to be open to the exploration itself, and the quest = for answers (whether we find all of them out or not). Sometimes it is = the journey that is worth the effort. Perhaps we should be more fearless = to allow, as Packer says, our audiences to "complete" our work in their = response and be less interested in writing something "complete" all by = itself. By increasing our capacity for openness and generosity, = tenderheartedness and responsiveness to the plights of others and the = experiences of life, we can become greater artists. And by suppressing = our knee-jerk tendency towards complacency with our arrogant-but-true = understandings of the world, we can slowly evolve into better people and = better writers. If we write from the standpoint of bold certainty in our church and how = our theology explains the world, we might be lead to unconsciously = manipulate events in our stories to conform with what we know should be = true, rather than observing truth first and then attempting to see where = it fits within our theological construct. By doing the second, rather = than the first, I think we will become better and better writers. It is = possible to do this, openly, naturally, generously, without endangering = our faith or making all writers apostates! Balance, the spirit, charity, = and an acceptance that "not all things are revealed at this time" will = fill in the blanks and make us able to remain confidently, boldly and = completely faithful members of the church, but also appropriately = questioning artists. (There is that word, "appropriate," that DMM hates, = but more on that in another post!) So: Can the Spirit of God be found in Paul's story? Can it be found in = Brigham City? Can it be found in our journal entries of our mundane = lives? I think it can. But the moment we overindulge in complete = certainty in our conclusions, the more we will alienate the world.=20 And they, after all, are at least one portion of those to whom we are = trying to speak. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 07 Apr 2003 17:08:15 -1000 I also grew up east of Palmyra, in Syracuse. My memories of growing up was more being singled out because I was different than because I was specifically Mormon. I was always in the minority religiously, obviously. It's interesting that now that I live in Utah I get more persecution and bad feelings from my "neighbors" there then I ever did outside of Utah. I don't know if this is on topic or not... but. I am in Hawaii now working on a construction project for about six months. Anyway, we have been asked by the owner of the project, the City and County of Honolulu to have the project blessed by a native Hawaiian before we begin. I wondered about the separation of church and state issue that this must bring up but was told that they do this all the time and it is an accepted religious custom. My first thought was "if we tried that in Utah we would be crucified". Any comments? Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 07 Apr 2003 22:29:09 -0500 Carrie Pruett wrote: > > I just workshopped a short story for a graduate level writing class that had > the terms "Relief Society," "home teachers," "Primary program," etc and a > few references to temple garments. Other than a few specific questions > about garments (which I'd deliberately left unclear in the story), nobody > seemed to be puzzled by the use of the terms. I like to think they were as > clear as they needed to be in the context - or, at least, that any confusion > they created was not important to the meaning of the fiction. At least, > they were no less familiar to my audience than a lot of Judaism-specific > terms were to me whan I first read Philip Roth as a high school student. I also just workshopped a short story that contained Mormon elements in my graduate program, and my experience was a little different. I live in Minnesota, where Mormons are relatively rare, and even though I've lived here five years now I'm still amazed at the lack of understanding about what Mormons are like among educated and aware people. Here's one example taken from a typed response to my story: "I know little of the Mormon faith, and what I've heard about it may not necessarily be true. So to read a good story with characters who are so accessible, and who are Mormon, was especially good. I would never have dreamed Mormon girls wear make-up and nail polish and sass their parents!" While there are other classmates of mine who have a better understanding of what Mormons are like, the majority of the people I meet in my graduate program assume that I merely grew up in a Mormon culture, or "used to be a Mormon." They have a hard time squaring their preconceived ideas of what Mormons look like and act like and do with *me* (even though I'm a relatively innocuous 30-year-old lady in a Primary Presidency who really likes to read books and write). I spent a long time after my last class, actually, discussing with my professor how my religious beliefs color my writing and the stories I choose to tell. My professor, an amazing woman and talented writer, confided in me that I'm the only "real Mormon" that she'd ever known, and that if she were perfectly honest, in her mind she thought of Mormons in the same way she thought of Quakers or Hare Krishnas--religions "far outside the mainstream" (in her words). She then told me how excited she was to be invited into a new understanding of a culture and a people that she'd never really understood before until reading my fiction. She said she thought that Mormons could be on the cusp of something great, introducing the world to a whole way of life that is foreign and interesting and powerful. She said, "You're lucky to have it to draw from." We are lucky to have it to draw from. But there is still so much misinformation out there. There are still so many people in our country (let alone in the world) who have never even met a "real Mormon," and what they know of Mormonism begins with polygamy and ends with Donnie and Marie. We have a lot of work to do to break through the barriers of unintentional prejudice that are born of being uninformed. So, all of you, write, write, write. Write for *everybody*, not just Mormons, because the more people know, the easier it is for the rest of us to be heard and understood. My professor had read _Refuge_, but that was the only "Mormon book" she said she'd ever read. I was happy to be able to recommend _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_. We need even more of those books out there. Angela Hallstrom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 08 Apr 2003 04:49:19 GMT Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: "Prodigal Journey" (Vol. 1 - "Thy Kingdom Come") Author: Linda Paulson Adams Publisher: Cornerstone Year Published: 2000 Number of Pages: 517 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 1-929281-05-6 Price: $14.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (Please note: I am aware that others have already reviewed this book. I read those reviews, but do not have a clear memory of how they evaluated the book. I've elected not to re-read the reviews, avoiding as much as possible an unconscious bias in the present review.) "Prodigal Journey" is presented as a novel of "speculative fiction," placed some years into the future. As such, there are few rules an author must abide by. Inasmuch as the events have yet to happen, there are few historical markers that must be noted. And ideas, always fluid and flexible, may manifest in any way the author chooses. Science is always a tricky thing; there are inexorable laws of the universe that are challenged only with a wink and a nod. But it can be done. But writing purely "speculative fiction," without either a sub-text or an over-text, is very difficult. It must sufficiently engage the reader and, at the least, present plausible possibilities and reconcilable eventualities. Consequently, authors will choose a parallel theme, or story, to help carry the speculation. In the case of the current work, the parallel story is a tale of love, faith acceptance, understanding and survival. But, just as a cupcake consists of cake carrying the icing, such books end up with one story carrying the other. In the case of "Prodigal Journey," the love story is the cake; the speculative science is clearly the icing. And after reading the book, this comes as no surprise. Adams has a sure hand when she's writing about the known. One story segment involves the heroine, Alyssa, being forced into living in a futuristic slum, a place of exile for society's rejects. Her narrative of life in the slum is absolutely riveting. I couldn't put it down. It was gritty, realistic, and completely believable. It contains, in my opinion, the most interesting cast of characters, nearly Dickensian in their eccentricity and outspokenness, and could easily have stood alone as a tale of the place of riches and the value of family and friendship. But her footing is less certain when the author enters the world of apocalyptic horror. The continuing story line of bioterror mixed with clearly satanic references became less and less believable, and ultimately failed to intersect with the main story line. Although there are places where the stories cross, they tend more to run parallel, and affect the more powerful parts of the story in ways in which the science and speculation were not necessary. If one were to segregate the "speculative" part of the book from the essential story, the former doesn't hold up well. But it's easy to understand what Adams is trying to do -- presenting manifestations of good (in the persons of Alyssa's several friends, and even an ultimately heroic representative of the evil "government") against evil entities, both human and superhuman. This is tricky stuff. You want to present the good as the better way, but you don't want to minimize the allure and power of evil. This is not an easy balance to achieve. Ultimately, the bulk of the story is devoted to Alyssa's journey, from smug self-satisfaction and relative luxury, to a life of poverty and depression, and finally into a place of (albeit reluctance) acceptance and a sense of mission. This, in my mind, was the real story. The techno-stuff was, as I say, just icing. But even the good parts of the book have problems. And I will confess that my overall enjoyment of the book caused me to cast a very critical eye on some of the details. None of the problems I will mention are fatal; none really detracted from my enjoyment of the book. One of the problems I detected was a lack of continuity and closure. There were inexplicable absences of narrative, in a book large enough to have covered all the bases. A few examples: Alyssa, while away at college, experiments with drugs which, according to her pharmacist/boyfriend, have lasting effects. (The drug turns out to be part of a governmental experiment of the effect of this drug on humans. Alyssa unknowingly becomes one of the test subjects.) Even after stopping the drug, she continues to have nightmarish visions of strange beings, even during broad daylight! (Adams does an exceptional job of depicting these daymares -- very frightening, very eerie.) Later in the book, she encounters Jesus on the road back to her home. She is basically irreligious, and can't quite explain the encounter, where she is healed of a bullet wound. But she never reflects that this might be another result of her drug use! I expected her to say this; it never comes. How is this possible? Alyssa's mother, Joan, is presented as a violent, vindictive woman, prone to beating Alyssa while adoring her other daughter, Lauren. This is somewhat explained by the revelation that Joan never wanted Alyssa, the second child. But there's never any explanation for *why* she's so violent. It provides a rationale for Alyssa's finally breaking ties with her family, especially after the death of her father, but such extreme behavior on the part of her mother merits some further explanation. This may be resolved in future volumes. The evil Victor Caldwell, an employee of the "government," one very high up in the pecking order -- is at the helm of the deconstruction of American society and his ultimate ascension to power. He is behind the drug experimentation that Alyssa gets caught up in. And he needs Alyssa to further evaluate the drug she'd been taking. But she wants no part of it. She knows who he is, she knows his name and what he's up to. Her flight from college, and eventually into the difficult slum life, is essentially an effort to get away from Caldwell. Later, toward the end of the book, as she recovers from her ordeal in the home of a childhood friend -- her main love interest -- she gets the news that a number of governmental people have died of a strange illness. Even the President has been stricken. But she never asks her hosts whether the name "Victor Caldwell" was among those reported stricken. Again, I waited for her to ask -- this is of paramount interest to her, wondering whether her pursuer were dead. But she never asks. Now, why am I being so picky? Because, in the end, I really liked this book. I liked Alyssa and her friends, I hated her mother for her cruelty and her father for his weakness. The characters in the slum, as mentioned, were just riveting, the despair of their lives described in stark and believable terms. One can argue that the book is a bit too long. Adams' narrative style indicates a fondness for "real time" discussions, where sometimes-tangential conversations span many pages. Recollections likewise are belabored, in my opinion unnecessarily. These, however, may be matters of taste. Adams knows how to move a story along. There's a surprise around every corner. Her good characters are wonderfully multi-dimensional, and sometimes play against form, making for a textured presentation that is very pleasing to this reader. Her evil characters, however, like Victor Caldwell, are one-dimensional and totally predictable. My main recommendations to Adams: 1. Future volumes, if they are to continue the theme of speculative science/love story, ought to be better integrated, with less attention to technical detail and more to the human dimension of the characters. I would have enjoyed learning more about Victor Caldwell. I would have liked to see him fleshed out a little more. 2. As illustrated above, certain parts of the story ought to be linked up a little better. The reflection on the drug experience, is an example. In other words, I would have liked Alyssa to ask the questions *I* would have asked, had I been in her situation. This kind of closure serves to link the reader with the characters, a very desirable effect. 3. Narratives really don't need to happen in real time. The essence of a conversation does not require the recitation of every word spoken and every impression thought. Most readers would appreciate less chit-chat and more character development. I'm being fairly critical because this series has so much potential. It is a good start to what can be a fine series. There is much yet to learn about Alyssa and the people who surround her, so many unresolved story elements. This, of course, is expected in a series book. And Adams has set up a situation where the various characters in her book can ultimately come together and achieve great things. Each of the protagonists is a distinct character; most have little in common except their faith. And yet one can anticipate them joining their talents and strengths to provide a powerful response to an oppressive and murderous regime, the speculated American government of the future. Again, overall, I really liked this book, and am very glad to have read it. I look forward to the next volume. Adams has given us a good start to what can be an exciting and satisfying series. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 08 Apr 2003 00:16:19 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > I'm with you, first, in that I don't want the Cleanflicks=20 > thread restarted, and second, in that I could care less about=20 > the Cleanflicks case, because it does not and never will have=20 > anything to do with my life. I just think it's intriguing to=20 > get your perspective on where the law draws the line.=20 Can I share my perspective of where the law draws the line? You see, = the wording of that notice has nothing whatever to do with the law. The statement is *much* too broad and represents some questionable language (like what exactly constitutes "exhibition"?). At least one reason that = the studios don't actually prosecute anyone under the terms of that = statement is that they fear doing so. They know it is unlikely to hold up under litigation. Any time someone is prosecuted for copyright violation, = they are done so under other laws and not based on this little warning on our video tapes. Frankly, as far as I understand copyright law (somewhat) = and the First Amendment (again somewhat), the MPA statement could be successfully interpreted as "prior constraint" because it implies legal restrictions that the Association has no intention of enforcing and that might actually be illegal. Oh, and can I just point out that the MPA has fought an actual = implication of their little statement that *would* seem to apply--converting format. You see, if I've purchased a license for their work, then it follows = that it *shouldn't* matter what medium is used to deliver that license. I = should be able to turn my VHS tape in at a retailer and pick up a DVD copy of that same movie for a nominal fee (covering the cost of the new medium). = Nothing doing says the MPA, but I'm not sure how they plan to legally fight that given their own statements regarding licensing (but then, they don't = have to be consistent to be legally binding). Right now, they're relying on = their grip over the distribution channel to prevent such conversions, but = that's a weakening grip (as evinced by Hollywood taking it in the shorts over DVD rental licensing). Finally, in order for a contractual obligation to exist, an actual = contract has to exist. Mere purchase of a product does not in fact apply = contractual obligations on either party (liability, copyright and other obligations exist of course). In other words, no agreement outside of actual = publicly passed and enforced law applies. Some software companies are trying to instigate "shrinkwrap" contracts claiming that opening the product represents acceptance of a further obligation, but again they have been reluctant to actually prosecute because they'll likely be called on it = and will lose the *threat* of lawsuit in enforcing compliance. Movies have = a tough time trying to adopt "shrinkwrapping" strategies, though, because changing their current scheme would draw attention and likely = litigation. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives, Date: 08 Apr 2003 01:49:38 -0600 Richard Dutcher wrote: >First of all, I will never again allow myself any sympathy for the "no >R-rated movies rule." Not that I had much sympathy before. But this was such >a wonderful film. I can't imagine anyone watching this film and not coming >away from the experience a better human being, a more caring human being. >And, as a result, a little closer to God." You've heard this a million times before and you will undoubtedly be bored with me before long. But, Richard?? What's that about? Okay, there was my Utah Valley response for you. Now here's my honest, from the heart reaction to that statement. Yes, movies are great. I'm sure that most if not all of us on this list has seen at least one film that has changed our lives forever. For me, it was "Sophie's Choice", then "Godspell" (yes, that quaint, clowny little flick was a catalyst to my seeking out Christ), and then there was... Movies can be and often are a means of having a truly spiritual experience, and I don't doubt that "The Pianist" is exquisite, I really don't. (Nope, I haven't seen it. I'll have to wait and see if it's ever shown edited on TV ). Here's what my heart asked, however, when I read your remark about the R-rated film thing. Does Roman Polanski have the monopoly on providing spiritual experiences in film making/viewing? With all of the films in the world, many of which are not R-rated, is it so completely necessary that we see every new film on a serious, thought provoking subject even if it is rated R, because, hey, it's worth it and we'll have been better off for having seen it? Okay, that was fun to write, but likely made little sense. I won't cut it, though. I just have to throw that question out there? I loved Schindler's List when I saw it, though I understand that this one was even lovelier (and a bit cleaner from what I read on ScreenIt.com). I've loved many a well crafted, though R rated, film that made me ache and empathize. My favorite film for the longest time (and one that I still love so much) is The Deer Hunter. When I saw that film, though, I didn't really believe in prophets. I had only recently discovered that there was a church out there that actually did. I didn't know what it was like to have a general authority lovingly implore that I filter the material which I viewed for my own spiritual sake. Later, after years of membership in the church, I was still watching whatever I wanted, and I walked away from films like Good Will Hunting and Dead Man Walking (one of the great films made), and said, "I'm better for having seen it. It was worth ignoring that rule for this time." So, I'm sure that I sound hypocritical right now. I did change, though. (It took the example and subtextual challenge of a good looking man who later became my husband, but I changed just the same). So, here I am on my soapbox, and I ask you. Is the World's Film Library really so small that nothing else out there could teach us, move us, change us just as much without assaulting us at the same time? I cannot really say, in my heart of hearts, that I regret seeing "Dead Man Walking" unedited. It taught me so much. (And I saw a clean flicks edit of it, and they completely ruined the ending, blah blah blah... Alright, I digress...) Still, I go into the Orem Library basement, and there are just so many masterpieces in there that I'm reminded that I won't have to starve for good film even if I choose to abstain from unedited R rated films. (Here's my token list of great, clean films - "Raisin in the Sun," "Suddenly Last Summer," "The Conversation," "The Diary of Anne Frank" , "Enchanted April" ... Genius stuff. And the list can go on and on and on...) I know it's a sketchy topic, not nearly as cut and dry as all that. (Like the whole issue of a small group of people picking the rating on films like "Glory", and you just want to look back at them and say, "What the?" But then there's that "principle with a promise" thing). I've gotta throw this stuff out, though, if only to be another voice. That said, I have to share my response to the following remark. >Personally, I don't believe the man who made 'The Pianist' can be dismissed as evil. The fruit >is too good for the tree to be bad. Let's leave the judgment of Roman Polanski to God and, in >the meantime, thank him for a beautiful film." It reminds me of a sweet line from "Immortal Beloved" - "I forgave him because of the "Ode to Joy." That, Richard, was lovely. Not sure if I completely agree, but it was lovely just the same. :) Respectfully, Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report 28 March 03 Date: 08 Apr 2003 03:32:37 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of March 28, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 3 The Core 12,053,131 3,017 3 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 12,053,131 8 Piglet's Big Movie 4,931,308 2,084 10 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 12,730,591 39 Final Destination 2 122,551 167 59 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,322,277 63 The R.M. 36,623 28 59 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 716,545 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 68 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 24,903 10 780 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,327,185 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 84 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 10,604 3 1060 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,112,956 109 Galapagos 3,189 7 1249 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,978,630 118 Jack Weyland's Charly 1,774 4 185 Adam Anderegg (director) 795,559 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 121 China: The Panda Adventure 1,605 1 612 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,005,855 133 The Slaughter Rule 175 1 80 Ryan Gosling (top-billed actor) 13,134 THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN - The Other Side of Heaven is United Press International's Video Pick of the Week: See http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=3D20030331-031417-3759r. Of course, the DVD/video was just released this week. It is being distributed by Disney, and is likely to become the #1 selling LDS Cinema video release. "The Other Side of Heaven" is already the top performing LDS Cinema flick with regard to gross theater receipts, grossing over $4.6 million. The movie's production budget was $7 million. SMART FAMILY CONSIDERS MOVIE OFFERS - A Salt Lake Tribune article about the various offers the Smarts have received from filmmakers interested in telling the "official" story of Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03292003/utah/43087.asp UPCOMING MIKITA DOCUMENTARY ABOUT LITTLE'S NEW MOVIE - Between sessions of conference, Carole Mikita has traditionally had various half-hour documentaries airing on KSL-TV. This conference will be no different. This time she is doing a documentary on the making of the motion picture "The Saints of War", directed by Ryan Little ("The Last Good War", "Freedom on the Water", "Out of Step"). The one hour Matt Whitaker documentary "Saints at War" will be shown followed Mikita's half-hour documentary about the making of the new Ryan Little feature film inspired by the "Saints at War" book and documentary. "The Saints of War" stars TV/movie star Corbin Allred and film star Kirby Heyborne as soldiers in WWII's Battle of the Bulge. Allred plays a Latter-day Saint serviceman. GOOD ARTICLE IN MERIDIAN ABOUT "SUDDENLY UNEXPECTED" - RuthAnn Hogue has a new article for Meridian Magazine about the upcoming Mark Potter movie, "Suddenly Unexpected." The Latter-day Saint-themed comedy feature film is essentially complete, but the filmmakers are waiting until the fervor surrounding "The R.M." (another Latter-day Saint-themed comedy) dies down before releasing their movie. The article is at: http://www.ldsmag.com/arts/030403newmovie.html MERIDIAN MAGAZINE REVIEW OF ROOTS AND WINGS - Meridian Magazine has published Thomas C. Baggaley's review of Christian Vuissa's short film "Roots & Wings". "Roots & Wings" won the Association for Mormon Letters 2002 Film Award, which is only the 2nd time this award has been given in the 30-year history of the AML Awards. The only previous recipient of the Film Award was Richard Dutcher's "God's Army." See the review/article at: http://meridianmagazine.com/arts/030328roots.html AARON ECKHART SAVES THE WORLD - "The Core" starring LDS actor Aaron Eckhart in the lead role was opened this weekend in the number three spot. Here are some other Aaron Eckhart movies along with their box office totals and reported production budgets. Movie Aaron's Billing Year U.S. BoxOff Gross Budget ---- ------ ---- ----------------- ---------- Erin Brockovich 3 2000 125,548,685 51,000,000 Any Given Sunday 10 1999 75,530,832 62,000,000 Nurse Betty 5 2000 25,167,270 24,000,000 The Pledge 2 2001 19,733,089 45,000,000 Possession 2 2002 10,103,647 25,000,000 Your Friends and Neighbors 2 1998 4,710,749 5,000,000 In The Company of Men 1 1997 2,883,661 250,000 Molly 2 1999 17,396 21,000,000 Thursday 2 1998 1,971 The Core 1 2003 ? 85,000,000 "The Core" is Aaron Eckhart's theatrically released 10th movie in which he has received poster billing. (Yes, he is actually listed on the movie poster with 10th billing in "Any Given Sunday.") Actually, if you look at his career, Eckhart has done very little significant work other than appear in major roles in feature films. No TV series, no TV movies. Mostly just feature films. "The Core" marks the first time since his debut feature film "In the Company of Men" (directed by Neil LaBute) that Eckhart has received top billing. "The Core" is also the most expensive film he has been in, with a reported budget of $85 million. The previous record budget for an Eckhart film was $62 million for "Any Given Sunday." His most successful film to date has been "Erin Brockovich," which grossed over $125 million nationwide and also earned co-star Julia Roberts an Academy Award for best actress. Eckhart had the 3rd billed role as Roberts' biker boyfriend. "The Core" is also Eckhart's first science fiction film. "The Core" is also being classified as a disaster movie. In fact, "The Core" could be called Eckhart's first "genre film." One could make a case for other movies being being "genre films" -- "Any Given Sunday" is a "sports film." "The Pledge" could sort of be called a murder mystery. "Possession" was half period piece (but not Eckhart's half). "Erin Brockovich" could even be called a biopic. But everything he's been in so far has been straight drama compared to "The Core," which is a straight-laced dramatic take on science fiction/disaster, but still a science fiction/disaster movie. The total U.S. box office gross for Eckhart's first 9 movies is $263,697,300. This puts him behind 3 other LDS/Mormon actors we track: Paul Walker ($322 million, 6 movies), Wilford Brimley ($312 million, 16 movies), and Matthew Modine ($284 million, 19 movies). (Modine briefly attended BYU -- which Eckhart graduated from -- but left to pursue an acting career and has not been a churchgoer during his career.) If "The Core" grosses just $59 million in the U.S. it will put Eckhart on the top of this chart -- making him the box office champion among Latter-day Saint actors working today. But Walker has the lead role in the $76 million-budgeted "2 Fast 2 Furious," opening June 6th, so Eckhart's reign could be short-lived. Of course, there's always Donny Osmond waiting in the wings... A single $200 million-grossing movie would add to his "Mulan" box office and put him on the top of the heap. Maybe if he snags the lead in Miramax's "Guys and Dolls" remake... * * * TRACY IN LEGALLY BLONDE 2 - Latter-day Saint actor Jerry Tracy (who lives in Salt Lake City) has a small part in the upcoming MGM feature film "Legally Blonde 2." THE R.M. AT THUNDERBIRD - "The R.M." has been selected as one of the films to be shown at this year's Thunderbird International Film Festival. Last year "The Singles Ward" won the award for Best Feature Film at the event. CARMEN - Latter-day Saint singing superstar Carmen Rasmusen has survived one more round of votes on the FOX TV show "American Idol"... but barely. She was one of the bottom 3 vote getters, among the final 8 on the show. Over 15 million people voted. Normally at this stage in the contest, a contestant goes home, but because Corey Clark was disqualified, another contestant was NOT eliminated this week. On last night's show Simon said that he didn't think Carmen is the BEST female singer on this show, but that she is the most commercial. America's votes from yesterday are being combined with next week's show, and the total will determine who goes home next week. Once again... Carmen still alive on "American Idol." AWARD FOR CAITLIN - Caitlin E.J. Meyer won the award for Best Actress this week at the 24th Annual Young Artist Awards. Meyer won the award for "Best Performance in a Feature Film - Young Actress Age Ten or Younger" for her role in "Little Secrets," (beating out young actresses from "Signs", "Spy Kids 2", "Rabbit-Proof Fence" and "Evelyn"). "Little Secrets" was directed by Latter-day Saint filmmaker Blair Treu and featured a predominantly Utah/LDS cast, including Rick Macy, Tayva Patch and Jan Broberg Felt. ROGERS BOOK OF MORMON FEATURE FILM: New photos taken during principle photography of Gary Rogers' upcoming feature film based on 1st and 2nd Nephi from the Book of Mormon have been posted on the movie's official website at: http://www.bookofmormonmovie.com/location/index.html PAINT YOUR WAGON REVIVAL - Here's an article about a revival in San Francisco of the Latter-day Saint-themed Broadway musical "Paint Your Wagon." See http://www.examiner.com/ex_files/default.jsp?story=3DX0331WAGONw. The musical was produced as a big-budget Hollywood movie in 1969, starring Clint Eastwood. With a box office gross of over $31 million (unadjusted for inflation), "Paint Your Wagon" holds the record for the highest-ever box office gross for a movie about explicitly Latter-day Saint main characters and themes. "The Other Side of Heaven" is in second place. (There are a number of movies about Latter-day Saint main characters that have grossed more than "Paint Your Wagon," but they were not about explicitly Latter-day Saint characters AND themes.) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: [AML] re: _Kadosh_ Date: 08 Apr 2003 16:51:35 GMT I likely missed something but I wanted to know: where can we see this movie? Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 04 Apr 2003 17:05:33 -0700 At 11:09 PM 4/2/03 -0800, you wrote: >I tend now, in my re-writing phase, to go back and read my text out loud to >myself to see how the "sound" and the flow of the words works as spoken >language, as well as written text. This is a relatively new sensitivity, but >I think it will begin to affect literature more and more as "performed" >works of lit proliferate. I heard Barbara Rosenblatt discuss the need for writers to do this. She mentioned a book she had to perform with a sentence like "They razed the old building and the raised a new one." Had the author read it out loud, she would have made it better, she reasoned. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 08 Apr 2003 11:43:17 -0600 I loved Kim's post on skinny-dipping. In my ward, we regularly had sauna = parties. My Dad, Norwegian to the core, had a sauna in our house, and = we'd have sauna parties all the time, culminating in winter by sliding = down the snowy hill in our back yard nekkid as ye proverbial bluejays. = Obviously, the Priesthood and Relief Society would take turns, but our = activities usually involved games by one auxiliary upstairs, while the = other enjoyed a sauna. And then vice-versa. Great fun was had by all, = and I gotta say, it does something for a ward to serve with people you've = seen naked. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 08 Apr 2003 12:02:18 -0600 Richard Dutcher wrote: > Perhaps this attitude has contributed to some of our (and the mainstream > Christian community's) crappy art. We are so sure we are right and chosen > that we really aren't open to what this whole wide world of ours has to teach > us. Surely Judaism and almost every other religion on this earth has some > truth to share with us, truth that we haven't recognized or understood yet. > And surely some untruths have wriggled their way into Mormonism. I think the issue goes deeper than this. It's not just being open to what "this whole wide world of ours has to teach us," but opening our own culture to the "whole wide world." Two sides of the same coin. I ask, (and not rhetorically), is it possible to create a valid "Mormon art," when we deliberately fence off the most significant--and symbolic--facets of a religious life from outside scrutiny? When the details of such milestones that we claim are the most important to our mortal existence can only be explained to the curious onlooker in the vaguest of terms? Other than the Masons (who do not classify themselves as a religion), I can't readily come up with another religion that has so similarly closed itself off. True, Muslims can't enter Mecca during the Hajj, but that rule does not proscribe (so far as I know) honest narratives of what goes on during the Hajj. I've also read (okay, mostly in Tony Hillerman) that some Native American religious customs are considered too sacred for public participation (noting that "public participation" is not the same thing as never-talking-about). But that doesn't keep Tony Hillerman from talking about them, and I doubt if you encountered a fair description in an novel, let alone an anthropology text, you would feel any obligation to refrain from reading, and would probably come away enlightened. If art is ultimately about explaining who we are, what makes us tick, what gives us reason to get out of bed every morning, then will not the artistic stride of a community always be hamstrung when those explanations give way to too many ellipses? Eugene Woodbury http://www.eugenewoodbury.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Publicaiton Rights Question Date: 08 Apr 2003 11:58:49 -0700 Barbara Hume aks: "If Irranteum publishes a work of mine, what rights do they have, since they didn't buy any rights? Is it simply a gentleman's agreement that I won't publish it anywhere else before it appears in Irranteum?" Jongiorgi attempts to answer: As a general rule of thumb, any rights that are not explicitly granted by the author in writing are retained by the author. If you didn't specifically grant it, courts assume you retained it. This is why the language of acquisition contracts is so sweeping. Studios want to make sure they have everything and they make no bones about it. You will see such language as "Author grants any and all rights in and to [your story, book, play, film] now existing or in future devised, throughout all territories in the universe, and in perpetuity." Hard to get out of that. Another rule of thumb for artists to remember that rights are commodities. They are what you sell in order to make your living, and everything is negotiable. Even though there are industry standards, let me repeat: EVERYTHING IS NEGOTIABLE. There is no reason why a book publisher should automatically get movie rights to your book, but, because most first-time authors are uncertain about this, or want to get their book published so badly they will sign anything (and because is is advantageous to most publishers to get all the rights they can), most legally-inexperienced writers will sign off on language which gives up movie rights and all other rights to publishers. Desert Book is no exception. I know of a movie company that is currently negotiating rights to do a film versions of an LDS book where the author is out of the loop because that author gave up those rights to DB. So, while I said that if it is not explicitly given it is retained, sweeping language such as "any and all rights in and to" IS EXPLICIT. It gives up EVERYTHING. Try not to do that whenever you can. Your contract should state, 1) exactly what you are GIVING UP (such as "First North American Hardback Publication Rights"); and 2) exactly what you are KEEPING (such as "author retains all sequel rights and motion picutre or other media production rights or any and all other rights not explicitly mentioned herein"). Now, back to the specific Irreantum question. Irreantum does not purchase any rights, so, technically, you are free to do whatever you want with your story or article, including publishing it somewhere else before it comes out in Irreantum. Some other publisher, however, may want an exclusive or "First" publication right. Technically, you can no longer grant someone the "first publication" right if Irreantum has already published it; and you can't offer them an exclusive publication right if you know that Irreantum will publish your story next quarter. So, while publication in Irreantum does not limit your RIGHTS in any way, it may limit your OPPORTUNITIES. Sunstone, for example, may take exception to the fact that your story already appears in Irreantum, and may decline to publish you again even though you have the legal right to let them do so. So, even though there is no contract involved or money exchanged, what Irreantum acquires could be described as "One-Time North American English-Language Serial Publication Rights." This means they can't publish and sell a trade paperback compliation of "The Best of Irreantum," for example, without going back to each of the authors and getting additional permissions, permission which you may or may not be able to grant, depending on what rights you have sold to others in the interum since your Irreantum publication. [Jongiorgi Enos] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 08 Apr 2003 15:14:44 -0600 On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 02:36 PM, Stephen Carter wrote: > I think Jacob Proffit made a good point that there is a difference > between > being ostracized by your community, and actually being rejected by > God. It > would be interesting to hear the stories of people who still love the > Church, > but have been forced out because of their art. What do they think of > the > condition of their souls? What does the Church think? I think one of the all-time best books on this subject is Potok's "My Name Is Asher Lev." Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin Todd Temple Subject: [AML] Professional Editing Query Date: 08 Apr 2003 17:20:18 -0600 (MDT) To One and All, Where can I go to have a novel I've written professionally edited for relatively little money ($50 per hour for a 20-hour job becomes quite expensive) prior to submitting it to a publisher? Any assistance that might be provided would be appreciated. Kevin T. Temple -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 08 Apr 2003 22:28:25 -0500 The point has been made by several people that it isn't a teaching of the Church that victims of rape have committed any sin. That's true--but when I think back to my own youth, I seem to recall language used by Pres. Kimball, among others, talking about resisting rape, who said that "It's better to die than to lose your virtue." We don't use that kind of language anymore. But intepreted literally, such language suggests that being a victim of rape *does* involve a loss of virtue--at least if you haven't resisted physically. As I say, I don't think this is at all the message the Church is sending now, and I think that earlier Church leaders who did use this language would be horrified to think that it might have contributed to youth or others feeling that they had sinned when in fact they were the victims of sin. But I think it points out that the language we use to talk about things like this can, at least, have unintended nuances. And I think it speaks to a certain ongoing ambivalence in our cultural feelings about rape and victimization, no matter how explicit our doctrine is on this issue. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 08 Apr 2003 22:01:11 -0700 Sorry, Harlow. We'd still recognize you behind your fictional character, because he would still be longwinded. :-) Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: DDT Date: 08 Apr 2003 23:12:28 -0500 (CDT) [MOD: I'm allowing this as a direct response to a point in a post, and also because it relates to the whole topic of cultural legends. But I really don't want to get into an extended back-and-forth on environmentalism, public policy, DDT, and the like.] If one more off-topic excursion can be allowed, I'd like to address a factual matter in a recent post. It's one I've had to deal with recently, so it's fresh in my mind. DDT is not banned in places where malaria is a serious public health problem. In fact, DDT is still recommended as the first line of defense in such countries by WHO and all other organizations involved. I'm curious about urban legends, but I was never able to track down the origin of that one (after spending hours tracking down the truth of the matter). So everyone on both sides of any political argument can rest easily, knowing that the most effective tools are being used against malaria, when money is available. rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net To announce that there must be no \ criticism of the President, or that we are to / stand by the President, right or wrong, is not \ only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally / treasonable to the American public. \ -T Roosevelt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 09 Apr 2003 00:03:45 -0600 ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter > How much=20 > a part of a culture do you have to be to deal with it=20 > ethically and well? It=20 > seems that the greatest art should be produced by people=20 > within the culture=20 > that the art is using as its backdrop. Good question. I think it's a common assumption that the greatest art should be produced by people within the culture that the art is using as = a backdrop, but I don't think it's a valid one. In fact, as far as I can tell, great art tends to come from people slightly askew from their surrounding culture. I think there's a function of perspective involved there. People inside a culture will be able to see the "text" of that culture, but might have trouble distinguishing the "context" as easily. = I think that's an interesting struggle/dynamic that is very important to = LDS artists. It takes a lot of work to bring yourself outside your own = culture enough to accurately depict that culture. I think that's a big part of = the difference between "Single's Ward" and "Brigham City". "Single's Ward" doesn't even try to understand the "context" and is content amusing the insiders. "Brigham City" expends a lot more effort to understand and = depict the culture in it's details and complexity. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] DN: Entrepreneur Makes a Good LDS Living Date: 09 Apr 2003 00:45:53 -0600 Quoting "Kent S. Larsen II" : > > The scary thing for me is that I'm on his list about 4 times with > different addresses and never subscribed once. My e-mail lists have > been added to his list twice, causing massive, self-generating e-mail > loops that generated thousands of e-mail messages an hour. > I ended up on one of his lists, too. Don't know how I got there. I unsubscribed, and the next day I was subscribed to a different one. I guess that's one way to be successful. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review)] Date: 08 Apr 2003 15:21:50 -0600 At 02:36 PM 4/4/03 -0500, you wrote: >And surely some untruths have wriggled their way into Mormonism. How could it not be? Jesus spoke against the untruths that had wriggled their way into the Jewish faith he himself lived. Martin Luther protested the untruths that had taken hold in the Catholic Church. We haven't been around as long, but we've recently discussed on this list the fact that some people insist that the sacrament bread must be white, or that one must partake of it with the right hand only. As long as the church membership is made up of human beings, incorrect notions are bound to creep in--not through maliciousness, but through people's assumptions about reality. Facial hair on men is subversive--women need to wear skirts to church so we can tell them apart from men--blonde kids are more righteous than dark-haired kids--the husband and father should bark orders, and the wife and children should obey without question--women who stay home are spiritually superior to women who go out to work. . . . there is an amazing (and appalling) list of weird notions that have crept in and that people put forth as gospel without realizing that they spring from culture or from prejudice or from blind assumptions. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 08 Apr 2003 22:03:31 -0700 Mary Aagard said: "Definitely, a man is more than his sins, but what about paying for your crime? What about paying for your sins? Polanski raped a girl, a girl, and skipped town..." Then later, she repeats: "Everybody recognizes the Holocaust as a tragedy, but what about the raping of a young woman?" Okay, twice the word "rape" in just about as many paragraphs. So, let's slow down for a second. What I am about to say does not condone sex with minors, and it does not even begin to address my many thoughts about the topic heading "Artist's Personal Lives" (which is a very interesting topic and which I have a lot of opinions about, none of which I've yet had time to voice, and I don't want to take the time here). I just want to say something about balance and perspective, without trying to pass any judgment on the specifics. Words are being bandied about on this topic with no consideration for what may or may not have really happened, and the result is that a potentially interesting discussion about the arts and artist's personal lives may be getting a little distorted, or at least wallowing in the repetition of angry rhetorical questions without leading to any true discussion. In journalism courses we use phrases like "alleged rape" etc., but of course, in op-ed pieces, we say whatever we want. But there are several issues I have with all of this harping on "Polanski's rape." Before people start screaming, let me say that I don't want to belittle women's issues, victim's rights, etc. I have close personal family members who have suffered molestation at the hands of older men... but I also have close personal family members accused of statutory rape by underage girls that may or may not have happened and who are serving jail time as I write. This is a complex issue, regardless of whether or not we are talking about an accused artist's work or not. To continue using snap vocabulary might imply a quickness to judge based on our cultural and conservative bias which might disallow us to truly understand (or at least to explore more fully) the circumstances of the case, and THEN, from a platform of understanding, express our horror or otherwise. But to continue this conversation as unclear on the facts as all of us certainly are is to dismiss the complexities of the issue and to diminish the discussion. I don't recall that Polanski ever concluded the trial process (correct me if I'm wrong), so legally, nobody knows WHAT happened, and there is no legal conclusion that any rape was committed (although "statutory rape" is accused). Polanski's only proven crime, thus far, is not standing trial or skipping town, etc. Polanski's statements at the time (which may or may not be true) were that the act was completely consensual and that he is horrified at the accusation of rape. He may be crazy, he may be lying, but from his viewpoint, no rape was committed. In fact (again, I recall this from reading things a long time ago, and I, too, may have my facts mixed up), he swore that the gal told him she had had sex before and that she wanted to have sex with him. Now, from our American viewpoint, we all know that that doesn't matter. She's underage, you bozo, so for us, it's automatically a crime. But what about from his viewpoint? He, a European man, living in the middle of a free-love culture of sex and drug indulgence, which was (in his circles anyway) socially condoned, trying to console himself from his grief at his recent horrific loss, the ritual murder of his pregnant wife, agreed to have a night (from his view) of comforting sex with a beautiful, young (yes Roman, young, VERY young, HELLO -- but you see, he didn't see her youth in the way do), a young, sexually active teenager who wanted to have sex with him (so he says). In his eyes (we are certainly allowed to disagree, of course), he had wonderful, consensual, sexual relations. Not rape. And from his eyes, we are all crazy and absurdly hung-up about it to get so up-in-arms over it. I AM NOT CONDONING THIS POINT OF VIEW. I am only suggesting that this is how he has justified it in his mind, which alters questions regarding his "atonement" or "repentance" significantly, given his moral outlook. And it will also alter how we might critique his work, coming as it does from a man with this moral outlook. Now, the gal, as I understand it, has changed her story over time and her take on the event is certainly important, but again, I don't know what happened, and neither does, legally, anybody else. U.S. law says, of course, that it doesn't matter whether the girl consented or not. She was under age, and that automatically makes it Statutory Rape, regardless. So suddenly, here is this mixed-up, strung-out guy, suddenly being told, Roman, you are going to go to jail. He freaks, he splits. Crazy Americans. Again, I AM NOT CONDONING HIS ACT. But to say that "a rapist is being honored" is very strong language and does disservice to the context of the events. Polanski has a completely different moral construct than we do. When we were practicing Polygamy, we had a completely different moral construct than the rest of the United States. People looked at Mormon's practicing plural marriage and they thought we were the most horrible, sexually aberrant deviant devils on the face of the planet! Those Mormons certainly hoped the rest of the world would look at it from their point of view, but of course, no one did, and we were jailed, harassed, tormented, our own prophet lived in exile for the last years of his life, and many polygamists FLED THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal persecution which they felt was harsh and unjust! Put the shoe on the other foot. Sometimes seeing things from another perspective is at least instructive, if not absolutely essential. Right? So, to Polanski's world view, he has committed no crime. He is a fugitive, not from "justice" (as we see it), but from "Puritanical oppression" as he sees it. So for him, WE are the wacky ones. He's just living his life, trying to survive the horrors of life, just trying to give peace a chance, spread his love around, sex, drugs and rock & roll never hurt anyone (in the land before AIDS), and all is well. He was a "peacenik," a "hippy," an "arr-teest," tres European, man, can you dig it? What's the matter with all you cats? he might be saying... "Lighten up, dudes." Do you see the difficulty? Now, we are free to disagree TOTALLY, and to say that it is an inherently evil lifestyle that lead him to the justifications necessary to do what he did. But then, that is what the rest of the world said about us under plural marriage, is it not? But admitting his different world view (not that we justify it, or agree with it, just that we acknowledge its existence) is far different than saying the man is a blatant rapist who escaped criminal justice, period. And couching as such it brings the debate smack on-topic. By saying that his world view (a view which allowed him to do what he did, which we deplore) was also one which also nurtured his artistic vision, we have a basis for a discussion about artist's personal lives. European culture has a very different view about sex and a very different view about violence than our own. You might rail at Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" depending on your politics, but it is absolutely true what where Europe suffers shooting deaths with guns by only handfuls annually, we suffer them by the THOUSANDS annually. And yet here, we will not allow a woman's nipples to be shown on TV. So, in Europe, they laugh at us. They literally make fun of us and call us these twisted bass-ackwards folk who are so sexually hung-up that we go around shooting each other. In France, where I'm half from, toplessness is public and G-rated. Topless women are on TV in prime time, they are on billboards on national highways, they are on public beaches. The body has no stigma, and hence, the culture is more sexualized. But the culture is also intrinsically less violent. Sex is about love, over there, and almost never about violence. Sex and violence are rarely equated in their films, whereas in American film, the very often are. So to them, again, WE are the weird ones. Now, as LDS artists, we don't want to condone EITHER extreme. We want to find a balance in our art and not stray into excesses of either sex or violence. But by exploring perspectives, outlooks, social conditions, and cultural artistic manifestations from around the globe, suddenly we have a discussion ripe with potential for learning, growth, examination, debate and interest. But by stating rhetorical questions in a very one-sided, judgmental way, how can we expect our rhetoric to instruct or our debate to be insightful? Mary Aagard's questions are serious questions, and they deserved to be explored, and I think they can be instructive to the AML-list. But only when couched in a genuine struggle to understand the issues in depth can anything of merit be gleaned. I went on a lot longer than I had intended. Sorry. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _The Mercy Seat_(Review) Date: 08 Apr 2003 18:50:12 -0700 (PDT) THE WIND WITH A WOLF'S HEAD HOWLS AT THE DOOR A review of "The Mercy Seat" by Neil LaBute; Faber and Faber, New York, 2003; 69 pp., $13.00, ISBN: 0-571-21138-0 I should mention right here that Neil LaBute's new play is at his full-blown, wide-open scurrilous best, much like "In The Company of Men" and "Your Friends and Neighbors." That is, the language is profane, R-rated, and calculatedly shocking. This includes frank talk of sexual matters as symbolic of the more fraught issues we all face in life. So be warned. The blurbs on the cover compare LaBute to Edward Albee, Sam Shepherd, August Strindberg, and David Mamet: some pretty tough customers. But as the critic David Thomson once wrote, tough guy writers are frequently sensitive souls saying, no matter how tough times get, I can take it. (And they try to find beauty in the harsh mechanisms of survival.) September 11, 2001 seems to be entering our national consciousness as the contemporary counterpart of Dec. 7, 1941: an epochal, terrible event that changes many things forever. Except that we here in post-modern America are more confused in our responses that our grandparents were. "The Mercy Seat" is not really about the attack itself, but about our individual reactions to an overwhelming atrocity. In a preface, LaBute writes that he was on an airline flight when the idea for the play came to him in a flash. He says he "ordered a ginger ale" (perhaps a wink and a nod to his fellow LDS folks), pulled out his laptop, and went to work. He writes that the play is not about politics but a "particular kind of terrorism: the painful, simplistic warfare we often wage on the hearts of those we profess to love." The play opens in the apartment of Abby Prescott, not far from Ground Zero in Manhattan, on the morning of September 12. A fine white ash covers everything (the cover of the book is a field of white ash with the play's title written out as if by a finger.) Abby is in her forties and a woman of some prominence in an investment firm located in the World Trade Center. (In the New York production she was played by Sigourney Weaver.) Seated on the couch is Ben Harcourt, a man in his thirties, Abby's junior at the firm, and her lover. Ben was supposed to be at work in the Twin Towers, but was in the apartment getting oral sex from Abby when the planes hit. Who was it that said "character is destiny?" This man and woman are forced by soul-shaking events to confront who they really are. Abby is a strong, competent, mature woman who begins to see her relationship with Ben is a surface thing, a caricature of what she really needs. LaBute's men are generally either sad-sacks or predators. Ben is a sad-sack who aspires to be a predator. Once again LaBute presents us with a guy who makes us painfully aware of our own weaknesses. He is married with small daughters. He confesses to Abby "I always take the easy route, whatever it takes to be liked, get by. That's me. Cheated at school, screwed over my friends, my marriage is a fiasco..." He's a stunted man. He doesn't get Abby's references to the Amazing Kreskin and Audie Murphy; he explodes: knowledge that isn't practical is crap, education that isn't an MBA is s--t, "Jeopardy" is for a------s...(Unfortunately this hit home for me. I've heard similar sentiments expressed in my own extended family. Maybe LaBute heard stuff like this from fellow students at BYU; it's entirely possible.) Ben sees 9/11 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to *escape*, without financial, legal or emotional complications. He is presumed dead; his cell phone continually rings--who knows who is frantically trying to reach him. He wants to run away and start over, and he wants Abby to go with him. LaBute manages to raise a lot of questions about American society in this short piece. Ben and Abby both know that their affair is sexual harassment according to the strictest most current definition of the term. Ben argues that his plan to run away is all-American. "That's what Americans do, overcome, do what it takes, we're still going to have Christmas and the World Series." However, LaBute remains a fire-and-brimstone moralist and gives us an unforgettable image of Hell. Ben likes to have sex with Abby from the rear (so he doesn't have to look her in the face.) Abby says "I've had plenty of time to think about things down there." Sometimes she imagines "it's your wife behind me with one of those strap-on things...maybe that's what Hell is. All of your wrongful s--t played out there in front of you while you're being pumped from behind by someone you've hurt, as your life splashes out on the headboard of the Devil's bedroom." (Not quite the lake of fire as described in the Book of Revelation, but close enough. LaBute's dialogue remains scaldingly and disturbingly funny, as always.) LaBute places three epigraphs before the play. One is an excerpt from a hymn about "the mercy seat, where Jesus answers prayers." The second is from Edna St. Vincent Millay: "A wind with a wolf's head/ Howled about our door/ And we burned up the chairs/ And sat upon the floor." The third, and most important, is from rocker Nick Cave: "And the mercy seat is waiting/ And I think my head is burning/ And in a way I'm yearning/ To be done with all this measuring of truth." LaBute shows us how ironically hard it is to live in the presence of the mercy seat, to know our actions have eternal consequences. That you can't take the easy way out unless you are willing to abdicate your soul. Like another song says, would you want to see, if seeing meant you had to believe, in things like Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets...? What does that responsibility really involve? In the end, Abby decides to show Ben "more mercy than you've ever shown me", but it's mercy of the cruel-to-be-kind type. In this little play LaBute remains one of the most tough-minded of our artists, a generous dispenser of what he calls "the hardest, coldest currency on the planet"--honesty. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Politics and Literature (was AML-List Moderator Practices) Date: 08 Apr 2003 21:30:35 -0700 > On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:01:02 -0800 Robert Slaven > writes: > > "All art is propaganda." [My hero George Orwell again, from his > > essay 'Charles Dickens'.] > > Thanks for the attribution, Robert. We've discussed this before but I > didn't have time to say much. I still don't have time to say much, except > that "All x is y" statements are generally meaningless for the same > reason that D. Michael Martindale pointed out the statement "Everything > is art" is meaningless. Statements that include everything in one > category remove the distinctions that make the category useful. But I'm > going to talk about this in my usual roundabout shawmy way. No problem. But isn't a shawm an mediaeval/renaissance double-reed instrument? I suppose I could dig up an old sackbut somewhere (precursor to my favourite axe, the trombone) and we could duet sometime.... %-) > > > To apply it specifically to AML-List, "all writing has > > some kind of political message". > > It's just as accurate to say all art is religious as it is to say all art > is political, and it's also, if you define religion in political terms, > quite accurate to say all religion is political or all politics is > religious. But there's a very important difference between politics and > religion, at least in LDS culture. True. And although it is a blanket pronouncement, it is safe to say that in just about every piece of writing down to and possibly even including a grocery list, there are political and religious overtones or echoes. That doesn't mean the piece was *intended* to get across a political, religious, or other kind of message. And it also doesn't mean that every reader is going to get the same message, much less any message the author may or may not have intended. And I'm certainly not an English major. I got away with as little English as I possibly could in university. I dodged the standard 'English 101' by taking first-year French and German, but I did take a 'business communications' class, and a 'special topics' class (in 1984, natch) on Orwell, since I'd already read all of his longer works and many of his essays. But I digress. Anyhow, I see 'criticism' (in the literary sense) as potentially (depending on the setting) including an (attempted) analysis of where the author is coming from politically and/or religiously, implicitly and/or explicitly. For example, it's impossible to truly appreciate or comprehend Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_ without knowing at least that he is what we might call a jack-Muslim. Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ is often read by many as an anti-communist rant, but when you understand his background you realise it's just as much anti-fascist -- if not more so -- as anti-communist. You don't *have* to engage in political criticism of a literary work. For some literary works, it's trivially easy to ignore any politics. For others, like the abovementioned, it's impossible. > > If someone doesn't like the decisions a politician makes, that person can > sit down and work out a plan to depose the politician, even to take the > politician's place. And there is not the slightest lack of patriotism in > this replacing one ruler with another, even if that politician is a > president, even in time of war. Freely contested, open mudslinging > elections are The American Way. > > But if that same person doesn't like the decisions a bishop or stake > president or other church leader makes and works to have that leader > removed from office and replaced that action is almost always a sign of > apostasy. (An exception might be if a leader were involved in some > serious transgression, such as embezzling tithing. And even then, a ward > clerk who suspected such and mounted a campaign among the ward members to > replace the bishop--rather than, say, talking to the SP--would probably > not be acting in a manner consistent with sustaining the leaders of the > Church.) That certainly highlights how the LDS church differs from the political world. And religious and political criticism of a work may be entirely separate. Again, many literary works would easily allow the reader to ignore religious implications. But for others, it's difficult. Even _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, which many would see as a completely non-religious book, nonetheless has important implications w.r.t. the concept of objective truth and the existence or non-existence of an omniscient judge of objective truth (i.e. God). And remember, in many (most?) other religions, there is a lot more politics in their structure. Heck, notwithstanding the desire for a lack of politics in the LDS church, it still exists. Not so much in some places, bigtime in others. > > > (If you don't believe me, send me something to read and I'll tell > > you what political message it may have.) > > Ok, here's a news story, a report of a political meeting. Tell me what > political message it contains, and I'll almost guarantee that at least > one reader got the opposite message from it: > > >>>> Well, aside from left-wing vs. right-wing kind of stuff, there's the obvious political undertone existing in the story that assumes that when a government makes a decision, the people have a right to intervene in support of or against the decision, and that their opinions are to be given equal weight in considering the decision. Painfully obvious to any modern American, of course, but it might throw off people in other countries or other times. > > I have more to say about this, partly because while I lean towards the > paw I favor I'm fairly non-political, and what I really want to do is > share stories. That's been a big theme in my writing for the last ten > years. Yes, I know you can analyze any piece of writing for its political > assumptions, but you can also find opposing political assumptions in any > piece of writing. Oh yes. One person reads "Little Red Riding Hood" and sees a tale of service, and a lesson of caution. Another reads it and sees oppression of females by predatory males (the wolf), patriarchal condescension by other males (the woodcutter), and a general powerlessness of women that must be condemned as a misogynist effort to warp poor little girls' minds. That's part of what makes all this so much fun. > > One example; at the end of the preface to _Marxism and Literary > Criticism_ Terry Eagleton pleads with his readers not to apply marxist > theory to Marxism itself, lest Marxism, the scientific theory of human > freedom, become just another academic approach to dabble in. > > That caution/plea is almost identical to the cautions/pleas Ezra Taft > Benson, Boyd K. Packer and others were giving Mormon historians in the > mid-80s about the need to show God's hand in the Church's history, and > Eagleton gave it for precisely the same reason--he doesn't want to see > his salvation religion secularized. This was the subject of my first AML > paper, "The Necessity of Bearing Personal Testimony" (if anyone wants to > read it drop me a note), and while Eagleton may not want to be lumped > with very conservative religious folk, I implied in my conclusion that > one reason for writing the paper is to suggest that even people we might > consider our enemies have fundamental concerns quite similar to our own > fundamental concerns. Sure. Actually, I would like to read that paper. And yes, everyone who has a belief system -- especially one as dogmatic as Marxism, or even Mormonism -- would have trouble with 'outside' analysis of the foundation of that belief system. I understand -- somewhat -- the concerns that President Benson and Elder Packer expressed to historians in the 1980's. Certainly there are many LDS or potential LDS whose faith and testimony would be wobbly to the point of vulnerability to such analysis. (I presume, therefore, that your title for the paper comes from the need to develop one's personal testimony to the point where it's not so wobbly and vulnerable.) OTOH, I found some of those concerns -- and their expression -- frustrating. They seemed to presume that the average Mormon was a sheep, vulnerable and stupid to the point of running off a cliff at the sight of anything from a wolf down to a chihuahua. I don't have problems with critical analysis even of things like the origins of the Book of Mormon, or the various accounts of the First Vision. As long as the critical analysis is *honest* -- that is, the critic tries to approach the text with an open mind, not having blatant preconceptions like "Of course it's a load of fertiliser", and perhaps not even "Of course it's the gospel truth." I mean, the text of the Book of Mormon was, somewhat obviously, written in English by someone whose grasp of grammar was wobbly and whose primary literary influence was the King James Bible. That kind of criticism is perfectly OK. I do have a problem with the critics who start out with "it's a load of fertiliser" and proceed to look for things that prove their point, as well as with the critics who start out with "it's the gospel truth, comma for comma" and then gloss over the obvious grammatical issues, say. You can even see bits of the politics of 1820's America in the Book of Mormon. Perhaps a translator from another culture would have chosen different words for, say, 'judges' or 'lawyers' or 'kings'. A modern translator might render them -- perhaps more accurately, perhaps not -- as 'arbitrators' or 'mediators', 'advocates' or 'orators', or 'chiefs' or 'warlords', respectively. It certainly would be possible to do some kind of political analysis of the Book of Mormon; although, I must confess, it strikes me as a fairly low-priority thing to do, as most people would just ignore it completely. %-) You see, part of the fun of telling stories is having an audience to tell them to. > > That ought to give us some pause, and what I want to do if I can get > people to pause long enough is to tell stories which by their nature ("is > you is or is you ain't my baby" just started playing on the radio--hmm, > Diana Krall, I thought it was a guy's voice) opt for sharing human > experience rather than propagating a viewpoint religious or political. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Harlow. (Now, should I stir the fertiliser more by saying that all human experience is religious or political?) Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'This is Tiddles, I believe?' 'Yes, this is, this is Tiddles.' 'Yes, and what does she do?' 'She flies across the studio and lands in a bucket of water.' 'By herself?' 'No, I fling her.' - Monty Python's Flying Circus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy and Jerry Tyner Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 08 Apr 2003 23:53:56 -0700 There is a YA Mormon novel that skirts the issue. It's called "Molly Mormon" and I believe the author is Tamara Brown. In it at least two characters possibly suffer as the victim of date rape. With one of them it's not entirely clear. The book sets up a formulaic scenario of a cute girl going out with a BMOC in a little Idaho town. He keeps her out late, making out in cars, etc. gets her drunk one night and she ends up pregnant. It seems to implicate she let down her guard and gives in. But I don't remember it being too clear on it. I do remember the family doesn't hold him accountable and just lets it go, sends her off to have the baby and adopt it out. The other girl this jerk dates after deserting the first one, he does try and date rape, tearing clothes off, roughing her up, etc. She's saved by a boy-girl pair of friends. The girl helps her while the guy deals with the would-be-rapist. I thought the book could've really gotten into a deep subject by charging the jerk with attempted rape and what if the school and town didn't want to see the star football player in trouble and benched? But none of that happened, the kids just left the guy and got out of there. And presto, the girl he attempted to rape gets active again, becomes better friends with the girl who saved her and the guy who saved her goes off on his mission. That's what drove me nuts about the book. It fit a formula of cultural mores that gets portrayed in Mormon fiction, over and over and over again. It could've been much more, so much more. For most Mormons, the ick factor in things like rape produces a squeamishness that mades a lot of them turn away and not want to deal with such a horrific subject. We LDS are good at dealing with evil in the abstract sense, in dealing with it in say, something ancient like the scriptures, but deal with it in a modern context, up close and personal. It's just too uncomfortable for many folks to want to look it in the eye. I think they're afraid they will be tainted or defiled in some way just thinking about it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 08 Apr 2003 22:49:51 -0700 I ran across this letter to the editor of the Daily Herald, and it touches on a lot of things we've been discussing on the List lately, so I'm forwarding it. At the end I want to ask a question. http://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=78032 Abduction part of class warfare The Daily Herald on Sunday, March 30 Example of class warfare When Emanuel, 49-year-old Brian David Mitchell, allegedly kidnapped at knifepoint a 14-year-old girl, hid her in the ground, and forced her to marry him, that was terrorism, plain and simple. Why did he do it? Who knows all the reasons, but it is certainly another classic example of class warfare, in my opinion. It was the self-proclaimed prophet to the poor and homeless kidnapping the daughter of the rich businessman. If you investigate the reasons behind the World Trade Center bombing, you will find an anti-American, anti-business element in both terrorists, Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Then, too, maybe that is why Saddam doesn't like the cowboy capitalist George W. Bush. Consider that Stalin murdered millions of businessmen farmers during the 1930s, and then ask why the French don't like us much, and maybe you'll find Rousseau's tirades against business at the root of the French Revolution. Similar arguments can be applied to the environmental movement. Maybe it is time our educators got out of their box and started looking for some common denominators. After all, education is one of our fastest rising costs, and also the profile of most terrorists. Cloyd Bird ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OK, now, here's the question. AML-List is full of some remarkably bright people, fairly well educated, some with advanced degrees, some working towards degrees, some voracious readers who haven't had a chance for extensive formal higher education. I'm addressing this question to everyone, but I'm also going to just pick some names floating around in that gland I call a brain (what is ee cummings famous parody, "a good cigar is a woman but a gland is only a gland"?). So, Jen Wahlquist (welcome, Jen--lovely to see you), Jacob Proffitt, Jim Willson, Bill Willson, the Brown and Young twins Margaret and Marilyn, Nan McCulloch (who honored me by introducing herself after Nauvoo Theatrical Society's production of My Turn on Earth--how did she know it was me (maybe the same way I knew when I walked in the door that the woman who looked to be about my oldest sister's age was Nan McCulloch), Eric Samuelsen, Marny Parkin, Scott Parkin, Sharlee Glenn, Darlene Young, Amelia Parkin, Gae Lyn Henderson (whose lovely demand for an answer in one thread still inspires me), Richard Johnson (whose posts--especially his missionary stories and that wonderful question he wants to ask Rush Limbaugh: What's conservative about shilling for tobacco companies--remind me of why I love AML-List, Richard Johnson, and everyone else who keeps this conversation going), so how do y'all (and darn, there are so many names I should mention like Thom Duncan, and D. Michael Martindale and theric jepson, my alter-ego, and Barbara Hume and Paris Anderson, and Jongiorgi Enos, and , and, and,) feel about being profiled as terrorists? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know. Relates to some things I've been thinking about for a long time and hope to write about in the next few weeks. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 09 Apr 2003 01:06:20 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble >=20 > Onward to a few comments. >=20 > ___ Jacob ___ > | Conservativism isn't about blind adherence to tradition and/or=20 > | following historical precedence. It *is* about core values and=20 > | applying important traditional principals to new and emerging=20 > | circumstances. > ___ >=20 > Is this conservativism in the Bloom mold? i.e. that there=20 > are certain=20 > texts that were formative for our culture and that we ought to=20 > reinterpret *those* texts in light of present circumstances? Thus=20 > rather than focusing in on Joyce or Kafka as an analysis of modern=20 > life, we ought to reread Shakespeare though a modern lens? >=20 > If this is what you mean then ends up offering many elements of=20 > critical legal hermeneutics to the more general literary community. =20 > After all in law we have to apply legal texts to new=20 > circumstances the=20 > authors may never have thought of. Yet because those texts are the=20 > "embodiment" of the community values they are what must be=20 > utilized to=20 > deal with new circumstances. Yes, I think it would be very much in this vein, though not really as accretive (more on that below) as the legal model would imply. It would = be something that isn't afraid to explore universal themes and symbolism in addition to historical textual criticism and still feel comfortable = dragging those themes kicking and screaming into a modern context without abusing them with a full-on deconstruction. Take Shakespeare's Henry V big pre-battle speech. A conservative = analysis would be interested in the calls to honor and brotherhood and might = explore the insinuation of fame and obliquely implied shame. Those would = represent the core values I mention above. But instead of going the classicism = route suggested by Jim Laird, I'd much prefer to give it breadth to move = further. Relate those themes to current issues of honor, fame, and brotherhood = for example. Or examine how those universal themes found differing = expression through the faceted lens of different characters in the play--i.e. = preempt the post-modernist deconstruction of those themes by examining how the themes persist even if they are flawed in their various applications. = Hence my appellation 'neo-post-modernism'... > The problem with Bloom's approach is probably highlighted by the=20 > parallel to law. While we certainly do have a literary=20 > "canon" we also=20 > pass new laws. Thus we have a situation very similar to law where we=20 > have old laws and new laws. While we ought not neglect old laws,=20 > neither do they gain precedence over new laws. The exception is with=20 > the constitution. However even there we have many amendments. One=20 > could well argue that perhaps literature ought to have some "critical=20 > canon." Yet that critical canon ought, like the=20 > constitution, be open=20 > ended. I'd insist that while it may be open, entrance criteria should be = rigorous (i.e. "not so open that our brains fall out"). New regimes, texts, and methods should be met with initial skepticism and careful examination = and accepted provisionally for a time before gaining even pseudo-universal acclaim. New theories and ideas should *expect* and *receive* extensive questioning and discomfort--even if it *is* neat and/or illuminating. That's a bit counter to the legal analogy above where the more recent = tends to have more precedence. > The debate then gets into what ought to be considered=20 > literary canon. =20 > Personally I think we ought to include Camus, Kafka, Hemmingway and=20 > others. (Joyce I'm more mixed about, if only because of the long=20 > background in philosophy and literature necessary to even be able to=20 > read him well) >=20 > Perhaps that's not what you meant Jacob. Perhaps you meant=20 > that there=20 > is some "natural law" that ought to underlie both the "how" and "why"=20 > of our criticisms. Nope. I don't like "natural law" any more than I like a resurgent classicism. "Natural law" has all the weaknesses of capital 'T' Truth = and none of the ameliorating strengths. I don't want to lose the advances = we've made once we acknowledged complexity and the essentially relativistic = nature of existence. Appeals to natural law will tend to be easily discredited = and much effort will be wasted trying to prove or disprove various = philosophical viewpoints as being "natural law". I'd rather pre-empt all that and = explore how our relativism and alienness nevertheless have shared = characteristics that are valuable and that help us overcome this alienation and how that happens. In other words, I want to skip the knotty question of the = "origin" of universal traits and move instead into how those universals help us, = tie us together, and are expressed. People have had a ball deconstructing Shakespeare, it's time to put him back together again--explore how he *still* resonates so strongly and "universally". Why is it that every culture wants to adopt Shakespeare? I've heard him referred to (only half-jokingly) as "that great German poet", "that great Muslim poet", = and even "that great Klingon poet" (seriously, I can document each of = those). Why *is* that? I think a neo-conservatism can shed some light here in = ways that will leave the Marxists envious. Of course, I'm hardly the prophet (Proffitt?) of neo-conservatism. = Alan's and/or Jim's definitions could well turn out more valid than my own = musings. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Politics and Literature Date: 10 Apr 2003 10:28:03 -0600 Robert Slaven quite accurately pointed out: >One person reads "Little Red Riding Hood" and sees a tale of >service, and a lesson of caution. Another reads it and sees oppression = of >females by predatory males (the wolf), patriarchal condescension by = >other >males (the woodcutter), and a general powerlessness of women that must be >condemned as a misogynist effort to warp poor little girls' minds. = That's >part of what makes all this so much fun. And I know this wasn't the main point he was making. But part of the = point I've been trying to make (badly) is that I wouldn't consider either = of these readings particularly illuminating. Both seem to me reductive, = both suggest that this particular text ought only to be read one particular= ly tendentious way, and neither opens up further possibilities the text = might offer us. Surely a reading that combined and balanced these = polarizing views of this text would be, to my mind, richer. I privilege = any both/and reading over any either/or. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Changing Our Minds (was: DDT) Date: 10 Apr 2003 09:39:46 -0600 (MDT) No, this is not a thread about DDT, though the comment sparked an intersting though in me. First, here is a link to a website claiming evidence that DDT banning causes death by malaria: http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/ddt2002.html What is interesting here is not the DDT thing, but the basic ideas behing it. It comes down to this: My side has to be right, so I ignore facts to the contrary and only take the facts that support my position. I am not accussing anyone on the list of this - I think the article above likely has that same attitude. But I was thinking of the aml-list and began to wonder - do any of us change our opinions that often due to the discussion here - or at the least, truly respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This is not rhetorical, I really want to know. I ask because while we seem to say that we are here for dicussion and understanding, sometimes it seems odd to me how bullheaded some people (including myself) are when it comes to political/cultural/doctrinal issues. For example, I remember a poster (can't recall who at the moment) once said that he felt teens in Utah were just as sexually active as teens elsehwere in the country. Then he remarked he knew polsters and survey takers foudn that Utah teens were less sexually active, but he decided that just meant Utah teens were good liars. To me, that indicated a stubborness "My side is right and any facts that contradict it don't really exist." I do it even - I often selectively choose facts to fit my opinions, ignoring those that don't quite fit with what I want to believe. I try not to do it, but I still seem to do it at times, without really meaning to. With the Clean FLicks debate that is going on, it seems to be the same. Some fell it is okay, and so quote the parts of the law that seem to support it. Those who are against it (generally) will quote legal arguments against the cutting of movies. Okay - that was rambling. Any thoughts? --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] _Kadosh_ Date: 10 Apr 2003 10:55:45 -0600 > I likely missed something but I wanted to know: where can we see this movie? If you can't find "Kadosh" at your local Blockbuster, and you don't live near the Orem library (small town library, fantastic video collection -- BTW, do libraries operate under the same royalty arrangements as commercial outfits when renting videos?), then check out http://www.greencine.com/. It's one of those web sites that justifies the existence of the Internet. Greencine rents only DVDs, but you needed a good excuse to get a DVD player, right? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:06:25 -0600 First of all, in response to Jongiorgio's post about Roman Polanski; = Polanski was indicted and charged on six counts for drugging and raping a = thirteen year old. My source is the Washington Post, March 23, 1977. He = was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful = sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl's mother, who = wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany = such a trial. The prosecution agreed to dismiss five other charges, = including two more serious counts=AFfurnishing drugs to a minor and rape = by use of drugs. He was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination = prior to sentencing. He then skipped the country hours before his = sentencing hearing. My sources for the last two pieces of information is = the Washington Post for Sept 20 1977, and Feb. 3, 1978. So he is in fact = a convicted pedophile. His grand jury testimony has been released, and is = widely available. It's clear enough from that testimony that his actions = are accurately described as an act of rape. Jongiorgio is quite right that Europeans tend to view the Polanski case = differently from the way Americans view it. His exploration of the = nuances of those cultural differences was valuable and, as a Europhile = myself, accurate. I still hold to what I said before. The Pianist is a = great film. There were several great films released in 2002. Taking = everything into consideration, I disagree with the Academy. Had they = given the Best Picture Oscar to The Pianist, that would have been fine. = But I would not have voted to give the Best Director Oscar to a convicted = pedophile, especially since other directors were, in my mind, equally = deserving. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Religious/Artistic Relativism (was: _Kadosh_) Date: 09 Apr 2003 02:03:17 -0600 [MOD: Please don't beat up Jacob for this renamed thread. This is my own wording that seems to me to express where this conversation has gone. Note that I do not mean "relativism" as either a particularly negative or a particularly positive term, but simply a neutral term for part of what I think we're talking about here.] A response to two messages by Richard: ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com >=20 > For a second there I thought I had misunderstood you, which=20 > was actually=20 > comforting to me because I almost always agree with your=20 > posts. But then, as=20 > you continued to explain, you expressed yourself in such a=20 > way that I still=20 > find the "true" attitude you espouse (not you personally) as arrogant=20 > and unteachable.=20 Ah. I will attempt to disabuse you of that notion then :). Although, = I'll say in preparation that those terms are pretty much synonymous (arrogant = and unteachable). > I don't have a problem with LDS artists believing we are=20 > "right." But I do=20 > have a problem in our believing that other religious artists=20 > are wrong and=20 > that their philosophies are inferior. Despite your=20 > protestations, I still=20 > interpret your argument in this way. Seriously, how can we=20 > remain teachable=20 > while harboring such attitudes? Okay, I'm going to split some hairs here, but they're important hairs. First, I don't believe that other philosophies are wrong. I do, = however, believe them to be inferior. If I didn't, I would be an adherent of = those philosophies. I think that should be a given. There's a certain = dishonesty in trying to maintain that you don't consider philosophies different = from your own inferior. Is it arrogant to believe other philosophies = inferior? Well, to me, it is only arrogance if it leads to being unteachable. In thinking it over, I'd have to say that an additional quality is required = for it to be arrogant: the belief that your philosophy is complete and = without flaw. I don't believe that. I find other philosophies fascinating and enjoy learning about/from them. Frankly, many of them have some great things to teach us. If I find something better, I'm more than willing = to add it to my own philosophy. It's a very free-market, capitalist, = American way of looking at philosophy (and one way where at least my brand of Mormonism really does qualify as Bloom's "American Religion"). It is = the essence of the 13th Article of Faith. So while Judaism is inferior to Mormonism, that doesn't mean that Gitai's work doesn't contain valuable insights that we might do well to explore. It doesn't mean that I'm prepared to dismiss Jewish thought or Jewish artists, though I'll = probably discard some parts of their art. But then, I discard parts of *every* = art. > Perhaps this attitude has contributed to some of our (and the=20 > mainstream=20 > Christian community's) crappy art. We are so sure we are=20 > right and chosen=20 > that we really aren't open to what this whole wide world of=20 > ours has to teach=20 > us. Surely Judaism and almost every other religion on this=20 > earth has some=20 > truth to share with us, truth that we haven't recognized or=20 > understood yet.=20 > And surely some untruths have wriggled their way into Mormonism. Yes. Definitely. I'd agree with this entire paragraph--that attitude = would indeed produce crappy art because we *can* learn from other religions = and I hope that we will examine and remove errors in our own religion. Again, just because I think I'm right doesn't mean I think I'm complete or that = I can't be wrong. Call it the provisional, limited belief that I'm = right... > I can easily see how a committed LDS artist, with a very=20 > Mormon passion for=20 > truth, could suddenly find himself no longer Mormon. An=20 > unwilling "apostate." Well, I can understand the fear, but I'd have to see it to believe it. = I can even see the *threat*--even a semi-official threat. But one thing = I've learned is that when it comes to excommunication, the vast majority of = local leaders and *all* G.A.s (that I've ever heard of) are extremely = reluctant to pull out that particular big gun and use it. While you get a vocal = minority with their knickers in a knot and while it can be *very* uncomfortable = at times (and those who experience it have my deepest sympathies), I find = it hard to imagine it actually happening--an artist who wants to stay in = the church will always be able to do so. One reason I have such respect for Gene England is for his principled stands that nonetheless avoided = artistic arrogance. I'm not saying that artists aren't excommunicated because of things they consider truth. But I will say that it doesn't happen = without a good deal of warning--it doesn't happen "suddenly". And I'll say that = when it happens, it happens because the artist decides that their truth is = more important than their membership. ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com >=20 > Richard wrote: "Jacob said (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a > moot question=3D20 > > because the orthodox=3D20 > > Jewish doctrine is wrong, the community is worshipping in=3D20 > > falsehood, and=3D20 therefor Gitai has done nothing wrong and=20 > is better > > off outside the=3D20 community." >=20 > Jacob replies: "Oh, I didn't say any of that." >=20 > Then what did you mean, Jacob, when you said this: "I don't > believe at all=3D20 that his soul is on the line...To me, he's=20 > just fine because he didn't (as=3D20 presented, bear in mind I=20 > haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred." >=20 > Or this: "His doctrine is wrong, you see."=3DA0 >=20 > If I misunderstood you, surely you can see how I might have > arrived at my=3D20 conclusions. You need to recontextualize those quotes. Both those statements were = made as support for a specific point. The question asked was specific and my response was specific and not at all as broad as implied above. My statements have relevance towards that specific point and widening them beyond it is inapplicable. Both fragments alone can be interpreted one = way, but in context it should be clear that they're intended to be applied = very narrowly--i.e. to the question "Was it worth it, in the eternal scheme = of things, for Gitai to have alienated himself from his spiritual community = in order to create such a magnificent work of art?" And I'll = reiterate--"the eternal scheme of things" is *vital* to my faith and not worth risking = for *anything*. In fact, I'm a little distraught at the selective quotation. I mean, = you chunked up two sentences that both carried important modifiers (the ellipses, for example, only serve to remove the question mark ending = that first sentence). I express explicitly that I'm reacting to how my = opinion changes in translating his experience to the situation "if he had been = LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear." Those are important distinctions/modifications and shouldn't be so easily excised. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] CARD, _Ender's Game_ Date: 09 Apr 2003 02:42:04 -0600 A couple of interesting links for you Ender fans. Over on Slashdot they had a story about how the military is using _Ender's Game_ for training. Here's the story: http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/ 03/technology/circuits/03camp.html The story is at the NY Times, and there is a free registration required. The more interesting stuff, as always on Slashdot, is in the discussion about the story linked to. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/04/1853251 The discussion points out that what made Ender such a powerful general was his empathy. To quote one poster, "He understood his enemies so fully that he loved them deeply, since he could see their motivations for attacking him. He is always at odds with the case. The reason why Ender did what he did was because he thought it was a game, if he knew it wasn't a game, he would not have gone through with it. He spends the rest of the series dealing with that guilt." While a few of you may have noticed this before, what struck me was the parallels to both Christ and Book of Mormon figures. The Christ motif is that God is this perfect general with respect to the plan of salvation and us. We often think of Christ as freeing us from our guilt, but what struck me is that perhaps the "guilt" he freed was as much his and his father's as it is ours. In punishing us for our sins, I'm sure our Father in his perfect empathy feels as Ender does. I'd always seen the rest of the series with Ender as fairly disconnected from the first book. But seeing the guilt as intrinsically tied to the military and empathy makes it seem like one coherent whole a lot better. Ender becomes both the guilt/justice and also the mercy and shows how these opposites can be unified. The second motif is more relevant to the military. I think of Moroni and how he loved his enemies. That is a very hard thing to do. Perhaps I was thinking all the more of it because of Pres. Hinkley's talk on Sunday. In a political discussion someone asked how someone who valued life as sacred could take it. In a way, _Ender's Game_ show how it can happen. In a sense I think that Card, perhaps unconsciously, was fleshing out the lessons on war that the Book of Mormon teaches. I don't want to make a political point of this. After all *how* we fight is a far different issue than *whether* we should fight. The later is the political debate for which there are arguments for both sides. The former is a far deeper human issue that keeps popping up in literature. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: [AML] AML-List Columns Date: 09 Apr 2003 09:55:22 -0700 [MOD: See my answer below.] > -----Original Message----- > You probably weren't expecting a huge discourse on the subject > when you asked > the question, but I wrote a column on the subject for AML-List > several years > ago. It never made it on the List, though, because it needed > some polishing > up. Shortly afterwards, AML-List discontinued all columns. So, > hey, I'll just > send it now. > Somewhat off topic but for what its worth, I really miss the columns. They also provided a seed bed for some published works, Ed Snow's, for instance. Did they go away because it was too much trouble to edit and publish, or because columnists didn't turn in copy, or what? Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com [MOD: During the latter part of Ben's tenure as moderator, he was unable to put a lot of the time into recruiting and editing the columns that he had previously done. I think there were also problems with reliability and availability of columnists. I also think that much of the impulse that had led to the column wound up going to _Irreantum_ when it started up. When I took over as moderator--three years ago now! hard to believe--there were still a few columns limping along, and I had hopes for organizing something more elaborate again. We've had a few columns from Ed Snow and Eric Samuelsen, and in theory I'm still quite fine with columns. But I just haven't had the time to put into them... I miss them too.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 08 Apr 2003 16:57:12 -0700 On Tuesday, Apr 8, 2003, at 12:23 America/Phoenix, Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: > Precisely so. I was describing the more or less mainstream way in > which the term 'conservative literary criticism' is likely to be > viewed. I wasn't endorsing it; on the contrary, I was saying that it > would interesting to read more nuanced conservative criticism. I'd > appreciate it if you'd read my posts a little more carefully before > launching this sort of ad hominem attack. I was merely stating my experience. I have met only a very few honest liberals (by which I mean possessed of only the usual levels of hypocrisy, nothing exceptional), and fewer still that would actually engage an idea intellectually. Since I had a liberal education, it is no easy thing to shake off the same kind of thinking. Free thinking is not something the education system likes. In literary terms this means that anything that damages the bourgeois order is good, anything that defends it is bad, and so it goes in school and college. My 11th grade history teacher was an exception to the rule, and judged on the merits, for which I still thank heaven; without him I might've been trapped. > It's very nice to be told that, as a liberal, I support the mass > murders of Marxism. Thanks for that. Wouldn't it be more accurate to > acknowledge that Hitler was a monster of the right, Stalin a monster > of the left, and that you and I are both agreeably anti-monster? Hitler was another monster of the Left. Nazism is leftist. What else do you call utopian socialism? The fact that it used Roman imagery doesn't make it right wing. There is no construction possible to fit Nazism into any conservative mold. They were only the right wing of the left wing. They share ZERO beliefs with modern conservatism. How pagan socialist fantasists got lumped with libertarians, federalists and classical liberals is beyond me. > You've written at some length in your posts about 'classicism.' What > exactly do you mean by that? A literary criticism derived from, say, > Plato's Republic, Aristotle's The Poetics and Horace's Ars Poetica, > with a smattering of Plutarch and Cicero, an immersion in Stoicism and > Epicurianism and neo-Platonism, a grounding in Seneca and Marcus > Aurelius, a nod to the Tractatus Coislinianus, seasoned by readings of > Aeschylus-Terence (incl.). Or do you mean neo-classical criticism, > including Robortello, Scaliger, Guarini, Castelvetro, Sir Phllip > Sidney and the whole Corneille/Academy nexus? Personally, I find the > unities rather tiresome, but if that's what you're accessing, let's > have at it. All of the above. I like the old stuff myself, because I don't trust too many scholars after the advent of socialism. I hate having to plumb through it all myself unguided, but that's what lack of trust gets you. I even detest the fact that I have to trust the translators. As far as sides go, however, I'm on the Stoic side, and that is the prism that I use to criticize literature. The platonic side was worth reading and learning, but I don't much care for mysticism. > And it's still taught in the academy, is still the focus of major > academic conferences, and remains viable and relevant to the study of > classical texts. I know, because I've attended those conferences. Very true. Except that it isn't taught at all in primary or secondary school, and one can get a degree in philosophy without ever touching any of it. Those of us who were unfortunate enough to go to state schools and universities can miss out on it entirely. > Wow. Sounds like quite the struggle there. What on earth are you > talking about? See the last statement. > What's a 'universal?' Sophocles was a fifth century (BCE) Greek, > writing about local concerns, accessing the myths of his culture. His > work (Antigone, say) can still be performed, and an audience today can > and does respond to it. Not all audiences, obviously, get it, and not > all performances are successful, but it's still regarded as rather a > good play. Is it 'universal?' Certainly not. My own religious > beliefs and practices do not require me to bury a relative in a > certain way, with a certain ceremony, to allow his soul to pass over > to Hades. I do not believe in Zeus or Athena. Politically, the play > has some resonance. I'm a liberal, and I like this particular play. > It hasn't a universal appeal, nothing can have, but it does still > resonate with some cultures today, and that's saying a great deal. If > I also point out that Antigone's rebellion is in part an expansion on > 5th century Greek constructions of gender, that doesn't make me a > moral relativist; it makes me a scholar trying to understand a > difficult and richly nuanced text. Universals are those things that appear in everything. I am not speaking of Chomsky's silly theory that there's a nifty English grammar underlying all other languages, but of those things that are true. Literature, even fiction, is part of the search for truth. By denying the existence of truth (which both marxist and post-modernist criticism do openly, and feminist & environmentalist do by their fantastic rejection of reality) one precludes the finding of it. Everything written at every time is relative to the time. Some things survived by chance, but some things survived because somebody who died 3000 years ago knew what it's still like to live today. Perhaps the reason why Sophocles' plays aren't ultra popular today is because many people have no clue that there is such a thing as universals. The education system is so poor that people can be as ignorant as a medieval serf and still have a degree. They have learned the balderdash theory of life. The world is layers of balderdash and life consists of finding your own layer. It just doesn't look like balderdash from where you sit, but it really is. > Nonsense. I cannot approach any text from any perspective other than > that of a 21st century white American male. What I can do is access > the insights of a variety of philosophical perspectives. They will > not allow me to read any text purely; they will instead give me the > multiple perspectives of a series of misreadings. But then, all > readings are, at some level, misreadings. Criticism isn't a straight > line to a single, discernable, point; it's a series of circlings, > towards an ever-moving target, dimly illumined. So what? The more you learn the broader your horizons get. Perspective changes constantly as you learn. When you have a pre-configured perspective that is unalterable then you will never get to the truth. When all you're looking for is "men are evil" all you'll find is "men are evil." Or class exploitation, etc. The fact that you live in a certain time and place doesn't mean that you are forever stuck with it. It's like Said's orientalism; a westerner can never criticize an easterner, because he can't understand what it's like to live there. But it's fine for the easterner to criticize the west (which he does constantly). I think he's wrong on all counts. To understand all is not to forgive all. I really don't care what the cultural reasons are for female circumcision--I just want it stopped. Same with slavery, same with all sorts of things. I don't condemn everyone involved, after all they were taught it by a long tradition. It's an evil tradition, and it should be halted. > "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught > somewhat in all the learning of my father." What that does not mean > is 'gosh, I sure had a swell Dad.' What it means is, I was born into > a wealthy family, sufficiently wealthy that I was able to receive an > education, unilke other residents of Jerusalem in my time period. The > sentence has class implications and it has gender implications (no > mention of Mom's education.) Knowing that that text has class and > gender implications enriches my understanding of that particular text. > That's all that criticism is trying to do. I don't see the class or gender implications in the sense you mean. It says that Lehi was wealthy, to be sure. It doesn't say he got wealthy by exploiting the proletariat. It doesn't mention mom's education. So what? Maybe she was as educated as Nephi. The fact that it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean a thing, except that he wasn't poisoned by political correctness. Granted that the oriental culture he came from was very male-oriented; the cultural background for northern Europe was not. German and Celtic women had far greater freedom than Greek or Latin, and they're not even in the same ballpark as the Middle or Far East. Strangely enough, however, I learned these things from crusty old Romans like Tacitus. It didn't take a feminist reading of history to winnow it out. > Certainly. Good for technology. And since we have the benefit of > both that technology and that equality, we cannot help but look at > texts from the past from the perspective of our day. But we don't. Feminist criticism ignores the value of that technology in gaining equality. The conspiracy of the Patriarchy is why it was so. Technology was meaningless since (to hear Patricia McKinnon tell it) there has been no progress at all. > Is this really how you see reading? As an exercise in tossing stuff? Not in tossing stuff, but finding the needle in the haystack. Jesus did it with the whole Old Testament. "This is the Law and the Prophets." It doesn't mean that everything written is valueless, but that much of it is merely signage on the highway. It's not the destination. Tossing away the fluff is what criticism is. The difference between classical and the others that are getting tedious to mention is that classicism is looking for a universal while the others deny any such thing. > So it's contentless? What about all those universals? Stoicism and Platonicism are as different as liberal and conservative. Both are useful as perspective. I agree with much of Zeno and his followers and disagree with much of Plato and his. I read both to find the truth. If I look for everything to be Stoic then I'm never going to learn much, which is why the one-note criticism of marxism or feminism see always exactly the same things over and over. I think Stoicism is mostly right in many areas, and one of the reasons I look at things from that perspective first is because of the faithful-wealthy-faithless-war-poverty cycle in the Book of Mormon. I never attribute Stoic beliefs to anybody unless it really fits, however. > Those would be several prisms, would they not? Each of which offers a > different perspective on texts, providing more, not less, insight? If there was a unified theory that used them all it might be a bit more useful. Post-modernism is not that, however. Each of the others independently hates the rest. > Okay, so leftists are moral relativists, who do not believe in > universals; if we did believe in universals we'd understand and not > condemn an act of historical genocide. These universals require us to > look tolerantly at the horrors of history. See classicism requires us > to look at the Crusaders from their own perspective. > > Only? That's it? I can't bring any insight from my day into a study > of the Crusades? No, see, I can't, because as a leftist, I can only > bring a single prism into my study of the Crusades. A single > Marxist/feminist/environmentalist prism. That's not three prisms, it's > one, without body parts or passions, one presumes. I'm not capable > ideologically to look at something like medieval rules of combat > engagement from a medieval perspective. No, I'm blinded by gender > studies, or something. > > Let me just say as your common, or garden, medievalist, that this is > utter balderdash. Tell David Bevington that he can't understand the > Crusades because he's too post-modern or something. But be prepared > to duck. I didn't say that I didn't condemn the act. The actors get a bit of a pass because of the rules of war and the general ignorance of their time. What they did was horrible, but they didn't know how horrible. They should have, we might say, but those were the rules. Many other learned from them, but they didn't learn. The Black Prince was wasting whole cities in Spain not 200 years later. The British and French sacked and burned whole cities as late as the Napoleonic wars. I condemn the acts of all of them. Once again, however, they're culpability before God wouldn't be the same as if I did it. I know better, and on several levels. All they had was the light of Christ drowned by the cacophony of lies around them. So do I despise every one of them? Do I wish them speedily to hell and roasting? I do not. In order to understand it is necessary to look as much through their perspective as possible. They left very little record, since most couldn't write, and the few records there are are mostly hostile. All three of the styles you mention deny the possibility of trying to understand the perspective of the actors. So any one of them is faulty, and by using them exclusively you cannot understand the Crusades. So far as Bevington is concerned I didn't know he'd done anything on the Crusades but if he is a postmodernist then after I'd read his work I likely would tell him he didn't understand. I've read lots of deconstruction and it is uniformly balderdash. > Okay, so some medieval writers were appalled by the Crusades, but we > shouldn't judge those who weren't, because after all we had Hitler and > Stalin. You just can't get that whole 'see it from their side' thing. Some of those who ought to have been appalled weren't--the educated sorts, the priests, etc, who should've known better. They are far more guilty because they knew of the existence of a different set of rules of war and didn't bother to expound them. Chivalry is based on the Arab _furusiya_, and was transferred onto the German barbarians by the same priests who encouraged the slaughter. They are of the same mold as Hitler and Stalin--or even more those intellectuals, here and in Europe, who consistently backed whatever socialist was currently murdering thousands or millions. Many communists in Russia were ignorant as stumps, bought what was sold them, and killed as they were told. I don't blame them either. > I'll agree with you this far; 'good critical thinking skills, widely > practiced, might have prevented the rise of power of Lenin or Hitler. > Which would have been, in both instances, a moral good.' Could also have prevented the rise of Huey Long, Franco, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hussein, etc. People like their fantasies, which is why they hate America, even in America. > Welcome to modern conservatism, a fact free zone. Sorry, it's true. The French terrified the daylights out of Malawi and Botswana about Frankenfood, so they refused to accept American corn. In 1972, the before year DDT was banned, there were 1,500 deaths from Malaria worldwide. It's back up to 100,000. Nobody cares, though, except conservatives, because they're just Africans. > Glad to hear it. It's actually been pretty mainstream all along, but > there you go. Yeah, so mainstream it hasn't been taught in the majority of Americans schools for more than 30 years. In some cases as much as 70 years. My grandfather was in 9th grade when they kicked out the classical standards at his school in California. > I haven't the faintest idea what this last sentence means, unless > you're saying that bad literary criticism leads to Hitler or > something. Which, come to think of it, isn't far off. A good close > reading, by Neville Chamberlain, of Mein Kampf, might have had some > salutary results. Well now that you put it that way it does. And you're exactly right about _Mein Kampf_ except one thing. It's too stupid to be taken seriously. If I had read it in 1932 I would've laughed my head off. In 1938 it would've been more ominous, but it's among the worst written books I've ever read, even allowing that the translator could be to blame for much of it. If a lot of critical thinkers had read it in Germany, however, he would never have gained power. Incidentally what I mean by fantasy-dreamers is all the utopians of various types. Jacobins, communists, nazis, fascists, etc. Those who dream that they're going to force the world to be reasonable somehow, and bring about heaven on earth. They live in fantasy, and when reality touches them they react savagely. I would lump everything from Libertarians to Marxist-Leninists into this camp, though some are more violent than others, thank heaven. > I rather think that all Dead White Men are rather unpalatably skeletal > right now, and are mostly of merit nutritionally, for earthworms. I refer, as I'm sure you know, to the current disdain with which "dead white men" are treated in many parts of the literary world. It is of course their work to which I refer, which should be judged on the merits. > There you go. I agree with that wholeheartedly. We're not so > different, you and I. It's often the case, but there's that awful medium of language to get through. > Well, it was nice to throw psycho-analytic criticism into the prism. > We're really refracting some light here, aren't we? I tried really hard to avoid the psychology side of this but I couldn't help myself. I will say no more, I could go on for weeks about...well never mind, let's just say I'm no fan of Freud OR Jung. > Look, I'm a liberal, sort of, and you're a conservative, sort of. I > think politically the facts are on my side and you think politically > the facts are on your side. We don't agree politically. We both read > the same classical texts, and we both respond to them, though probably > differently. I read a lot of literary criticism, and I think a lot of > it is awful and a lot of it is really valuable, and a lot is > in-between. Either way, the goal is to illuminate the text, and when > criticism doesn't, I don't care for it. But this whole-sale bashing > of the academy is just silly. You don't know what you're talking > about. Neither does George Will, or Ann Coulter, or David Horowitz, > or whoever it is you're reading regarding this stuff. I attend a lot > of academic conferences and when really loopy papers are read, the > reaction from everyone is a lot of muffled chuckles, and rolled eyes, > and gossip afterwards. That's just the way it works. I agree that you're a sort-of liberal, but I am a hard-core conservative. You just don't realize what that means. Classical liberals are conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt progressives are conservatives. Whigs and Abolitionists are conservatives. The left ceded far too much ground by embracing democratic socialist, which is the least bad form, but still bad. There are still a few Truman-type liberals around, but precious few, and most of them are now conservatives. A conservative is anybody who says, "if we're going to err, let's err on the side of tradition." It encompasses so many beliefs and ideologies that it's ridiculous. The three you mention above are all from different camps, even though two of them work together. I agree with you that in literary criticism most is bad, some is good, and plenty is indifferent. I rarely read the narrow-lens critics and in that I encompass the Jerry Falwell camp. I enjoy reading all of those you mention, particularly Anne Coulter, but she doesn't form my opinions for me. My criticism of the academy is based on my own experience. I used to work with hundreds of colleges and professors around the country, though mostly in Arizona. It is a depressing thing to remember. I love to argue (just in case you couldn't guess) and I many times put the chance to argue above the chance to make some money. I am a very ignorant person, and not overly bright, but I made mincemeat out of them so often that it really began to frighten me. I'm terrified of public school, and even more of public colleges. Much of my own learning comes from trying to find out what went wrong, and when. It seems that the education system has decided to tear a page from Orwell. Ignorance is strength. This is extraordinarily important in terms of criticism, because otherwise rotten books can become bestsellers. If a critic always looks for one thing and always finds it, he's doing the people who read his reviews a disservice. What's worse, he might be helping along one of those fantasies that are always waiting in the wings. > I don't want to make enemies, and I am interested in any good literary > criticism, from whatever source. Who's good? Most of the reviews I read on a weekly basis are from Arts & Philosophy. Unfortunately I don't have the URL at the moment because I read them at work. 12 hours is a long shift. > I respond to your passion, and to your obvious love of literature. > Let's make a deal. You stop bashing me and I'll stop bashing you. > Okay? I never bashed you once, and never felt bashed. I may have mentioned I love to argue. I don't mind if it gets heated--the more heated the better. It's more fun that way. I see it as an outgrowth of relativism that nobody wants to fight. Why have beliefs if you won't fight for 'em? There's a guy in California who's suing the government for their coverup of Drake's true landing place south of SF. Bravo for him, even though I could care less. I suppose I could be more temperate in language but where's the fun in that? I suppose though it would make it easier to get past Justin [MOD: I assume you mean me, Jonathan], I will try to tone it down a little. But only a little. I'm enjoying myself hugely. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 09 Apr 2003 11:42:26 EDT In a message dated 4/8/03 10:55:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jltyner@pacbell.net writes: > That said, a quibble with Richard's semantics. > Mismatching one's socks is a mistake. Misplacing your keys > likewise. Taking a wrong turn with your battalion and running > into a firefight is a very, very, bad mistake. > > Taking nude photos of a 13 year old girl and then giving her part > of a qualuude downed with champange before you first raped > her vaginally and then sodomized her because you're afraid of > getting her pregnant-that's a deliberate, monstrous choice. > > It's not that Roman Polanski's work didn't merit an oscar, it's > that if he made it, it should've been after he paid his debt to > society which he has saucily evaded for many years while > enjoying a quality of life I doubt his victims enjoys. Kathy, Aside from your use of the word "saucily" in the above post, I completely understand your point of view. But, from my point of view, I simply prefer to abstain from judgment. I mean, I feel comfortable judging his film, but I don't feel comfortable rendering judgment on Roman Polanski. Maybe he has repented. Maybe his mental anguish has been sufficiently torturous. Maybe he was insane when he did it. Maybe he was possessed by 1800 evil spirits. The point is: I don't know. I was neither there to witness the event, nor was I inside Polanski's brain when he did it. All I know is..."The Pianist" is a great film. It has deserved every honor it has recieved. I want all my children, and everyone I know, to see it. I'll leave decisions regardnig the degree of Polanski's guilt and his punishment to God and to the Los Angeles County Prosecuting Attorney. However...I will also never ask Mr. Polanski to babysit my children. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: [AML] Value of _Chicago_ (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 09 Apr 2003 10:33:54 -0600 Susan Malmrose asked: "My s-i-l on the way out said that maybe they were trying to make some type of commentary on corruption. If that's the case, they failed miserably, cuz I didn't see any. Does the movie differ much from the play?" I first saw CHIGAGO on Broadway in 1999 with my husband and three children. At that time they were 19, 17 and 11. The movie makes a lot more sense to the viewing audience in terms of time-line, cause and effect. On Broadway there is no costume changes so you see all the women prisoners in their "Fosse-esque" signature French cut black leotards and fish net tights for the entire show. The orchestra is on stage as a back up band to the action unfolding. It plays a little like an old time radio show.=20 As a dance major in college, I can appreciate the effort, athleticism and grace that goes into training bodies to be able to dance at that caliber--as well as the gene pool that blessed them with long legs. However any viewer should be aware that Fosse's style is overtly sexualized--he's the King of Bump and Grind when it comes to jazz choreography. The costuming for the stage play made that aspect more unrelenting in than in the film because the women are in that garb the whole time. In the movie you see a "tribute" to Fosse's original idea in the "Cell Block Tango" number. They also incorporated hints of Elvis Presley's famous "Jail House Rock" with the way the cells are presented. On stage you get a line of women sitting on caf=E9 chairs. Both of them told the story with equal sardonic black humor as to the "excuses" behind why each woman murdered her man. In our family it's become an in-joke whenever anyone is offering up feeble excuses for their behavior. "He fell on my knife. He fell on my knife ten times." What I thought was well done in the movie was the changing from real to fantasy to know when you were in Roxy's mind and when you were in the real world. I think both the play and the movie glamorize the Chicago crime scene of the prohibition era as told through the eyes of a narcissistic entertainment wannabe. However, there is a subtle underlying message that none of these people are happy, especially not our heroine, Roxy Hart. She pushes away a solid, decent man who loves her to pursue the fleeting honors of the world. All of the characters lives are shallow and empty. Even the public is depicted as ridiculous as they rush from sensational to more sensational. Chicago in the roaring 20's is a part of our national history. How this affected some people is depicted in both the movie and the stage version. Seeing CHICAGO gave our family an opportunity to talk about the effects of escalating bad choices and consequences on lives.=20 One of the reasons the song "Mr. Cellophane" (brilliantly performed by John C. Reilly in the film) is so touching is the way the audience begins longing for some decency in the society depicted. He's one of two "decent" people in the film--Roxy Hart's husband--and he's trod over by everyone. No one remembers his name. His character is an effective, if subtle, opposition to the mad existence everyone else in the movie strives for. The other "decent" character is the Russian ballerina accused of murder who really IS innocent. The only English lines she has in the show are "not guilty". And yet she is the one, the sacrificial lamb, that is hanged. That was a powerful, poignant moment in the show and handled very nicely with the cutting between her high dive act, dressed as a ballerina, and the reality of going to the gallows. The film seems to say truly guilty go free, the innocent pay. There are these subtle messages the author has woven into the fabric of a musical about the "haves"--those with money, power and the right lawyer--getting away with it while the "have-nots" pay for things they didn't even do. Two more observations about the differences between movie and stage: the film is more in-your-face than the stage version in the set-up to Roxy's crime of passion. You don't see the real-life affair like you do in the movie. It's just presented as background information. And an odd twist in the stage play that's left out of the film concerns the character of Little Mary Sunshine, the woman reporter who is featured in the puppet number "We Both Reached for the Gun" (another brilliantly conceived presentation). In the stage version, it's revealed at the end of the show she's really man in drag. I never understood the why behind all that, unless it was a behind the scenes in-joke for the gay theater community. Maybe somebody's cross-dressing friend was a huge talent and the number was originally conceived for them. It added nothing to the plot and was left out of the movie. Who knows. Maybe the original concept team just thought it was funny. CHICAGO reminds me of CABARET in that they both take a look at the seamy undersides of certain cultures in certain time periods. GUYS AND DOLLS does it too, but in a much more cartoonish, happily ever after way. The thing I find the most jarring about CHICAGO is the big finish. In a rousing song and dance and shoot out the lights with fake tommy guns number, the audience is left with a toe tappin' "well didn't that work out for Roxy and Velma" feeling. You really have to stop and think about it and wonder "what next?" to remind yourself that fame will be fleeting for those two. I imagine them as embittered broken-down old women, alone and lonely in some flop house regaling each other with stories of their glory days. All of that means I loved the show. I'm a theater fanatic and it was so refreshing to see Hollywood talent doing something amazing in terms of song and dance.=20 Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Jeffrey S. Savage, _INTO THE FIRE_ Date: 04 Apr 2003 18:20:16 -0700 Annette Lyon wrote: > > I have sometimes heard the sentiment from readers that they expect an LDS > published novel to be bad, especially if it's published by Covenant. That > idea is troubling to me on many levels, including the fact that readers > looking for something negative will find it, not giving the work a real > chance on its own merits. That is what I am afraid has happened with this > review. Au contraire, mon ami. I desperately want to enjoy every book I pick up. I don't get any pleasure out of reading a book I don't enjoy. > At one point it says, "I can often determine how good a book is by how much > I notice the little discrepancies." I could well be wrong, but looking at > the kinds of complaints in the review, it seems to me that the reviewer was > out *looking* for discrepancies, as if he never once let his guard down > enough to see if he could actually enjoy the book. Au contraire, mon ami. I never go in looking for nitpicky discrepancies. I go in looking for an enjoyable reading experience. The nitpicky things jump out on their own if the reading experience proves to be unenjoyable. I am fairly oblivious to nitpicky things if I like the book. > Let's start with one of the first complaints, that _Into the Fire_ "is a > lackluster title in the first place." Since when do authors get to pick > their own titles? Almost never. So why bother mentioning something the > author had no control over? I review the book, not the author. I care not who's to blame for the title. If it's lackluster, I say so, and let whoever is responsible decide what to do with the information. > Every promise I found in the text was completely > fulfilled. I don't know where the promises listed above were found. They > weren't in my copy. This book can be seen as a modern-day allegory, not a > novel with "intrigue of global proportions." Yes, there is the "mystery" per > se about what happened to bring Joe's company down (and what novel doesn't > have unanswered questions), but that's not the point (or the promise) of the > story. The point is how a man's trials bring him closer to God and to an > understanding of what is most important. I'm glad your reading experience was more fulfilling, but it's not kosher to call my reading experience invalid. I saw promises in the book. They were right there in the first few chapters, when Savage set up this huge worldwide situation full of mystery. A mere two-page prolog is not enough to counteract the expectations that resulted from that. Especially for a reader who doesn't relate to prologs well (which is a common reading experience with a lot of people, so I won't apologize for it). > And that is also part of the book's point. Once Joe has gone through his > ordeal, the house and the company and everything else don't really matter > anymore, and whatever happens later is beyond the scope of the story. It mattered to me, and since I'm the reader, I have the right to have it matter to me. That's what a review is--not an absolute statement of what a book is, but a report on one reader's experience with the book. I always write reviews with that assumption, and assume the reader will realize that's the way reviews are intended to be taken. > The butterfly kisses didn't work for me either, but I can't understand the > nauseas response to it as being overused, either. The only other work I'm > familiar with that uses the same image is that wildly popular song by the > same name. I _have_ been exposed to more uses of it. I never liked the concept the first time I heard it (in that song you mention). Does that help? > In reference to the Down Syndrome daughter there is the complaint > about not being surprised by who will threatened in the climax. > > As recently discussed on a thread in this vein, everything doesn't need to > be a surprise to work. If the author wasn't trying to be secretive, then it > wasn't a failure on his part to keep the reader guessing. In fact, knowing > that Joe's daughter is helpless to handle the situation makes the impending > conflict that much worse when it does happen. I _do_ expect plots to have surprises in them--that's why I read. Future events are supposed to be hidden so I'll want to continue reading to find out what happens. That's the default expectation of a plot. Sure, rules can and are always broken. Giving the reader information withheld from the protagonist is a good way to build suspense. It's downright Hitchcockian. But it has to be done with skill to work. I saw no indication in the book that Savage was trying to break this rule of plot. Instead it looked like he was trying to foreshadow, but his foreshadowing didn't work because it was too heavy-handed. But even if I concede this point, the plot development in question still didn't work for me. I'll just slip over into my backup complaint that having the poor, cute, helpless Down syndrome child physically threatened was too much of a cliche for me. > About and comma usage: Only certain rules apply grammatically. Every other > case is by the in-house style. The examples given, "Oh yes you are," "Come > on man," "Well I don't believe that," are all sentences not necessarily > with a missing comma if that's what the house style is. Covenant is welcome to their apparently ink-saving house style, but I'm also free to think their house style is stupid and be irritated by it. > I would prefer commas in those sentences, > too-but that doesn't mean they are wrong without one. Several of my own > commas were removed my novel over protest, because that's the house style. > It's not WRONG, just (obviously) against some people's taste, including my > own. And my grammar handbook's taste too. > Now to the canoe that remains a canoe. I've been in both row boats and > canoes, and I never sat down to think through descriptive verbs about what I > did with the oar. "Row" and "paddle" are almost synonymous to me (in fact, > they are listed together in my thesaurus, and my dictionary defines "row" as > only to "move with oars"). That's fine for you when you're in the canoe. But a writer has more responsibility to write accurately. > Yes, I can understand the picky definition about > pins and fulcrums, but not once was I confused or irritated by not reading > "paddle" a dozen times. (Now *that* would have been grating.) I was never confused either, but definitely irritated. It's the same feeling I get when I go into a retail establishment and get bad service. I used to work in retail for several years and always tried to give my customers superior service. So if I don't get it as a customer, I'm peeved. I'm the customer! They owe it to me! The same goes with authors. There is no excuse for authors getting the facts wrong. It's their responsibility to do the proper research and get it right. Of course, authors still do get facts wrong, because there are simply too many facts in the world for one person to absorb them all. But they need to do the best they can. I try to do the best I can, even though I hate researching. I expect the same from the authors I read. Especially over something as simple as canoe terminology. If you write science fiction, you'll find readers of that genre will crucify you if you get facts wrong. And that's how it should be. If you write about it, you're declaring that you're some kind of expert on it. You had better get it right. Or don't write about it. There will always be someone who will point out your mistakes for you. > I am amazed > that so much time was spent in this review dwelling on a single verb. Why is getting it right such a big deal? Because fiction is an attempt to convince the reader that lies are truth, that made-up stories are real. Authors put a lot of effort into making their stories believable, and readers are eager to be seduced into believing it. If you make a factual mistake--especially a careless one like "rowing" a canoe--it dumps the reader right out of the story and ruins his illusion of verity. That's an unpardonable literary sin. > No, _Into the Fire_ is not a perfect book. I'm sure Savage would be the > first to admit it could be improved, as all good writers do of their work. > And honest criticism is important, but this review struck me as almost > mean-spirited. Not mean-spirited. Frustrated-spirited. If I am going to invest hours of my precious life reading someone else's book, they are obligated to give me their best. If they don't, yes, I walk away peeved and it comes through in my review. (Be glad I can't finish _Mormonville_. My review of it would make this review look like a mother's kiss. I'd rather reread _Disoriented_ than finish _Mormonville_.) > Somehow the themes, symbols and spirituality were missed > completely. This borders precariously on the argument "my book was inspired, so you should like it whether it's good or not." I didn't miss the _attempt_ to present spiritual themes and symbols. They just didn't work for me because I thought the writing wasn't up to par. Nobody gets a pass from me for subpar writing, I don't care how spiritual the message is. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 08 Apr 2003 16:56:35 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Did I say that the author is the "last to know his own work"? Of course not. > But if our work is a reflection of the world, are we the first to say that > we know our world so completely? If so, then perhaps we are under the > illusion of false Buddha's. By acknowledging that we may not have all of the > answers but "This is what she SAID" or "This is what she DID" then, suddenly > we create an illusion of a character that is sufficient for the day. But the > moment an author thinks, and therefore writes as, if they know this > character as omnisciently as God, the moment their writing will begin to > smack of... but you know what, I already said all of this once, so forget > it. I don't recall if I've mentioned this before, but I wrote a novel called _Brother Brigham_. Kim Madsen was kind enough to share it with her reading group and kind enough to invite me to be there and hear them skewer it. One of the most universal objections they raised to the book was a scene where a character named Sheila dealt with frustrated sexual arousal by masturbating. They claimed that women do not masturbate very much, contrary to popular belief, and found it hard to believe that Sheila would. I won't go into what I think of their belief on masturbating women. For the moment I'll accept it at face value. I didn't tell them, but I was undetered in my conviction that Sheila most certainly would masturbate under those circumstances. You see, I knew Sheila, and she _would_ do it. I know what all my characters will do under any circumstances. But I don't know it all at once. For one thing, I don't have time to figure out every possible circumstance and what they would do. The way in which I know what my characters will do is to "ask" them. When a question comes up, I interrogate them. Not literally, but I meditate on them and what I already know about their character. Sooner or later it becomes clear to me what they would do. I always "know" by this method everything about my cbaracters--everything as a need arises. You can say I don't know for sure because I ask them and let them tell me (observation). But there is no "them"--they are products of my imagination, conscious and subconscious. So it really is me that knows all along. I just don't know it all up front. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 09 Apr 2003 11:13:24 -0600 Well, first of all, I didn't think the fruit was all that phenomenal. But that's another discussion. I don't see anything wrong with taking an artist's personal life into consideration when evaluating his or her work. After all, isn't creating art partly an expression of self? To put it crudely, I'd like to know if the hands that made that eclair also handled rancid meat (and whether or not those hands had been washed in between!). This is not to say that we should reject outright all art created by despicable people. But to say that the fact that the person is despicable has no effect on the art created is ridiculous. Of course it has an effect. If it doesn't have an effect then why even have the artist? Why not have a computer generate the film? Regarding the original argument: does he deserve an Oscar? Well, again, I didn't like the film, but (putting that to one side for a moment) I have to laugh when people assert that such awards are based solely on artistic merit. The fact is that an artist's personal life/views/politics *are* a part of the decision-making and I do think it is not right that people who do such horrible things (and seek only to save their own skins rather than make reparations) are not shunned by their peers. Marianne Hales Harding -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 09 Apr 2003 12:21:23 -0600 Of course, if we're going to ban Polanski, we also must ban Edgar Allan Poe for marrying his underaged cousin. Let's also get rid of all adulterous writers, including Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Lord Byron, Shelley (both of them--Mary and Percy), Shakespeare--way too many to name. Now, how about cleansing the Bible from its carnally minded characters--Judah and Reuben for sure--and for the deceivers, such as Jacob and Laban. See, the problem is, we are ALL sinners. Can we possibly create a scale of wickedness, a sort of reverse temple recommend interview? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't want to try. The truth is, good literature [and films] recognizes wickedness, and sometimes the artist knows it intimately. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 09 Apr 2003 15:06:35 -0700 > -----Original Message----- > At 04:04 AM 3/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > >Communication is a two-way system. > >The writer should be as clear as he/she possibly can and the reader > >should try to understand without taking offense as the first resort. > > Someone recently expressed the idea to me that communication is not the > message sent, but the message received. If the other person does not > receive the message you intended, you did not communicate. The > implication > is that the failure is yours, not the recipient's. > > This is an important concept for a writer to ponder. However, since we > cannot control other people's thoughts, responses, interpretations, or > imbedded opinions, I'm not convinced that we must take responsibility for > every such failure. As you said, we must be as clear as we can. > How can we > do better than that? > > barbara hume I have spent a lifetime in the study of communication and I, though I do agree with the reasoning that we should be as clear as possible and that message recipients should try to understand without taking offense, but this is the real world. I don't agree thatif a communicant does not receive the message intended that you did not communicate. In fact, most research and theory with which I am familiar identifies communication as an ongoing EXCHANGE of messages. If we "send" a message that is not understood by our recipient in the way that we wish, the fact is that we DID communicate but that the message was not the one we wished. In many cases, we will discover that when the return message arrives (The face gets slapped, people don't buy your book, someone slams a door etc.) There is almost always a return message, and another and another, etc. The task for someone who wishes to send a message is to examine the messages he/she has already received (and if you really are open you will realize that you _have_ received messages from your intended audience) and frame your message in a way that tried to utilize the audience paradigm in the framing, or at least shows an awareness of that paradigm. Of course the sender is not always responsible for a failure in message interpretation, nor is the receiver. It is a shared responsibility, but the when the sender fails to consider that audience, its beliefs, attitudes and experience, then the sender is "most" responsible in the misunderstanding that is to follow. When I was first married, I came home one day from the shoe store where I worked to find my new wife "ironing" a pair of my slacks. Men's trousers are pressed somewhat differently than most women's items. Kindly I offered to show my wife how to do the job. She, with a rather tense look, agreed and I showed her how to press the pants. Her first message: "I love you and am helping you." I didn't interpret the symbology well so I returned the message with "You are inferior to me because I know how to press men's slacks and you don't, but that's okay, I am willing to share my wisdom". What feedback did I receive? Would you like to know how many time my wife has pressed my pants in the ensuing forty five years of our marriage? To those who are a little slow, that was the last one. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 09 Apr 2003 13:26:28 -0600 I think it's time we just fess up. Okay, it's true. Marilyn Brown and I are the same person. I chose the Marilyn Brown name because it is racially neutral and so pretty. I chose Margaret Young because it seems timeless. The pictures I circulate of Margaret Young and Marilyn Brown are, in fact, fakes. I will not describe my/our real appearance, for fear of losing an audience. Put it this way: I am not who you think I am. Or should I say, we are not who you think we are. I should point out that I do not have a multiple personality order. I promise. No, she promises. Actually, that's Marilyn who's promising. Margaret rarely promises. Anyway, I am proud to be working on _Brigham City_ as well as the books about black pioneers. I must say, it's been a very busy year, what with the theater and the real estate business and the continued requests for _Earthkeepers_. But I don't regret this deception. Being Marilyn Brown AND Margaret Young has had some real rewards. I've enjoyed it. No, we've enjoyed it. Marilyn always enjoys everything. She thinks it's "neat." Margaret can be a downer. The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Dutcher Article Date: 09 Apr 2003 13:18:24 -0600 A quick response: I had lunch yesterday with my co-author, a black couple from Idaho Falls, Idaho, some Church Public Affairs folks, and John and Jean Groberg. (Obviously, there are literary/film ties all over the place here.) The black couple is originally from Louisiana, and their friends were horrified that they were moving to Idaho. Some said, "The Mormons will eat you alive." They were thrilled to return briefly to Louisiana to prove that they were still alive and had not been et. But there had been problems, and they have become very active in the NAACP in Idaho Falls (yes, there's a branch there.) This couple is Catholic, and heard of an Idaho Falls teacher who asked all the children in her class what religion they were (major faux pas). One child--non-LDS--went home afterwards and said to his mother, "I hope you're not mad at me, but I lied and said I was a Mormon so my friends wouldn't leave." Well, this sort of thing concerns me. The fact that we often treat our neighbors as projects concerns me. I think we do a tremendous disservice to ourselves in taking the victim role, assuming that everyone hates us without cause. Sadly, there is often a cause. Of course, the sort of bullying I just mentioned would happen only where Mormons are the predominant religion. The ways we are perceived by folks in the Bible Belt have different roots--and I sure wish we'd do a better job of dispelling the folklore that encourages the misperceptions. Would this man from Louisiana have been warned that the Mormons would eat him alive had he been white instead of black? The race card plays a huge part in the way we're perceived. But of course, you all knew I'd say that. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Condiment Story Date: 09 Apr 2003 19:31:32 -0700 Ed, I came across this post when I was looking through some old messages. I would love to read this story. Was one of the independent journals that rejected it Irreantum? If not, why not submit it? I was thinking about you on Conference Sunday, when they showed a documentary about the Boston and Nauvoo temples between sessions. I wondered if you've modified "The Mission Home" now that there really is a temple in St. Botolph's Town. Have you written more of the story? Hope things are well with you. Harlow On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:55:00 -0800 (PST) Ed Snow writes: > Speaking of which, I've also written a short story that has > absolutely no profanity, no nudity, and no sex but features > a little box of prophylactics that show up for some reason > reason on the shelves of the bishop's storehouse--a Relief > Society President discovers them and is puzzled, etc. > > The Mormons in the story figure out eventually it's some kind of > practical joke, although the Relief Society President at first > thought it might have been a pilot program just for her stake. > This episode is then followed by a churchwide bulletin that > prohibits the display of "condiments" in bishop's storehouses, > a bulletin that has people who never heard about the > storehouse episode scratching their heads trying to figure out why > that would be the case, but they dutifully reply anyway. > > A couple of independent Mormon journals have been interested in > publishing the story, but eventually they decided not to because > it has a condom in it, although no one actually uses the condom > in the story. > > Ed ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 09 Apr 2003 14:50:47 -0700 I very much enjoyed Kathy Tyner's comments on this topic which I railed about the other day (probably sickening many of you). Kathy obviously knows more about the case than I do and her insights and comparison with the case of Anne Perry is very interesting and insightful. I appreciate that she acknowledges Polanski's statement that it was a consensual event before dismissing that statement. She is right to dismiss his statement from her own moral ground; but she was also right to acknowledge the other side of the coin before pounding it into the dust! I also appreciated her pointing out the irony (of which I was not aware, or had forgotten) that even though the culture of the time was drug-and-sex-soaked, Polanski tried to distance he and his wife from that crowed in other statements, which obviously (in hindsight) were not true. Very thought-provoking comments, and well said. My life has been forever influenced by two WWII concentration camp survivors, Sonny Fox and Tad Danielewski. Neither were perfect men, but both took from their experiences such wisdom as they could and then worked tirelessly to share their hard-won insights with the generations following them. Neither of these men produced lasting works of art, but each of them, more especially Tad, spent their day to day lives trying to improve the lives of those around them. This brings me to contemplate the question of "by their fruits ye shall know them" which I think Richard talked about. I think we are probably not well served by taking a single, or even several, works of art created by a person and calling this "his fruits" and thereby judging his or her merit or lack thereof by them. I suspect that it is only by understanding the day-to-day life of that person can we evaluate his goodness, level of repentance, or value of "his fruits." Because to do otherwise might make us expound, even unconsciously, the false belief that you have to be good to create great works of art, which Mormons so desperately want to believe, but which history has shown us again and again, just isn't true. Can a wicked man (or at least a morally inconsistent man) create great art? Of course. And I can guarantee you that will not be the "fruit" by which he is judged of God. I think it was Thom Duncan who made the wonderful observations about bad Mormon artists being like Salieri, who couldn't figure out why he, the righteous one, couldn't write music as well as that sinner Mozart. This seems to be at the heart of this discussion. Wicked men, someone else pointed out, don't view themselves as wicked, per se. Any actor who has played a villain knows that; and any writer who has created a villain knows that. By looking at Polanski from HIS point of view (as I did in my other post) is instructive from the perspective of understanding humanity to better write about it, but it may not tell us anything about their art. By stripping away the veneer of Polanski's point of view, as Tyner did in her response, is also interesting, but does not say anything about the man's latest (and probably greatest?) film. A moral vagrant can create stirring art. A moral giant can be a very mediocre writer. You might be able to argue against the first statement, but we all know too many examples of the second for it to be anything other than truth! But, I maintain that a moral giant can, ultimately, be a better artist than an moral bankrupt, but only after living the laws which pertain to art, and then, after achieving mastery, asking for further light and knowledge. I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating, when we hear Mormon artists, a la Thom Duncan's Saliari, complaining about artists in the world who are accomplishing so much. Why are they so successful? they ask, when their lives are so immoral? There is a law decreed for every category of thing. If the laws of gardening are followed, a beautiful harvest is guaranteed. An adulterous gardener may have a terrible marriage, because of the adultery, but will have a beautiful garden, because all of the gardening laws have been followed. An immoral artist may be an excellent artist if they have done everything they can to be an excellent artist. They may lack a final burst of inspiration because the Spirit is not with them, but they have done all that they can for do their art, and they reap the rewards of that, if nothing else. The reverse of the axiom is just as important. So often Mormon artists feel that because they are good and moral people, their work should automatically be world class. Of course not! A maritally faithful gardener, who is not really a very good gardener, will have a very happy marriage and a very mediocre garden! So many wonderful people in the Church are only mediocre in their chosen art, because they have not, in fact, truly chosen to do all they can do for their art. This is something I've been thinking about in another essay not yet finished but which I'll probably submit shortly. So, Polanski is probably an amoral human being who does not think he is, and has no problem looking at himself in the mirror every morning based on complex justifications which I suggested in my earlier post. But none of that has any bearing on his filmmaking, because he is an excellent filmmaker. And just because he made a wonderful film, is not sufficient evidence of "fruit" of goodness to say that he must have repented of his sins. Any more than Mozart's music made him any more than a profane, simpering putz in person. But we cannot say we DON'T UNDERSTAND this false paradox. It is completely understandable. First, understand the artist's personal point of view (doesn't mean you have to agree with it) and then you will understand how they feel in their own skin. Then, understand all of the work they have done to gain the artistic insights and technical skills and proficiencies in their chosen craft. Then you'll understand how they accomplished their work. But the two conditions, personal life and professional work, may not inform each other nearly as much as people suspect. Someone on the list pointed out that Emily Dickenson lead an extremely cloistered life, and yet still wrote poetry of great depth. Others can have life-exploding experiences which promote in them no artistic expression at all. The two many not be connected. The struggle of a writer is extremely solitary. You cloister yourself up in a tiny room in a tiny town, no friends, no travel, no parties, no nothing! And yet, your mind soars, and you bring down out of the clouds your expressions on the page. I can go be atrocious to my fellow beings all day, and if my distorted, but effectively justified way of seeing myself and the world are such that I feel no guilt or am not deeply disturbed by my day's work, I can then go into my closet all night and write in a manner which is perhaps completely divorced from who I am in my dealings with my fellow man. All of this ties in with the concept of "fictional self-creation" that several of us have played with under the headings of "Epistolary Novel" and "Validity of Memory". If my sound-bite about "all writing is fiction" is true, even partly, the artist's creations can therefore be seen as quite separate from the real person. A real person who may be good, may be bad, but is creating on a different plane from that good or bad condition. A great artist will consistently create important works. A great person will consistently create joy and peace around themselves. They are SEPARATE conditions. Our goal should be to do both. But we should cease being surprised when neither condition particularly informs the other. History is too blatant in its evidences that they don't have to. Now, whether or not be choose to boycott the great art of a very deplorable person, or to continue to subject ourselves to the deplorable art of a very great person, is another question entirely. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 09 Apr 2003 21:40:41 -0600 > Alan Rex Mitchell asks: > > > Okay Jongiorgi, where will you draw the line? > > Just tell me where you draw the line. Mattress police. > > Answer: > > You CAN cut those tags off of the mattress... but if you get CAUGHT, you > will go to hell. > > > > Jongiorgi Sounds like the morality of children. Or is it the morality of lawyers? I mean, it's all about the money, right? Not the money the artist can make, but the money the lawyers can make. So I've decided to make a moral stand. I just cut the tags off the mattrasses. AND I have edited that great expressions of art *God's Army* by running the movie half way thru and splicing about two feet at random. AND I showed it to a friend last night and charged him one dollar. AND for fun I am drawing a moustache on a downloaded picture of the Mona Lisa (thanks Richard for the idea). I'm turning myself in to you good moral people of AML. Go ahead. Call the FBI. Getting arrested will probably cost me my job, but all moral stands take some sacrifice. Mattress police! Alan Giorgi Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 09 Apr 2003 22:30:33 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- >I've read P. J. O'Rourke, and I think he's a brilliant travel essayist, a very interesting social critic, an extremely funny popular entertainer, and a pretty boring dogmatist. Is there any other kind of dogmatist? Eric, you are a boring dogmatist, but wait, so am I. So it everybody. What is it with dogma that makes it boring? Thou shalt not steal, is a boring dogma. Thou shalt not sleep mischeviously, is a pretting boring dogma. That's the real problem with Mormon lit--it would be more exciting if we could just figure out how to make the commandments fun. I think we need get our collective brain together and find something fun. (Cutting mattress tags is fun.) Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] WEYLAND, _Home Cooking_ Performance Date: 10 Apr 2003 04:00:20 +0000 Jack Weyland's comic play "Home Cooking" is being produced at BYU-Idaho, April 10-12 and 15-19. It first appeared at BYU around 1980. I think the title at that time was "Home Cooking on the Wasatch Front". Harlow has mentioned seeing it. Below is an article from the BYU-Idaho paper about the production. http://www.byui.edu/scroll/20030408/arts5.html _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 06 Feb 2003 23:29:42 -0700 Just curious--does *anybody* read _Irreantum_? It's been fun and informative to hear what everyone has on their bedside tables, but I'm astounded that no one seems to be reading our own AML-sponsored magazine. Not even Harlow, who, apparently, is in the middle of virtually everything else in print right now. :-) What's up? Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Books Up for Review Date: 09 Apr 2003 21:27:02 -0700 Hi folks, Here is a long list of books up for review. If any of these titles interest you, please send an email to my personal address with a list of the books you are most interested in. If you're new to AML-List and the Review Program, please read the guidelines at < http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/guidelines.html>. Thanks!, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor ========================= >From Cedar Fort : Shannon Guymon, A Trusting Heart Shannon Guymon, Justifiable Means Douglas Alder, Sons of Bear Lake Rachel Ann Nunes, Twice in a Lifetime Laird Roberts, Swan Hunter Veda Hale, Ragged Circle >From American Book Publishing : Sammie Justesen, Common Threads >From DeseretBook : Jack Weyland, Cheyenne in New York Beverly Campbell, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden >From AmErica House : Elizabeth Petty Bentley, The Fly on the Rose >From Covenant : Anita Stansfield, The Silver Linings Chris Heimerdinger, Tower of Thunder Guy Morgan Galli, Lifted Up Jessica and Richard Draper, Seventh Seal Michele Ashman Bell, Pathway Home Betsy Brannon Green, Don't Close Your Eyes >From iUniverse : Jennifer Fowler and Carrie Wahl, Fair Days in Heaven's Gate -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 09 Apr 2003 23:51:02 -0600 On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 23:53:56 -0700, Kathy and Jerry Tyner wrote: >There is a YA Mormon novel that skirts the issue. >It's called "Molly Mormon" and I believe the author is Tamara Brown. > >In it at least two characters possibly suffer as the victim of date = rape. >With one of them it's not entirely clear. The book sets up a formulaic >scenario of a cute girl going out with a BMOC in a little Idaho town. >He keeps her out late, making out in cars, etc. gets her drunk one >night and she ends up pregnant. It seems to implicate she let down >her guard and gives in. But I don't remember it being too clear on it. >I do remember the family doesn't hold him accountable and just lets >it go, sends her off to have the baby and adopt it out. This isn't exactly how it goes. The girl (the main character's cousin = and friend) starts dating someone who is a little older and more "worldly" = than she is. The main character observes as her cousin gets more and more involved with the guy--of her own free will--and dithers about whether or not she should step in, but every time she tries to say something her = cousin just blows her off. Ultimately, the cousin does become pregnant, and = it's clear that the boy involved has a history of doing this, but it's not = nearly so sinister as him simply corrupting a pure innocent girl--she made the decision to be with him over a period of several weeks, even if the book does play it up in the creepy fashion where you just KNOW the girl is = going to be sorry. (I don't remember why they didn't press charges against the boy, but I do know they had a reason for it. The fact that they sent the girl away to have her baby struck me as a little archaic. Like this is going to keep the other kids from finding out? Please.) =20 Because this is a secondary plotline, the emphasis is on how the = protagonist reacts rather than on the specific details of what happens to the girl, = the baby, and the father. It *is* one of the places where the formula kicks in--look, Molly, aren't you glad YOU didn't stray?--but I see it as an inherent flaw in the kind of story Norton's telling here, the problem of defending Mormon sexual values against a world that seems to have none, rather than a weakness in not taking a stronger stance against rape. = That would have meant making the secondary character the main character, and changing the story completely. >That's what drove me nuts about the book. It fit a formula of >cultural mores that gets portrayed in Mormon fiction, over and over >and over again. It could've been much more, so much more. I agree with you to a point. But so what if the book could have been = more? That's not the story the author chose to tell. Her story is about the = girl who stayed true to her values despite immense pressure to do = otherwise--not her cousin, not date rape, not the social implications of the sexual = double standard. I think it's unfair to expect more from a book than it = promises to deliver. _Molly Mormon_ isn't delicately handled and the conclusions = are extremely obvious, but it addresses a single issue and then follows it through to the end. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Reading and Listening (was: Books on Tape) Date: 10 Apr 2003 10:59:59 -0600 ___ Barbara ___ | She mentioned a book she had to perform with a sentence | like "They razed the old building and the raised a new | one." Had the author read it out loud, she would have | made it better, she reasoned. ___ Actually one of the things that makes reading so enjoyable is the power of *words*. Sometimes what makes a great book great isn't just what is communicated but how it is communicated. And I have to admit that I *love* word play like razed/raised. Perhaps it is something that would be confusing in something quickly read. Yet that very kind of word play is done extensively in Genesis 2, for instance. (Red, Adam, man are all examples very similar to raised/razed in Hebrew) Yet the Hebrew was probably only read aloud and not "read" from the text by most people. Yet even in English with a tradition of *reading* from a text and often re-reading paragraphs there is often a very enjoyable feel to a "dense" text. Likewise the few times I've picked up some mainstream text the way the story is told often annoys me. It is too straightforward. Too repetitive of "He said..." "He said..." Mainstream literature sometimes has clumsier style (and often even less style) than an old school Harlequin romance novel. While it is true that reading aloud a book can catch some errors, I think we must admit that a book written to be read silently is very different from a book written to be read aloud. You can't compare the too, with all apologies to the book on tape program. Try reading Shakespeare the way you do a regular novel. It can't be done. I personally *can't* just sit down and read Shakespeare. I may be able to study passages. But I can't read a play. Never have been able to. I have to hear it performed. It just has a very different life when read the way I read a book. Same with poems. Some poems actually work better read the way I read a book. Others definitely lose their form when read silently. Some I can catch the power of, but simply don't have the verbal skill to read it and catch that power. And how they are read can dramatically affect the text. For instance there is a popular MP3 going around the P2P with Christopher Walken reading Poe's "The Raven." I'd never heard it read that way and *boy* does it change it. I guess I'm not sure what I'm really arguing for, except that perhaps different styles are all apt and not all will work for books on tape. While looking for the "sound" or the "feel" of a text is perhaps not bad, recognize that different *ways* of reading are possible. Just as a book doesn't have one meaning for all people, even so any text doesn't have one "verbal" feel for all people. Further, lets not throw out verbal play - especially ones sometimes only apparent on the page - in a desire for sounding good on a book on tape. They are different mediums and I fear for literature that caters to a "lowest common denominator." Viva la difference. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:05:36 -0600 > Why did he do it? Who knows all the reasons, but it is certainly another > classic example of class warfare, in my opinion. It was the > self-proclaimed prophet to the poor and homeless kidnapping the daughter > of the rich businessman. > If you investigate the reasons behind the World Trade Center bombing, you > will find an anti-American, anti-business element in both terrorists, > Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Then, too, maybe that is why Saddam > doesn't like the cowboy capitalist George W. Bush. Second excerpt first: As both Atta and bin Laden are/were the well-educated scions of (very upper in bin Laden's case) middle class families, and "poor and uneducated" are adjectives I've never seen used to describe any environmentalist, and Hussein was recently ranked as one of the world's wealthiest political leaders (over a billion dollars squirreled away from black market operations), I don't see any logical connection between them and Brian David Mitchell. There seems to be far more fuel for Freud here (children rebelling against the paternal rule of their families, and etc.) than Marx. Was the letter writer perhaps waxing ironic or satiric? First excerpt second (and this is a tangent): The "self-proclaimed prophet to the poor and homeless kidnapping the daughter of the rich businessman" was the theme of a (still) great movie made fifty years ago, Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low" (with the equally great Toshiro Mifune in the lead). Ron Howard sort of reprised a similar plot more recently with "Ransom." [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 10 Apr 2003 12:01:30 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | Take Shakespeare's Henry V big pre-battle speech. A | conservative analysis would be interested in the calls | to honor and brotherhood and might explore the | insinuation of fame and obliquely implied shame. ___ The problem is that if ever there was a text open to post-modern analysis it is Shakespeare. After all we are talking of texts that, even before the rise of postmodernism, were used for contradictory purposes. _Henry V_ has been performed as a strong anti-war play as well as a play rallying the troops. The mere fact that strong liberal and conservative readings are open from the play demands an explanation for how this is possible. And of course a lot of this reduces to the fact in Shakespeare all we have are words. (With apologies to Tom Stoppard - for those of you who saw his play that dealt with these very issues in Shakespeare) The problem is that both liberals and conservatives want to limit the text but don't seem to realize that in doing so they are bringing "to the text." Their readings are self-fulfilling, but as Biblical "proof-texting." And of course the nature of proof-texting gets us right back to the "literary critic as lawyer" analogy. After all law is, in many ways, little more than a proof-texting approach to truth and justice. ___ Jacob ___ | i.e. preempt the post-modernist deconstruction of those | themes by examining how the themes persist even if they are | flawed in their various applications. ___ I guess I'm confused at how you think this is not post-modernist. A post-modernist of the mold we're discusses is intrinsically interested in how repressed themes persist in what is promoted. So if we criticize a theme due to some "contradiction" due to flaws, it is very post-modern to show how the theme undermines this very undermining. Derrida has, in fact, written several texts along those lines. ___ Jacob ___ | "Natural law" has all the weaknesses of capital 'T' Truth and | none of the ameliorating strengths. ___ Natural law though has the obvious parallel to law of nature - i.e. physics. And, in a real sense, the various forms of structuralism are an attempt to find this natural law as it applies to language acts in general. Thus the kind of semiotics done by Saussure. The analysis of the structures of human discourse and thinking as attempted by Freud. Even grammar, especially Chomsky's generative grammar, is the attempt to find a natural law within our texts. To deny natural law of some sort in our texts seems to be to deny the very structures that make humanity possible, to deny the nature of a brain and of thought in general. One can't help when reading studies on the borders of philosophy, linguistics, and neurology that there are innate structures. I suspect many here have read Steven Pinker's excellent books _The Language Instict_, _The Blank Slate_, or _How the Mind Works_. Even if one doesn't buy all his philosophy (and I don't) he makes a strong compelling argument for some aspects of a "natural law" as it relates to text. And, getting back to post-modernism, I don't think they deny this. Indeed, were I to quote a text on this it would be that the postmodernists would say, "think not that [we] have come to destroy the law, or the [classics]: [we have] not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17) Truth can not and should not be somehow eliminated from discourse. And if anyone is interested in truth it is postmodernists. However what they find is that truth is a far more complex thing than some think (or wish). The analogy to Christ's having the law written on the hearts rather than on the word of law is apt. To continue the parallel I make here, allow me one final scriptural quote applied to textuality instead of religion. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: So is everyone that is born of the Sprit. (John 3:8) I like the notion of natural law. But not a natural law that can be seen as the same as its representation. The natural law is not the text - any text. Rather it is what is behind the text, what enables the text to speak. To adopt an old archaic view of language, language is parasitic on speaking. Speaking must be done to breath life into a text. And as this breath, this voice, it is *how* a text can speak. But as a text speaks *we* are not speaking. Rather it is this spirit in the text that gives it breath, gives its voice. But we do not know, can not limit, can not anticipate how this text will speak to us. It is this spirit, this natural law, that enlivens the text. And lest some think this analogy just an analogy, let me assure you that a history of the notion of natural law will show that this *is* the historic meaning behind natural law. Further to speak of natural law, even in a literary or political sense, necessitates that we engage these religious texts which form the historical "origin" which gives us our notions of law. To say that natural law has all the weakness of Truth but none of the strengths is to miss the very role that natural law plays in truth. Both of logistic necessity but also within the historic genealogy of our western notions of truth, text, and law. (And lest we forget, hermeneutics as a formalized approach to reading texts arises out of the Protestant attempt to find the voice of God, the hidden ultimate word of God, within the Bible) ___ Jacob ___ | In other words, I want to skip the knotty question of | the "origin" of universal traits and move instead into | how those universals help us, tie us together, and are | expressed. ___ How can we discuss the "how" of universals without simultaneously discussing the "what" of universals? Is such a divorce between substance and function really possible? And how can we even speak of universals without first having some criteria determining what is or isn't a universal. Wouldn't any such criteria simultaneously bring with it a discussion of what universals are? ___ Jacob ___ | People have had a ball deconstructing Shakespeare, it's time | to put him back together again--explore how he *still* | resonates so strongly and "universally". ___ That seems to assume that *how* he resonates *universally* is somehow unrelated to Deconstruction. That does not seem at all obvious to me for the reasons sketched out above. Indeed from a religious point of view it seems impossible to discuss any universal without discussing very significant aspects of Mormon doctrine. And it is within that discussion that we intrinsically discuss the "Light of Truth." Intrinsically the discussion Joseph started with D&C 93 which is the heart of postmodernism comes into play. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds (was: DDT) Date: 10 Apr 2003 16:44:59 EDT In a message dated 4/10/03 1:28:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time, iaw2@email.byu.edu writes: > But I was thinking of the aml-list and began to wonder > - do any of us change our opinions that often due to the discussion here - > or at > the least, truly respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This > is > not rhetorical, I really want to know. > Yes. I now completely disagree with myself that there should be no censorship on the AML list. As a result of the conversation, I now understand that there are some who value the safe environment that Jonathan struggles to provide, and I would not want to take that away from them. I'll relish and engage in unrestrained conversation elsewhere. Another positive outcome of the discussion on censorship: I was finally able to sneak in my previously-censored naughty joke about Jongiorgi's sister and me (as an example of what had been censored). Ha! Victory! Fight the man! Richard Dutcher "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." - Abbie Hoffman -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 10 Apr 2003 15:02:46 -0600 Ivan Wolfe asked: " But I was thinking of the aml-list and began to wonder do any of us change our opinions that often due to the discussion here - or at the least, truly respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This is not rhetorical, I really want to know." Absolutely. Maybe I'm just wishy-washy and easily swayed, but I have changed my mind (or at least modified my stance) on a number of issues as a direct result of the discussion here on the AML-list. One recent example: when I was a little kid I had a pretty traumatic experience that profoundly influenced my opinion of rock music. To me, rock was the music of the dark side. This attitude was starting to create some real tension between me and my 13-year-old Styx/Boston/Chicago-loving son. The "Choose the Rock" thread opened my mind to the idea that maybe, just maybe, rock wasn't inherently "evil" and that perhaps I could loosen up a bit on what I allowed my son to listen to. Did wonders for our relationship! That's just one example. The list has opened my mind to new possibilities with regard to such diverse things as gender relationships, patriotism, fantasy novels, postmodernism, and skinny dipping. Heck, D. Michael even made me question the whole Santa Claus thing for a minute or two! :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 08 Apr 2003 17:13:56 -0600 Eugene Woodbury wrote: > I raise the following objection to the proposition that > extraordinary sin or sinning is a prerequisite for "great" > art Again I reiterate, I never said sin is required for great art. I said suffering is required for great art. Suffering can come from more than one source. (Technically, I never said any specific thing is required for great art. I _wondered_ if suffering was necessary, and made a tentative decision that suffering is necessary for "great" (as opposed to good, competent) art. But I don't make an absolute assertion (yet) that I'm write. Suffering can come from your own sins, it can come from the sins of others who victimize you, it can come from the sins of others whose well-being you care about, whether you're personally victimized by the sin or not, it can come from acts which are caused by carelessness or ignorance but not sinful intent, or it can come from events that have nothing to do with human choices (e.g., F5 tornadoes). I also explicitly stated that if the suffering comes from the artist's own sins, then he is just as culpable for them as anyone else. He will suffer the consequences (obviously--he's a suffering artist) and he will be damned for them unless he repents. But that doesn't change the fact that his suffering may help him create great art. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 10 Apr 2003 00:18:54 -0700 [Note: I'm combining two messages here to save bandwidth] I was thinking about this thread this afternoon, riding my bike to the bus stop and I want to pose a question. Suppose a friend of yours, someone you grew up in the same ward with, wrote a screenplay (and a stage play of the same story)and sent it to a studio, and instead of paying him for it they hired a big-name playwright, say Tom Stoppard, to rewrite it, and the movie came out to great critical acclaim, would the fact that the studio stole it from your friend affect your estimation of the movie's moral worth? Would the studio's theft taint the movie badly enough that you refused to watch it? I heard an interview with Tim Slover one day on KUSU (FM 88.6?), and toward the end the conversation moved to _A March Tale_, so of course Lee Austin asked Tim about Shaxbeard in Luv, and Tim said, "Yes. I understand there is a movie called Shaxbeard in Luv." Austin asked him another question or two and got the same answer, then Tim said, "I'm not being coy. I've been advised by a lawyer that when you are considering suing a studio you should not see the movie, because the studio might turn around and claim that you got the idea for your play from their movie." So until the studio makes it right with Tim I'm not going to support their film. I'd like to hear what other list members feel about how the circumstances of production affect their viewing choices. I don't expect very many people would make the choice I have, but I am interested in the circumstances of production. Suppose there was a film made with all the artistry of The Piano, but it just happened to be a snuff film. Would the artistic value outweigh the immorality of the way it was produced? Maybe that's an extreme example. When _Spy Kids II_ came out I heard an interview with Robert Rodriguez on Fresh Air and he said he made the Spy Kids movies because he kept hearing from fathers who were taking their 10 year olds to see his R-Rated adventure movies, and he thought children deserved their own well-made, exciting adventure movies. Anyway somewhere on the _Spy Kids II_ dvd he says (unless it's Blair Treu saying it in the director's commentary for _Little Secrets_, or someone saying it on the _Tuck Everlasting_ dvd--oy!) that he thinks its ironic that we ask children to do things (like kissing someone else for a makeout scene) in a movie that we wouldn't want them to do in real life. He's not talking about portraying characters, but about actions--things like semi-nude scenes or love scenes or kissing scenes. (I was watching CSI Las Vegas (or whatever it's called) the other night, and the plot centered around a kiddie porn photo--it was kind of a profile shot, and I'm sure they used a double, but it bothers me that in a film about sexual exploitation of children the film makers felt they had to show us the photograph in question, since if they really took a picture of the actress taking that photo meant that a young girl had to pose nude.) And as a transition to the second piece, about Dianna Graham's question about R-rated movies, anyone catch the George Lopez show the other night? His young teens are going out to a movie and George says, "No R-rated movies." On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:49:38 Dianna Graham writes: > So, here I am on my soapbox, and I ask you. Is the World's > Film Library really so small that nothing else out there could > teach us, move us, change us just as much without > assaulting us at the same time? A most provocative question, and it deserves a thoughtful answer (and if I were being my usually smart aleck self I'd add, "but you just get my answer"). I was browsing UVSC library one day and found Louis Owens' novel _The Sharpest Sight_, and my eyes were drawn to the beginning of chapter 3 "Attis McCurtin knew he was dead." It is a beautiful novel, and I was especially touched by the scene where Attis's father creates a sweat lodge for a young woman who's just been raped, who he has good reason to believe is involved in Attis's murder. The sequel, _Bone Game_, is one of my favorite novels. If both were movies they would likely be rated R for language and theme and violence. And I believe the Lord guided me to read them. One of my interests as a literary scholar is the way people and cultures misinterpret myth and ritual as a license for violence. (It's the problem Kierkegaard is looking at in _Fear and Trembling_ when he has De Silentio say that the thing that can keep a thoughtful man awake at night is that the name we would normally give to the action Abraham is willing to perform upon Isaac is murder.) Rene Girard, speaking at BYU around 1983 said, "The Bible is Not a Myth" (It was published a year or two later in Literature and Belief), because a myth is a story people create to disguise and justify their mistreatment of some person. (Consider Wounded Foot, why should he be blinded and exiled? He saved Thebes, but for some reason that displeased the Thebans so they made up a myth to justify their persecution of him, and Girard says if you take just the basic elements of the story and transport them to 16th(?) century France you have the story of the persecution of Jews, who were the best doctors, and therefore the best saviors from the plague, but were also blamed for bringing the plague upon France.) _Bone Game_ is a profound exploration of the idea that people who have a lust to exercise power over other people often devise rituals to hide their evil from themselves so they can claim what they are doing is holy. And like _The Sharpest Sight_ it's also a really fine example of magical realism, or spiritual realism. I don't think I could have got this exploration someplace else, so I don't see the novel's violence and language as an assault, and I believe that a merciful God who knows me, and knows what I'm interested in, what I'm trying to learn, led me to these two books. Oh, wait, Dianna's question was about film. Well, having seen _Raising Arizona_ and _O Brother Where Art Thou_, it seems the Coen Brothers may have something to teach me, and when I saw _Fargo_ on clearance at Shopko for $1.49 I bought it. And it's on my current reading shelf, and some night when the house is quiet and everyone else is asleep I'm going to slip it into the vcr and watch it. And be so thankful again that there's not a rating system for books. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy and Jerry Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 09 Apr 2003 23:53:56 -0700 Jonathan, You are indeed correct about youth being taught that in just about the exact language that you used. I know, I was one of them. And, for me, the decision at that time to fight any assailant I might be faced with came not so much from worrying how I would be treated afterwards, but more of a fear of dealing with the emotional consequences and self-loathing I sure such a thing would produce. Because paradoxically, in some cases the victim, though having done nothing wrong, feels filthy. Not only has their body been violated, their mind, even their whole soul has been violated and the repercussions are just horrific, especially when not dealt with well and quickly. Here is where the culture of the Church can be destructive without knowing it. I'm sure a victim would be offered counseling and probably have it paid by the Church if they weren't able to. But, there is often a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle expectation that one should be able to forgive and get past all this in a relatively short time. And if you don't, then you need to straighten up, work harder, pray, read the scpitures and forgive, right now! I believe such things are necessary, especially the forgiveness part, which is probably more for the one who forgives than the one who may or may not ever repent. But, I believe it is a process, like grieving, that cannot be rushed and works at a different pace for everyone. Now, I have seen a wise assumption with most everyone I've heard of connected with the Smart case, that they know it will take years for Elizabeth to sort all this out. The fact that there is a loving support system of family, friends, church and community is a godsend. I wish it were that way all the time, people would understand what heading towards being a Zion people might feel like. In thinking about that old admonition about perhaps dying was better than losing one's virtue, it occurred to me that there isn't a person I know of, especially her family, that isn't glad Elizabeth made it back home alive. Do I also think there are some miracles connected with this case? Especially a nine year old being able to remember a person she met only once, then seen in the darkness? Definitely. Was there great faith and prayers exercised? Yes. Especially on the part of the Smart family. Do I have an explanation for those kids who don't make it home safe, despite faith and prayers? No, I don't. Maybe the nature of the perpetrator can explain each particular case. Do I think the SLC Police had some major screw-ups with the case? Um, yeah. My late police sgt father would've told them to get their "Investigations 101" handbook out and have a look. 'Nuff said. I think the Smarts were wise to give a cover story interview to People magazine. They needed to get out the facts and be honest about what happened, it will help others, I've no doubt. And since I've already seen Elizabeth and her captors on the front of a few tabloids, they acted none too soon on the story. I was worried at first when the Smarts did not want sexual charges brought against the suspects and I thought it was going to head in a typically Mormon direction-Treat what happened with such delicacy and secrecy that it winds up looking like something icky and shameful and squeamish. Yes, the crime was all that, but trying to sweep it under a rug wasn't going help the matter, especially the healing for the girl. I think not pushing her for information a very good choice, and I'm proud of the Smarts for handling it that way. Can this be handled in our literature? Yes, I think with the right authors, it can and will be. And what about other media like film. Hmm, a little tougher. If "The Elizabeth Smart Story" is ever filmed, would it be one with a rating that most Mormons would shy away from. Hmmm, interesting question. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: Wanting to Be Jews Date: 10 Apr 2003 00:14:38 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- > Carrie Pruett wrote: > > > > I just workshopped a short story for a graduate level writing class that > had > > the terms "Relief Society," "home teachers," "Primary program," etc and a > > few references to temple garments. as a high school student. > > I also just workshopped a short story that contained Mormon elements in my > graduate program, and my experience was a little different. I live in > Minnesota, where Mormons are relatively rare, and even though I've lived > here five years now I'm still amazed at the lack of understanding about what > Mormons are like among educated and aware people. >Angie Hallstrom I can relate to this lack of information about Mormons. I'm lucky that here at Eastern Washington University there are four Mormon grad students: three poets, and a literary nonfiction student, moi. Recently, some other religious minded students decided to organize a reading/writing group through their church. They sent out flyers requesting those nondenominational writers wishing to discuss their work within the body of Christ could come and read their own work within this context. I called the sponsoring grad student, and was told that Mormons were not allowed to read their work because they were not "orthodox Christian." I attended two of their monthly meetings anyway and had a good time. I skipped the last meeting because I was trying to send them a message, hoping they would somehow miss me, or something. I have asked to read at the next meeting, but have not heard back. The frustrating thing: I don't know exactly why this Presbyterian friend of mine won't let me read. I know that their church is sponsoring this group, Genesis, and that for whatever reason, they don't want me to read, that they're afraid that those congregation members that are attending will think the Presbyterian church is endorsing, in some way not understood by me, Mormons.... I'm this close to going and visiting with their pastor and laying some things out. Yes, we believe differently in the godhead than they do--but so what!! I am willing to meet with other Christians--and yes, I consider myself Christian, though they do not--despite our religious differences. I don't get it, and my friend won't open up to me. I sense that he has heard some nasty things about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Angry, Travis Manning Spokane, Washington -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 10 Apr 2003 06:42:47 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >The point has been made by several people that it isn't a >teaching of the Church that victims of rape have committed any >sin. That's true--but when I think back to my own youth, I >seem to recall language used by Pres. Kimball, among others, >talking about resisting rape, who said that "It's better to >die than to lose your virtue." It's not a specific teaching, but you are right, those messages were given to youth in the church in the 60's and 70's. The source of these teachings was primarily from Kimball's book, _The Miracle of Forgiveness_. >As I say, I don't think this is at all the message the Church >is sending now, and I think that earlier Church leaders who >did use this language would be horrified to think that it >might have contributed to youth or others feeling that they >had sinned when in fact they were the victims of sin. It WAS construed as that, and it caused many of my fellow church members much angst as we considered its implications. Nevertheless, such teachings were similar to cultural "teachings" of that time (for instance, that women who dressed immodestly were responsible for their own rape.) Even our prophets get caught up occasionally mingling the scriptures with the teachings of men. This is why I think it is wrong to think we know everything about an issue by just reading one authority's writings. I remember one summer at BYU getting two distinct messages from two visiting apostles: one telling us to NOT study on Sunday and the other one telling us it was OKAY to study on Sunday. As readers and listeners of others' words, we should be careful, first of all, that we understand what is actually being said, and that we not base or understanding of what is being said on one authority only. Second, as writers, we need to be aware that, despite us trying our darndest to be clear, others will misread what we right and think we mean something entirely different than what we really mean to say. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Apr 2003 07:49:57 -0600 I remembered another book--_The Girls Next Door_, by Cheri Crane. This is a YA novel that follows six female roommates at BYU-Idaho. I seem to remember that at least one of them had been raped earlier in life, though this doesn't come out until later. But several of the girls come to school with emotional baggage to work through, and this is one of the issues. It isn't explored very much, though. The girls finally confront their pasts and visit a therapist, and everything's okay. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: [AML] International Mormon Lit? Date: 10 Apr 2003 10:36:26 -0400 Three recent threads on this post are trying to make a connection in my mind: 1) John Williams' question about the availability of works by "liberal" Mormon authors to international communities; 2) the recurrent question of why the literature produced by Mormons and that produced by Jews (or, depending on the post, Catholics) is so disparate in quantity or breadth of intercultural acclaim/recognition (despite whatever "similarities" seem to exist between the cultures); and 3) the personal reading lists that have been shared. I think that many of the explanations offered in response to the first two questions were really convincing. And I have very much enjoyed the reading lists--the sheer number of books I haven't read (or even heard of) is humbling and inspiring. Oddly enough, though, I only remember seeing one or two books by non-American (read: non-US or Canadian) authors. I'm probably oversensitive to this, and probably making too much of it, but I wonder if the absence of works by authors from other cultures is one reason that Mormon literature is not as broadly accepted (or, I would argue, as rich or cross-culturally appealing) as, say, Jewish or Catholic literatures. I'm not saying that diversity for diversity's sake is what makes the difference (in fact, I think it makes no difference at all). (I also suspect that we are reading more stuff from outside our own north American cultural sphere than made it onto our lists--the frequent mention of Asian religion and philosophy, for example, would suggest this.) It seems, though, that Mormon literature is still largely a north American (minus Mexico) phenomenon. I don't know--are there writers outside the US and Canada doing "Mormon" literature? And does the absence of works from other cultures on our own collective reading list indicate that we are still too inwardly focused (maybe even too narcissistic) as a culture to be palatable to (not to mention worth the time of) those outside our world view? Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Temple in Literature (was: _Kadosh_) Date: 09 Apr 2003 17:27:08 -0600 [MOD: I have to clarify with a bit of prior clarification of AML-List rules here. First, different people have a different degree of tolerance for what level of discussion of the temple is appropriate. Second, this is a public forum, with a mixed audience. Third, exceeding the bounds of what some people may be comfortable with in terms of discussion of what happens in the temple goes beyond simple disagreement, but could destroy the value of the conversation entirely for those people. And so the rule that Ben Parkinson devised, and which I have tried to uphold, is a very conservative one indeed in terms of what we will actually talk about on this list that takes place inside the temple. Nothing Michael says here passes beyond that boundary. However, any specific language or other types of details will be out of bounds for this discussion. Similarly, I tend also not to allow much in the way of veiled/coded references, because we *are* a mixed group. It seems impolite to me to have things being tossed around that only part of the audience will understand, and about which their questions can't be answered. So without wishing in any way either to presribe an answer to the questions Michael asks, or to cut off any kind of discussion, I hope everyone will understand the kinds of boundaries that I am imposing, in accordance with AML-List precedent and rules, for conducting that discussion. If that makes sense.] Eugene Woodbury wrote: > Other than the Masons (who do not classify themselves as a religion), > I can't readily come up with another religion that has so similarly > closed itself off. > If art is ultimately about explaining who we are, what makes us tick, > what gives us reason to get out of bed every morning, then will not > the artistic stride of a community always be hamstrung when those > explanations give way to too many ellipses? This can refer to the criticism some Mormons have had for Dutcher's films showing LDS ordinances. But it most clearly applies to our attitude toward the temple. Some Mormons think _any_ statement about the internals of the temple is sacreligious and breaking covenants. This ultra-conservative approach to reverencing the temple _will_ hamstring our literature, as Eugene has described. Such a vital aspect of our religion and our lives forever banned from our literature? That's paramount to making LDS literature a lie, in the same sense as pretending sex doesn't exist is a lie about the human condition. There are certain things we covenant not to reveal in the temple. There is a certain reverence we should give the temple ordinances generally, causing us to reflect on what we say or write about them. But to deny any mention of them? Or any scene within the temple walls? That doesn't even make theological sense. The church officially lets the world march through every one of our temples by the thousands to see what they're like, describing the ordinances that go one inside and explaining their meaning as they go. Once the temples are dedicated, the various visitors centers take over that function, showing photographs of the interiors and describing the ordinances. But I as an author can't do any of that? If I were to do a standup routine of temple ordinance jokes, now there's something to question (maybe that's the approach _Singles Ward_ should have taken, then Cammie's reaction would have been reasonable). But to honestly and respectfully include scenes within the temple (the same way I advocate including sex within our stories) cannot with any reasonable logic be construed as sacreligious, and will make our literature honest and complete. Chris Bigelow wrote a story once with a climax that happens in an endowment session. I thought the scene was well-done and effective, and never once thought of the "inappropriateness" of the scene until after I finished reading, and then only in the context of wondering how many members (who were not me) would be offended by it. There was nothing in that scene that violated any covenants of secrecy or treated the temple or anything happening inside disrespectfully. I still remember that scene and the feelings it gave me. I would hate to see such a scene banned from our literature. I included a scene in my own book in the temple. It was from the perspective of someone who did not really believe and who was experiencing the temple for the first time. I included precious little detail about the temple itself, but primarily the emotional reactions of the character to what she experienced. Some of her reactions were not positive, but those were the character's reactions, not mine. They didn't reflect on the sacredness of the temple--they reflected on the mindset of the character. I've just started working on another book that opens with a scene in the temple. There's some detail about the interior of the temple, but nothing you can't learn in a visitors center. An ordinance is performed, but not a word of the ordinance appears in my book. It's an effective (I hope) and necessary scene, is completely respectful toward the temple and its ordinances--yet I know there will be Mormons who will condemn me for including the scene. But why? I didn't reveal anything in the scene different from what a Temple Square tour would mention. The fact that the only two LDS novels I've worked on to date both include temple scenes as vital parts of the story only demonstrates how integral the temple is to our lives. (It's not like I'm on some crusade to force those scenes into everything I write.) I would hate to be hamstringed from including such scenes. I would feel like there was a gaping hole in my novels if they were absent. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:35:21 -0600 Okay, I have to respond to Dianna Graham here, but maybe in a little = different way. >With all of the >films in the world, many of which are not R-rated, is it so completely >necessary that we see every new film on a serious, thought provoking = >subject >even if it is rated R, because, hey, it's worth it and we'll have been >better off for having seen it? Today is my birthday. And as always with birthdays, it has caused no = small amount of soul searching. And the following calculus: I read, on average, five books a week. Assuming that I'm able to keep = reading five books a week for the rest of my life, and assuming ye old = Biblical life span of threescore and ten, I will be able to read 5980 = books the rest of my life. That's it. A little under 6K. =20 I watch, on average, about four movies a week. Making the same actuarial = assumptions, I should be able to see about 4784 movies the rest of my = life. =20 That's it. Under 5K. And the thing is, I know myself. I won't read 5980 works of genius and = insight. I'm gonna read some crap. I'm gonna re-read, at some point, all = that John D. McDonald and Carl Hiassen and Donald E Westlake stuff that I = grew up loving. Or worse. I'm gonna see some lousy movies, too, some = horrid J Lo romantic comedies and Vin Diesel action films and that 2026 = James Bond flick starring Pierce Brosnan's grandson. And B movies, too, = which I loved as a teen, and still enjoy more than is good for me. Of the = 3588 stage plays I'm likely to see, there will surely be some goodly piles = of doodoo in there too, like that maniac director who treated Barefoot in = the Park like a tragedy, or that roaringly funny student directed King = Lear. =20 The whole thing depresses me no end. So I guess what I'm saying, I've got = maybe 14,352 experiences left with the three art forms I've spent my life = loving, so I'd better see and read and watch the very best. Allasudden = irrelevancies like what the MPAA rated it or how many cuss words are in it = seem even less valuable than ever. I have to pick and choose carefully. = I can't see everything. I have to see the very best I can find. So, in = answer to my dear friend Dianna, I have to say, I need to see the good = stuff. The rating just can't matter anymore. It never did, much.=20 And tonight, my wife wants to go see Two Weeks Notice. It's my one night = free from rehearsals, and she wants to celebrate my birthday, but we're = broke, and it's the only film at the cheap theatre that we either haven't = seen or can imagine stomaching. Crap. Only 4783 to go. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:56:03 -0800 Reading the exchange between Laird Jim and Eric Samuelsen made me think of the conclusion Socrates comes to in the Phaedrus dialogue. Though it is certainly a piece of "classical" literary criticism, I think both the Laird and Eric will find something of worth in it. Especially the last paragraph. "If ... anyone ever did or ever does write - privately or for the public, in the course of proposing some law - a political document which he belives to embody clear knowledge of lasting importance, then this writer deserve reproach, whether anyone says so or not. For to be unaware of the difference between a dream-image and the reality of what is just and unjust, good and bad, must truly be grounds for reproach." "On the other hand, take a man who thinks that a written discourse on any subject can only be a great amusement, that no discourse worth serious attention has ever been written in verse or prose, and that those that are recited in public without questioning and explanation, in the manner of rhapsodes, are given only in order to produce conviction. He believes that at their very best these can only serve as reminders to those who already know. And he also thinks that only what is said for the sake of understanding and learning, what is truly written in the soul concerning what is just, noble, and good, can be clear, perfect, and worth serious attention. ... Such a man, Phaedrus, would be just what you and I both pray to become." "To Lysaia [and the Laird Jim and Eric Samuelsen] and anyone else who composes speeches, as well as to Homer and anyone else who has composed poetry either spoken or sung, and thrid, to Solon and anyone else who writes political documents that he calls laws, If any one of you has composed these things with a knowledge of the truth, if you can defend your writing when you are challenged, and if you can yourself make the argument that your writing is of little worth, then you must be called ... wisdom's lover. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Aitken, Neil" Subject: [AML] Red Riding Hood / Jin-Roh (was Politics and Literature) Date: 10 Apr 2003 14:13:33 -0700 I would recommend watching "Jin-Roh" for another take on the traditional "Little Red Riding Hood." Yes it's Japanese anime, but it's also a very serious psychological drama which stands on its own feet. It takes the Red Riding Hood story and transplants it into an alternative version of Japan where the Nazis won World War II. Against the backdrop of warring factions of police, military, and student terrorists, the movie explores the personal crisis of a paramilitary commando who agonizes over the death of a young girl who is a part of a terrorist sect. A few different reviews / summaries to give you a better sense of the movie. http://www.teamanime2k.org/gallery/jinroh/ http://www.theblackmoon.com/Watching/jinro.htm http://us.imdb.com/Title?0193253 Given our own current political context, the internal struggle of the protagonist feels especially meaningful. The art is truly breathtaking (and completely hand-drawn). The story is gripping and intelligent. The script was written by Mamoru Oshii who also directed of Ghost in the Shell (another great anime drama). I found myself stuck on its images and thinking about its difficult moments for weeks afterward. Not recommended for kids (violence and depth), Jin-Roh asks many important questions about how we justify our actions and where we draw the line. Neil Aitken Robert Slaven commented: >One person reads "Little Red Riding Hood" and sees a tale of >service, and a lesson of caution. Another reads it and sees oppression of >females by predatory males (the wolf), patriarchal condescension by >other >males (the woodcutter), and a general powerlessness of women that must be >condemned as a misogynist effort to warp poor little girls' minds. That's >part of what makes all this so much fun. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 10 Apr 2003 17:27:47 -0700 > Later I learned from my friend/neighbor/home teachee/ that he was called > to task by the bishop because of the wheat bread. (he's in the YM > presidency and in charge of the sacrament set up stuff.) He was told > "it's official policy to use only white bread". My friend questioned > that. He asked if he could see that policy as it appears in the > Handbook. The bishop and his second councilor looked it up. It wasn't > there. It's apparently not policy. > > Then the bishop said "we will NOT have brown bread again. It's an > accepted fact that white bread better represents the intent of the > Sacrament, and we should conform to tradition."> When I was a missionary in Finland (about 1955 or so) Adam S. Bennion was touring our mission. At one missionary meeting at the Helsinki chapel (on a week day) he spontaneously decided to have sacrament. He asked an elder to go into the kitchen (the chapel was then the mission headquarters, the branch chapel and, if I remember correctly the residence for a couple of the elders) and see if there was bread. The elder returned with a few stale cinnamon rolls which Elder Bennion broke for sacrament, removing the raisons as he did so. He then blessed the sacrament and passed it to us all (both bread and water). It was one of the most memorable moments in my mission. I wonder if that bishop would have required him to remove the icing and rub off the cinnamon? Seriously, we have sacrament in our ward with brown bread rather frequently, on the other hand, I remember wards in my home town of Pocatello, Idaho where it was a custom not only to use white bread but to trim the crusts off. My final thought has to do with the meetings held throughout the church when the new handbook was finished a few years ago. Whatever general authority spoke in our stake stated at least two or three different times that no matter what was general opinion in any area, if it wasn't in the handbook, it wasn't the program or policy of the church. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 10 Apr 2003 16:07:11 -0700 Ivan Angus Wolfe asks: "...Do any of us change our opinions that often due to the discussion here - or at the least, truly respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This is not rhetorical, I really want to know." Well, to answer, yes. I have changed my opinion, or at least have had my opinion broadened or altered, several times due to the discussion on this list, and I've only been an active participant for a few months. And I do truly respect several of the post-ers who's opinions are diametrically opposed to my own. Well, that is, all except for one or two of YOU STUPID, STINKING BOZOS! (That last part was a joke. He-he.) Actually, in all seriousness, even the one or two people who I have found myself disagreeing with just about everything they say, have also shocked me by saying things that, not only did I agree with, but they said them in a way I would never have thought of and which I found enlightening. So, yeah, even a stupid, stinking Bozo can teach me from time to time. (He-he, again). So, if you are doing a survey, I for one have been changed and/or enlighted many times, even by those with whom I otherwise disagree. But more than that, I am very often ENTERTAINED by the list, which is just as important as being educated, isn't it? Sure, we are often bullheaded. But a discussion forum where nobody had any opinions would be boring! And yes, someone who, in light of empirical fact, decides to just believe what they want to believe anyway can be frustrating. But I think I have found more willingness to explore here that in some conversations I've witnesssed. And when I have not found that to be the case, well, so what? This list isn't about "making" anybody think the way you do. It's just a discussion group. Share and compare. Ivan gave two examples of differing kinds of "bullheadedness" I guess you could call it. One was an example of someone who came across factual information that refuted his belief, but decided to go ahead and believe what he wanted to, regardless of the fact he had just learned. Okay, someone like that probably merits being called a bozo in seriousness instead of in jest, but... I don't know what to tell you about that kind of person. Nothing anybody can do about them. The second example had to do with the law. Ivan said, "With the Clean FLicks debate that is going on, it seems to be the same. Some feel it is okay, and so quote the parts of the law that seem to support it. Those who are against it (generally) will quote legal arguments against the cutting of movies." But, you see, with questions of law, it really is not the same thing at all. The law is meant to be TESTED AND INTERPRETED. That is why we have case law. And case law can sometimes be quite contradictory. That is why we have an appeals process and a Supreme Court. Even Supreme Court decisions get overturned, altered, or even completely reversed from time to time. So, quoteing one slant or another on a legal issue is actually an active and funtional way to discuss the law, and not an indication of bull-headedness. That is the nature of the beast, and this is how discussions of law are handled everywhere. It's just how it's done. The trick is that if someone's case law rebutal, or logical test, or rhetorical model is more compelling than yours, it behooves you to admit that, and not be like the guy in your first example. But again, whata'ya gonna do? Another problem is that when lay-people discuss the law, half the time none of us know what we are talking about, so it all falls apart. Again, again, again: whata'ya gonna do? You can't MAKE people change. I'll have more to say about that in a long essay I've been tinkering with, at some time in the future. Thanks for your question, Ivan. Of course, notwithstanding anything I've stated herein to the contrary, anybody who doesn't see things MY WAY is obviously, egregiously, a STUPID, STINKING BOZO! Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Politics and Literature Date: 10 Apr 2003 16:27:15 -0700 Eric R. Samuelsen stated (I think quite brilliantly and suscincly), with respect to literary criticism: "I privilege any both/and reading over any either/or." Wonderfully put. This is what I was trying to get at with my thoughts about Polanski & polygamy. I felt bad after posting it, because I worried that I might have conveyed beliefs about the specific issues I talked about that I don't really have. But my real intent was to use the specific issues to illustrate a more general point, which Eric makes so clearly. "Either/Or" readings of just about anything can be quite limiting, and it is rare that such really apply to the real world. More often than not, this life is filled with contradictions. I had someone point something out to me one day which struck me. It had to do with the definition of the word "Paradox." There are two definitions of the word, of course, and ironically, the definitions are paradoxical to one another. One definition of the word is: "a self-contradictory statement." The other definition of the word is: "a seemingly self-contradictory statement that may, in fact, be true." He said that people who have been brought up in conservative and/or religious societies tend to chose one definition and people brought up in non-religious societies will more generally define the term the other way. Can you guess which? In his survey, he found religious people more often chose the "possibly true" definition, whereas the non-religious simply used the term to describe irreconcilable contradiction. Interesting, no? And yet, paradoxically, how often do we religious types, tend to define the world as an "either/or" place, as "black and white", "salvation or sin", and frequently refuse to see the "both/and"? It seems to me that we should attempt, at least, to allow some seeming contradictions to possibly be true. And that we can do this without weakening our own moral stance on issues or weakening our faith. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Copyright and Patent Law Date: 10 Apr 2003 17:00:45 -0700 Eugene Woodbury asks: "BTW, do libraries operate under the same royalty arrangements as commercial outfits when renting videos?" Yes, but there is a misunderstanding imbedded in your question. There is = no royalty arrangement with rental houses, or libraries either. Rental houses buy a different license agreement which allows them to rent the video as much as they want. They pay a one-time fee up front, and the= n that's it, whether they rent the movie twice or 200,000 times. (Now, before I get into trouble, let me say that I think this is starting= to change with the big rental houses working out deals where they exchange volume purchase discounts for royalty payments, so Blockbuster may now pa= y a royalty; I've been out of the loop for a while, so I'm not totally sure. = So, if that is the case now, the answer would be, no, libraries do not have t= he same arrangement. But I'll get back to libraries in a second.) Rental houses pay more than the average consumer does for videos. Somethi= ng in the neighborhood of 90$ per movie, versus the $17.95 that we are used = to. Studios have number-crunchers do the math to see if they should offer a movie initially as rental-license only or offer what they call the "sell-through" price (the lower retail amount we are used to seeing). It'= s all about how many they think they can sell, and it also depends on what kinds of other distribution window agreements have encumbered the specifi= c film. Now back to libraries. Your library bought its videos for between $200 (i= n the old days) to as low as $20 (now-days) and then that's it. They never = pay anything else, and they have the unwritten but understood right to let as many people borrow it for free as they want. Hey! That sucks for artists, you might say. And yes, artists are out of luck on the whole library thin= g: but, that's the price we pay to live in our society. Remember, the Free Library, as envisioned by Benjamin Franklin, never had artists in mind. It had the public in mind. It doesn't care that thousand= s of people will read books and see films and that not one penny goes back = to the artist. We pay taxes for our libraries and libraries buy books and films. Artists just have to content themselves that instead of selling 20 million books, they sold 100,000 books to libraries and then 20 million people checked those books out and read them! This brings up another fine wrinkle in the entire copyright protection system which is kind of fun to realize. Most people, especially artists, think that copyright law, trademark law and patent law are there to prote= ct them and their creations. Wrong. Copyright law DOES protect original creations (quite vigorously, in fact)= , but that is NOT its original, fundamental purpose. The fundamental purpose of copyright, trademark and especially patent law is: THE ADVANCEMENT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. What does that mean? It means that copyright law is a trick, created by t= he government, to get you to give your stuff up to the public domain at some time in the future, in exchange for some temporary protection for your st= uff here in the present. (Re-read that sentence; it is very important to understand.) That=92s it folks. I=92m not making this up. It is hard to see that fact = with copyright law because the term of protection is so long (and Disney is trying to get it even longer!), but it is very clear in patent law, so le= t me use patent law as an example. I=92ll explain. The invention of patent law has its birth in the notion t= hat any invention that improves the public good should be made available to t= he public. But inventors are instinctively secretive folk, and there have be= en cases where cool inventions simply died with their creators and we don=92= t know how to make them any more. Lots of historical inventions are lost to time: Greek Fire, how they built those sneaky pyramids, etc. I=92m being funny, but there are many modern examples, as well. I have a friend who wrote a tremendous screenplay about a guy who invented a way to make rain back in the 1800's and then died without anyone knowing his secret. It's = a true story, too! Anyway, patent law attempts to prevent that from happeni= ng by getting inventions into the public domain. So, to avoid inventions disappearing, patent law says: hey, give us all o= f the details about your invention. In return, we will give you an absolute= ly protectable right, in the courts and with government administration and support, to have the exclusive right in your invention for a period of ti= me (I think its only 17 years, currently). Then (and here=92s the catch) after the term of the patent has expired, a= nyone can build it. Yes, anyone. Now, commercially, the public doesn=92t tend to realize that patent prote= ction is so short for a number of reasons. One, technology changes so fast, the= re=92 s always something new. Secondly, the process takes so long that in reali= ty, the protection (or at least the perceived protection=97you=92ve seen the = term =93patent pending=94=97is actually much longer than 17 years). Finally, t= he fact is that once someone has truly cornered the market on a certain project (= and you can certainly do that in 17 years), then it is hard for anyone to sta= rt competing with you and so you still end up the owner of the field. (An example of where this has not been true is with the Japanese: they are late-comers into the technology game, but they competitively kick the wor= ld=92 s collective behind; they build them better and cheaper.) The logic behind the system, you see, is to benefit humanity, not to prot= ect the creator. Another thing is that patents are immediately public documents. Even thou= gh I can=92t build Joe Schmo=92s Gizmo (a mousetrap, for example) for 17 yea= rs, I can go down to the Patent Office and get a copy of his blueprints from Da= y One, and study them. They might give me an amazing idea, which I never wo= uld have thought of otherwise. This inspires me to go off and invent Jon Eno=92= s Gizzmo: a better mousetrap! Who has benefited? Certainly not Joe Schmo, who suddenly finds he has no market for his inferior mousetrap. The public has benefited. The world ha= s benefited. That=92s who the government wants to help: the world at large. Even if I never invent the better mousetrap, in 17 years, everybody can start building Joe Schmo=92s mousetrap, and either way, the world is a be= tter place. Ultimately then, Patent law is about sharing, not about protecting. Copyright law works the same way, but over longer terms, and the =93benef= it to mankind=94 is more subtle and arguable, because we are talking about art = (or at least, entertainment) and not practicality, functionality or a better standard of living. (Of course, I would argue that I could not live in a world without books,= so it IS about a better standard of living. But I have friends who don=92t l= ike to read and disagree with me. Then I say to them, OK, try to live in a wo= rld without music, and they usually shut up.) The idea of copyright law is to create the concept of the =93Public Domai= n.=94 We want works of art, the legal theory goes, to eventually benefit all mankind, and to enter a free, public forum. That is its fundamental purpo= se. So copyright law, too, then, is about sharing, not protecting, at its hea= rt. But it is the protection issue that gets vigorously talked about, so we often forget the original goal of the matter. Hey, I have to make my living selling the stuff I write. And since I don'= t yet rate very high up-front fees, I dream of getting royalty checks. It doesn't happen very often, but it has always saved my bacon when it did. But I could not live in a country without libraries! So I'm willing to pu= t up with the monetary inconvenience of no royalty from them in order to al= low that kind of access. Boy, this got a bit long-winded, huh?! Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] Educated Terrorists? Date: 10 Apr 2003 20:15:34 -0400 wow. the logic has left my head spinning. it appears that mr. bird makes the following argument: brian david mitchell performed an act of terror against a businessman. (can someone please define an act of terror for me? if mitchell's act was in fact a terrorist act, then wouldn't any kidnapping, murder, rape, bank robbery, etc. also be an act of terror? how would mitchell's act be different from other such crimes?) osama bin laden and mohammed atta performed an act of terror aimed against business and capitalism. stalin performed acts of terrorism against farmers who were also businessmen. then a lovely leap from stalin to rousseau and the french revolution which was somehow an against business so therefore an act of terror. (here he really should have returned to his initial point of class warfare.) perhaps this is where educators/educated people come into the picture? the even lovelier leap to the environmental movement being anti-business (and therefore terrorist?). and hence to his conclusion that our educators are somehow like terrorists. i'm not sure if that's because the cost of education is rising. or rather because terrorists are educated. or perhaps just because educators purportedly don't like business and therefore they are like terrorists. and the question is how do i, as an educated person who intends to become a part of the academy as my profesion, feel about being profiled as a terrorist. i'm not really certain of what the writer of the letter was really getting at. did he actually intend to argue that somehow anyone who is anti-business in any way is a terrorist of some sort? or is he trying to build an argument that there is a class war going on between the haves (business men) and the have-nots (anti-business people)? and if the latter, why invoke stalin? or environmentalists for that matter? i'm confused. i feel no concern whatsoever at being compaired in this way to being a terrorist. surely business cannot be held up as a pure good. i frankly have no problem with business per se. i'm a bit of a socialist. but that's all well and good. and certainly anyone against business cannot be held up as the anti-christ. it seems mr. bird is suffering from a single-lens issue (either you are for or you are against business and all those who are against it are somehow associated, let's forget what they may actually *be* or what they may be *for* when they are objecting to the practices of businesses or businesspeople). Harlow, perhaps you can tell us what you have been thinking about lately and wanting to write about. Perhaps it would help us discuss some real issues. right now i feel like i am grasping at straws. and i would very much like to hear your thoughts. amelia _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 10 Apr 2003 19:50:34 -0700 Well, my new Deseret Book catalog arrived today. What a shocker! Herein my comments: 1. It's a somewhat larger catalog than before. No wonder -- they've stuffed it with junk and golden oldies, things you never thought would see the light of day again. I didn't know why they were listing Duane Crowther's "Life Everlasting." Gosh, how old is THAT book? And, tell the truth, I can't remember them ever featuring this book in a catalog before. 2. Many books had little snips of reviews attached. Naturally, I searched for any that originated with AML. Total number of AML-related reviews -- zero. Total number written by Deseret Book employees -- I stopped counting. Most were fairly anonymous -- first name and city and state. And it isn't as if AML members haven't favorably reviewed some of these titles. I wonder why Deseret Book essentially gave AML the cold shoulder? Very curious. 3. The layout was rather curious Page 35 is an example. The section heading is "Improving Relationships." Included on this page -- "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" from FARMS, and portable versions of the Gospel Library, for hand-held devices. 4. And, the introduction of a slogan at the upper-right portion of the cover page: "What matters to you matters to us." ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 10 Apr 2003 21:02:47 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jongiorgi Enos >=20 > You might rail at Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine"=20 > depending on your politics, but it is absolutely true what=20 > where Europe suffers shooting deaths with guns by only=20 > handfuls annually, we suffer them by the THOUSANDS annually.=20 I'm going to pick on this point in particular because it is illustrative = of the point I wish to make. You see, even if it is true, the statement is = a lie. If we're going to look at the broader culture (as you have = advocated and with which I agree), then it would behoove us to search for facts = and not perpetuate fantasies no matter their origins--Mormon, U.S., = European, or Moore. Europe has recently surpassed the U.S. in violence with France leading the way. Local constabularies in entire provinces in France = have essentially given up on enforcing the laws. England crime rates have = risen staggeringly in recent years, even before you correct for the drop in = police reporting of crimes (for example, U.S. police record over 80% of = reported robberies whereas the U.K. only record 35%--mainly because the U.K. statistics count convictions whereas U.S. statistics count incidents). = In fact, if you concentrate on what really matters--i.e. actual crime rates--you get a different picture entirely with the U.K. exceeding us = in crime rate for burglary, assault, rape and grand theft (you have to look = at victim surveys to adequately correct for the difference in reporting). = But even more disturbing is that those rates are all rising in the U.K. and falling in the U.S. It doesn't make much difference to the murdered or robbed that the aggressor had a gun or not so why is *that* what you = choose to concentrate on? (It makes a big difference to the robber, though--in = the U.K. almost half of all burglaries are "hot" and in the U.S. it's under = 15%) You're implication is that the U.S. is more violent because we have guns whereas that is wholly unsupported by rigorous statistical analysis. When we were in Germany a couple of years ago, the member family we = stayed with remarked once on how they would hate to live in the U.S. because of = the guns and gangs. We're riding the bus at the time surrounded by rampant graffiti and having heard stories of people they knew who had had = violent encounters. A stark contrast to our home where graffiti is almost = unheard of, and quickly removed when present, and guns only ever encountered by choice. There is a deep disconnect between perception and reality. So for purposes of your argument here, if we are going to try to = understand others' perspectives and background, then it seems to me that an understanding of the context is as important as an understanding of the individual's perception of it. In fact, interesting stories lie in = those areas where there is a disconnect between objective, factual analysis = and subjective personal belief. In the case of Polanski (to illustrate what = I'm trying to say), it may indeed be important to examine what he thought he = was doing. We could look at his actions and contemplate his motivations. = But it's pretty clear, even on a surface examination of the case, that = Polanski was living at least partially in a fantasy if he believed, ever, that = having sex with a 13 year old was good and even *more* so if he believed that = U.S. authorities wouldn't care once it was discovered. Can we afford to = express sympathy with his viewpoint? Does understanding him mean that we have = to allow him to walk free in our society? Is there any way to understand without condoning? It seems to me that the better story will be told if = you have not only a generous understanding of the person, but also an understanding of their society. And I'd say that an even *better* story will include the almost hidden degradation of the soul in sin and the ennobling effects of kindness and service. Examining with a generous heart is a great ideal. It's something we = should strive for always. But a generous heart is going to run into trouble = when it comes to certain fundamental truths. What is a generous heart's = response to murder or rape? What does it mean to have a generous heart towards = the man who molested my sisters, or the man who poisoned his own wife? Are there times when it is more generous to hurt another than to please = them? (my answer: yes, and it's a lot harder, too) > But by stating rhetorical questions in a very one-sided,=20 > judgmental way, how can we expect our rhetoric to instruct or=20 > our debate to be insightful? >=20 > Mary Aagard's questions are serious questions, and they=20 > deserved to be explored, and I think they can be instructive=20 > to the AML-list. But only when couched in a genuine struggle=20 > to understand the issues in depth can anything of merit be gleaned. I agree. But then, we have obvious differences in what it means to understand issues in depth. So what happens when my understanding of an issue (like, say, guns in society) differs vastly from yours? Can you = only produce art for the like-minded? Can you understand an opponent's = position and still disagree with them? And more usefully, can you understand an opponent's position, still disagree with them, and yet communicate with = them in a useful way that doesn't require their conversion to have efficacy? = Is there a way to dig deeper and find a universal truth somewhere? Again, I'd say that the answer is yes, it is possible. I'd further = claim that Mormons do it better than any other group I can think of, but that we're still learning how to do it well. In fact, I'll embarrass Eric Samuelsen again by saying that he's extremely good at exactly this. You could say that he and I differ in our view of the world and in our philosophies. Yet some of the most valuable and profound plays I've = seen recently are his ("The Way We're Wired" particularly stands out). I'd = like to see a production of "Gadianton" because reading it was a powerful experience and an instructive one. The Dollmage was similarly deep and enriching (though I've no idea of the author's politics or philosophy--I only know that she's LDS). I saw "Stones" last night and I'm still digesting it in wonderful and rewarding ways. And I don't dare leave Richard Dutcher out (with whom I mainly agree, with occasional rough = spots :) for his bravery and ability to show that it can all be done with = film, too. Sympathy and generosity are vital to good art. But there's a deeper = reality behind the purely relative and infusing that into our art is a powerful = and enriching endeavor. There are some harsh realities inherent in an environment built to test our faith. One effect of making it possible = to choose salvation is that we can also choose damnation. It's important = that we don't forget the reality of sin as we seek to love and understand the sinner. I guess what I'm saying is that we have an important framework = that is pretty far-reaching. In reaching out to others, it is important that = we not loose our grip on those things that are deeply important and = relatively absolute. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 10 Apr 2003 23:05:03 -0600 Sharlee Glenn wrote: "Just curious--does *anybody* read _Irreantum_?" I didn't include the magazines and other subscription stuff in my list, just the books. I purchased several back copies of Irreantum at the recent AML conference. I enjoy reading "companion" articles. For instance, the interview with Brady Udall in the winter 2001 issue was enlightening to read as I finished THE MIRACLE LIFE OF EDGAR MINT. I keep the autumn 2001 issue by my beside always, because I find Eugene England's stuff so compelling and I like to revisit a snippet now and again out of the issue where so many shared movingly of how he affected their lives. The spring 2001 issue feature my friend, Robert Kirby, and I always get a kick out of comparing what he'll confess to in a public forum as opposed to real life. Yes, I read Irreantum. I need to break down and actually subscribe instead of purchasing them at a whack once a year. It's on my list of "to do" things that I expect to get around to any day now. Irreantum floats between my bedroom and my bathroom. I often share my copies with people in my book groups. I also have the Ensign, three seed catalogues and a few of the 6 different gardening magazines I subscribe to on my side of the bed. My hubby hates the stack I keep on the floor there, but one likes to be able to choose at night, depending on one's mood. It probably speaks volumes about me that the one I skim the fastest is the Ensign. The others I devour. (Hey, I know it's weird to intently read about the characteristics of seven different antique tomato plants, but what you gonna do?) Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Professional Editing Query (Comp 1) Date: 14 Apr 2003 08:11:49 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] ----- Original Message ----- > To One and All, > > Where can I go to have a novel I've written professionally edited for relatively > little money ($50 per hour for a 20-hour job becomes quite expensive) prior to > submitting it to a publisher? Any assistance that might be provided would be > appreciated. > > Kevin T. Temple > REPLIES >From sammiejustesen@msn.com Wed Apr 09 23:36:44 2003 Kevin, > I'm a member of the AML list and a professional editor from Providence, > UT. My usual charge is $4 to $5 per double spaced page, or $25 per hour. > My editing web site is www.doingitwrite.com. I'd be happy to do a sample > edit for you and discuss your novel. > > Best Regards, > Sammie Justesen > sammie@doingitwrite.com > >From fcp@email.byu.edu Thu Apr 10 20:03:48 2003 > > Many of the people on the AML list have been in the editing racket at one time or another, and many still are. Of course calling yourself an editor doesn't necessarly make you one--or at least a very good one. At the lowest level it is hack work, and at the highest it is a noble and divine calling. After all, Mormon spent a lot of time working as an editor on a certain book, trying to get it right and trying to not let the thing get too long and heavy. His boy tried it for a while also, but he finally just put it away in a box. I've heard that the guy at Writing Specialists (in Orem, 801-225-5401) is pretty good, fast, and not too expensive. As Caliban said of Prospero, "He gave me language." I believe firmly that a guy needs an optimistic lawyer, an inspired welder, and a good editor. It's a beautiful thing. Fred Pinnegar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 10 Apr 2003 22:38:01 -0700 On Thursday, Apr 10, 2003, at 14:02 America/Phoenix, Sharlee Glenn wrote: > Ivan Wolfe asked: > > " But I was thinking of the aml-list and began to wonder do any of us > change > our opinions that often due to the discussion here - or at the least, > truly > respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This is not > rhetorical, > I really want to know." You may be surprised to hear that my opinions are in fact pruned and digged and grafted quite a bit from some of the discussions here. I'd rather have arguments, of course, but since so much of the world hates arguing these days I only get to do it rarely. Argument was the original scientific method, by means of which Aristotle proved that there are no atoms, but besides the fun it does sharpen and focus and trim opinions. None of my core beliefs have been much moved, and the few absolute certainties haven't budged at all. Of course nobody on AML ever argued that God doesn't exist so there are many regions that never come up. As far as respecting those with opposing opinions, that depends. I have several friends who are Trotskyite lefties, dumb as posts politically but kinda fun, and of course anybody who can argue without crying is bound to get my respect. Those I don't respect are those who hold no opinions, or who say "it's only an opinion," as if all opinions are true. I don't hold any opinions I think are untrue...therefore if yours opposes mine one of us is wrong. Perhaps both, but naturally I won't think so unless convinced. People who just shrug and say "it's only an opinion" therefore will never convince me, and so the opinion remains unchallenged. Which is a bad thing. There are some on this list with whom I hotly disagree, most of them liberal, but those who will fight I certainly respect. I notice that plenty (not so much on AML, but in general) are very thin-skinned, and get all upset at descriptive words, but why that should be I don't know. After all democrat kids called me a Nazi when I was only six, and I've had so many nasty epithets hurled at me that I would think that the left ought to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I don't mind being called a Nazi or a bigot, because in the first place I know that neither is true, and in the second place it means I'm winning the argument. So if anybody thinks I'm being too harsh don't worry about it. It doesn't faze me and I don't see why it should faze anybody else. It don't sting if it ain't true. So you might say that AML alters my opinions the way a whetting stone alters a sword--hones the edges and sharpens the point, and a little spitting will help, not hurt. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 11 Apr 2003 01:50:00 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Jacob ___ > | Take Shakespeare's Henry V big pre-battle speech. A > | conservative analysis would be interested in the calls=20 > | to honor and brotherhood and might explore the=20 > | insinuation of fame and obliquely implied shame. > ___ >=20 > The problem is that if ever there was a text open to post-modern > analysis it is Shakespeare. After all we are talking of texts that, > even before the rise of postmodernism, were used for contradictory > purposes. _Henry V_ has been performed as a strong anti-war play as > well as a play rallying the troops. The mere fact that strong liberal > and conservative readings are open from the play demands an=20 > explanation > for how this is possible. Except that all of those things are not interesting to the real point here--creating a conservative criticism. I mean, I see your point kind = of, but your point doesn't really relate to building a conservative = criticism. What better way to explore a conservative criticism than by exploring = it's relation to the mother of all postmodern texts? What better way to = contrast the techniques and insights? > ___ Jacob ___ > | i.e. preempt the post-modernist deconstruction of those=20 > | themes by examining how the themes persist even if they are=20 > | flawed in their various applications. > ___ >=20 > I guess I'm confused at how you think this is not post-modernist. A > post-modernist of the mold we're discusses is intrinsically interested > in how repressed themes persist in what is promoted. So if=20 > we criticize > a theme due to some "contradiction" due to flaws, it is very=20 > post-modern > to show how the theme undermines this very undermining. =20 > Derrida has, in > fact, written several texts along those lines. Well, you're going to have to define what you're calling post-modernism. = I think you underestimate the influence that Jim Faulconer has had on your interpretation of post-modernism. Throughout this post you keep saying things that absolutely contradict what I have learned as post-modernism. = I finally understood when you finally linked to Jim's essay. I'm = uninterested in Faulconer's spin on post-modernism. I'm even less interested in post-modernizing post-modernism. I don't want to *emphasize* the contradictions, I want to de-emphasize them. The *emphasis* of = break-downs is the post-modernist realm. Post-modernism has nothing to do with any = kind of universal unless you accept Jim Faulconer's heresies (he *is* a post-modernist heretic and his essay is at least partially an attempt to justify himself as such). My point is that we create the anti-postmodernism--not by applying post-modernism to itself. That = would be a kind of condensed, distilled, or hyper-postmodernism. No thanks. I'd prefer to undermine post-modernism by showing that it's deconstruction = is inapplicable--that it doesn't describe reality any better than the rationalism it supplanted. > ___ Jacob ___ > | "Natural law" has all the weaknesses of capital 'T' Truth and=20 > | none of the ameliorating strengths. > ___ >=20 > Natural law though has the obvious parallel to law of nature - i.e. > physics. And, in a real sense, the various forms of structuralism are > an attempt to find this natural law as it applies to language acts in > general.=20 Yeah, but who cares? By which I really mean "why should this have = anything to do with conservative criticism?" I don't care about structuralism = and all the esoterica that has little application or appeal to = non-dedicates. I know that's harsh and dismissive. I don't really mean it as a personal = or even a theoretical attack. It's just a tangent to conservative theory = and thus not something I want to tie to it. So when "natural law" is = brought up as some kind of foundation of conservatism I have to say that it isn't. = It might be an underlying *assumption* of a certain kind of conservatism, = but not an actual aspect of conservatism as such. To see what I mean, read = all the conservative essays you can get your hands on and count how many of = them actually mention, let alone discuss, natural law. If some other = discipline wants to tackle natural law, physics, and grammatical determinism, = that's fine. But I don't expect it to turn up much as I don't think those particular disciplines really have much practical or interesting = application to literary criticism. And certainly not application as specifically conservative. > And, getting back to post-modernism, I don't think they deny this. > Indeed, were I to quote a text on this it would be that the > postmodernists would say, "think not that [we] have come to=20 > destroy the > law, or the [classics]: [we have] not come to destroy but to fulfill." > (Matt 5:17) >=20 > Truth can not and should not be somehow eliminated from=20 > discourse. And > if anyone is interested in truth it is postmodernists.=20 Maybe in your particular flavor of post-modernism. That is *not* the = view or intent of the majority of post-modernism, however. Post-modernism = began as a revolt from scientific rationalism and it moved from there to a = disdain for all rationalism. It isn't intended to fulfill anything. It is = intended to deconstruct, to tear down and expose the more or less obvious (to us = now anyway) flaws of rationalist assumptions. It doesn't actually propose *anything* to take the place of (i.e. fulfill) rationalism. Well, not = in the more common application at any rate. > ___ Jacob ___ > | In other words, I want to skip the knotty question of=20 > | the "origin" of universal traits and move instead into=20 > | how those universals help us, tie us together, and are=20 > | expressed. > ___ >=20 > How can we discuss the "how" of universals without simultaneously > discussing the "what" of universals? Is such a divorce between > substance and function really possible? And how can we even speak of > universals without first having some criteria determining what is or > isn't a universal. Wouldn't any such criteria simultaneously=20 > bring with > it a discussion of what universals are? It's simple, really. Conservatism doesn't have to discuss the origins = of universals/morals/core beliefs because the origins don't matter. At = least, that's the case for neo-conservatives. That's also why you see = conservatism taking on strength recently--we've finally grown out of our need to = bicker endlessly amongst ourselves about all that origin stuff that kept = bogging us down. Who cares if your support for families is secular humanism, rationalist, deist, or given you by aliens in your own personal = shipboard tete-a-tete? Doesn't matter to me any when I'm discussing it with = others or pushing for political causes. If I'm talking about individual self-determination and responsibility, for example, it doesn't matter to = me if you get the idea from tradition, God, French prostitutes, or your miniature giant space hamster. What matters is the application and recognition of that core value, it's application in the text, and how = that core value ties us together, builds important bridges and ennobles the condition of man. I care about the results of core values, the effects, = and the implementation and protection of them. The different origins are = kind of interesting, but not really relevant to the core concept of = developing "conservative criticism". And yeah, there's room to define what values we really find universal, = but you know what? Even *that* doesn't really matter to conservative = criticism. We can have two "conservatives" with entirely different lists of "universals" and still find them valuable because a) they're talking = about universals at *all* and that's something distressingly rare in academic discourse today and b) they're showing the binding application of those universals through text and art and the human condition. Who knows, we = just might find some interesting things when we get together with others and discover what they consider universal and, more importantly, where they = find those universals evident in the human condition. Even better if it's = backed up by art and critique giving examples and reasons and complex, chaotic explorations of those principles. > ___ Jacob ___ > | People have had a ball deconstructing Shakespeare, it's time > | to put him back together again--explore how he *still*=20 > | resonates so strongly and "universally". > ___ >=20 > That seems to assume that *how* he resonates *universally* is somehow > unrelated to Deconstruction. =20 >=20 > That does not seem at all obvious to me for the reasons sketched out > above. Indeed from a religious point of view it seems impossible to > discuss any universal without discussing very significant aspects of > Mormon doctrine. And it is within that discussion that we=20 > intrinsically > discuss the "Light of Truth." Intrinsically the discussion Joseph > started with D&C 93 which is the heart of postmodernism comes=20 > into play. Again, you have a different definition of post-modernism than I think is universal. Want to relabel it neo-postmodernism? And as I tried to express, you *can* discuss the universals without bothering to define = why you believe they are universal. If we'll stop getting so caught up in justifying ourselves and start exploring the *how* of our ideas, we = might get a little further along and maybe understand each other a little = better. Does honesty and forgiveness bless the lives of others because God wills = it or because of karmic watch-dogs or because of natural law? Don't care = as long as we can share. And if we don't care, then I am free to attribute = it to God while leaving another conservative free to attribute it to Allah (well, same thing kind of) while another can attribute it to a = conspiracy of little green men. In the words of Harry S. Truman "It is amazing what = you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." *I* will honor God in all that I do and I freely give Him the credit for = the power of the gospel in my life and the accomplishments I have due to his gifts, his forgiveness and the power of the Spirit. But I'd prefer to = get the message out *at* *all* than to insist that someone believes exactly = as I do before being willing to share the valuable lessons we have learned. = If someone doesn't want to give all honor to God, then at least maybe we = can discuss honesty, and family, and freedom, and rule of law, and ... and = ... and ... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 11 Apr 2003 07:36:21 -0700 I am educated on an ongoing basis by this, and other, lists. Many of the people I admire most are here, and their opinions are very important to me. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 11 Apr 2003 07:54:55 -0700 "...I've decided to make a moral stand. I just cut the tags off the mattrasses. AND I have edited that great expressions of art *God's Army* by running the movie half way thru and splicing about two feet at random. > AND I showed it to a friend last night and charged him one dollar. AND for fun I am drawing a moustache on a downloaded picture of the Mona Lisa (thanks Richard for the idea). I'm turning myself in to you good moral people of AML. Go ahead. Call the FBI. Getting arrested will probably cost me my job, but all moral stands take some sacrifice. Mattress police! > Alan Giorgi Mitchell PRESS RELEASE: from Twelfth Circuit Court Judge of Desperate Appeals: "Self-described mattress and movie de-fouler Alan Rex Mitchell was convicted today on the strength of his own confession, with extra time being added on to his sentence for the rudeness of his sticking out his tongue at official representatives of the Horizontal Law Enforcement Brigade. Strapped into a straight-jacket and being pummeled and pushed into the sulfur-reeking prison train car that was to have escorted him speedily down to hell, a last-second phone call from the Governor suddenly changed everything. It seems that Mitchell, in his final act of defiance before the court, actually spelled the word "Giorgi" correctly, and therefore, it seems, all was forgiven. Officials scratched their heads and muttered to themselves, but had to let the miscreant go, much to their confusion. God Bless America. -- 30 --" Jon Giorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-List Guidelines Date: 14 Apr 2003 17:54:03 -0500 Folks, Time to send out those guidelines again... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator AML-List An Internet mailing list devoted to the discussion of Mormon letters Guidelines version 5.3, 14 April 2003 By Mormon Letters We Mean . . . . . . literature by, for, and about Mormons and criticism of same. We mean essay, family history, autobiography, children's literature, sermon, and the literary dimensions of scripture. Or join the conversation and come up with your own definition. AML-List boasts more than 250 subscribers, including readers and writers, scholars and teachers, journalists and librarians, editors for local and national publishers, and practitioners of related LDS arts, from the majority of U.S. states and several countries. AML-List is sponsored by the Association for Mormon Letters. List moderator: Jonathan Langford List administrator: Terry L Jeffress List Mechanics AML-List is moderated and comes in three flavors: AML-List, AML-List-Digest, and AML-Mag. AML-List offers open discussion of Mormon literature, limited to 30 posts a day (10-12 posts maximum on Saturday; no posts on Sunday). AML-List-Digest is a compilation of all AML-List posts, sent out every 24 hours or whenever the compilation reaches 40k. (Digest mailings have been averaging one or two a day.) AML-Mag(AML-List Magazine) features columns, reviews, newspaper items, and AML-List highlights, and is limited to 10 posts a day. Note that AML-Mag goes automatically to all AML-List subscribers. If you subscribe to both AML-Mag and AML-List, you will get two copies of all AML- Mag posts. To subscribe to AML-List, send an e-mail message to that reads: subscribe aml-list You can subscribe an address other than the one you are sending the request from using this format: subscribe aml-list In either case a confirmation request will be sent to the address subscribed. Follow the directions to complete your subscription. To unsubscribe, send a message to as follows: unsubscribe aml-list Again, if your request comes from a second address, include the address you want to unsubscribe. To subscribe to AML-List-Digest or AML-Mag, follow the directions above, but replace "aml-list" with "aml-list-digest" or "aml-mag." To post to any version of the list, send your messages to . All messages are forwarded to the moderator for review. Monthly files exist from May 1995 to the present. Follow the link on the AML-List web page: http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html. House Rules 1. BEHAVE Avoid flaming or name-calling. Reply to posts, not people. The motives of other subscribers are off-topic. Respect the integrity, opinions, and beliefs of others. 2. THE TOPIC IS LITERATURE It is not politics, pet peeves, the general authorities, or the doctrines or policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (except as they affect how Latter-day Saints read and write). State your opinions frankly, but stick to literary judgments. 3. ALL ARE WELCOME . . . writers and readers, scholars and fans, teachers and students, highbrows and lowbrows, conservatives and liberals, members and non-members of the Church and the AML, at home and abroad. No one approach is preferred. Other Guidelines 1. PUT THE AUTHOR AND TITLE IN THE SUBJECT LINE When referring to literary works, please put the writer's last name in all capitals in the subject line, followed by the title, like this: HUGHES, _Children of the Promise_ 2. SIGN YOUR POSTS Posts should be signed with first and last names (except when the post is relatively short and the name is given in the return email address). Use given names rather than surnames with titles. Screen names are inappropriate on AML-List. Anonymous posts are not allowed, except by special arrangement with the moderator. 3. INTRODUCE YOURSELF After you've been on the list awhile, if you feel inclined, you are invited to introduce yourself. Respond in paragraph form, and include any or all of the following: name, age, whether you're male or female, family status, home town, occupation, and connection to Mormon Literature (reader, writer, teacher, critic, other). See the AML-List web page subscriber introductions. 4. AML-LIST IS MODERATED FOR TONE AND VOLUME Not every post submitted makes it to the list. A post may be bumped: If it's *off-topic.* We define literature broadly and frequently run items on other LDS arts or on LDS culture or language issues. Beyond that, inclusion is at the discretion of the moderator. If it's *creative writing.* AML-List is a forum for discussion of literature, not publication of literature. From time to time, individual creative pieces may be posted to AML-List by special arrangement with the moderator as an adjunct to critical discussion. However, AML-List is not intended to function as a writer's critique group. If it includes *bad language.* We have noticed that whenever someone uses a curse, no matter how mild, someone follows it up with one worse. For this reason, the moderator sometimes returns posts with fairly innocuous language. If it includes *explicit sexual references* or *references to the temple.* People have different levels of tolerance, but these items, together with bad language, tend to make many Latter-day Saints (and others) uncomfortable and to put a damper on discussion. AML-List conforms to accepted journalistic standards. You can quote more than you can say, but in general, if you can't use a word in the Deseret News, you can't use it here. If it goes too far in *substituting moral terms for critical ones.* People frequently use words like "immoral" or "dishonest" when they mean things like "politically incorrect" or "facile." Because the convention is widespread, AML-List tolerates this as long as it's clear a personal attack on the author is not intended. Even then we discourage it because of the inference that those who like the work are complicit in something unethical. If its *hyperbole* gets out of hand. This is another gray area. Critical conventions allow for insult and invective, which no one is supposed to take too seriously. However, we've noticed when people use too much, particularly early in a thread, some with opposing views take it personally and opt out and we only get one side. If it uses *sarcasm or unfair characterization* of the positions or beliefs of others. These often do not translate well in an electronic medium and tend to come across as less respectful than forthright disagreement. While it's acceptable to point out what you see as the implications of other list members' statements, every effort should be made to respect their right to define their own position. If it *veers too far into Church doctrine, policy, or the opinions of the General Authorities.* It may be appropriate to discuss these in relation to specific literary works, market conditions, etc., but when the conversation turns to establishing just what those doctrines and opinions are, or whether you think they're justified, that discussion belongs on another list. It is never appropriate to attack or belittle the religious beliefs of another, or to use religious beliefs to condemn or suppress the opinions of another. If it's *redundant.* The moderator may cut off a discussion that has gone on too long. Depending on how many people are involved, this may take place behind the scenes or publicly (in the latter case usually after a day's notice). If the list is *too busy.* In order to keep things manageable both for the moderator and subscribers, AML-List is limited to 30 posts a day. On busy days, posts that are acceptable by all the other criteria may still end up in the overflow folder, perhaps forever, perhaps to reappear when traffic subsides. If you don't see your post and still feel strongly, contact the moderator at or post again. 5. AML-LIST IS COPYRIGHTED All posts belong to their authors. Just as with any published writing, messages that appear on AML-List should not be quoted without proper attribution, nor reprinted on another Internet list or in any other form without the author's permission. By submitting to AML-List, you give permission to the AML to distribute your posts with the archives. - END - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: _Irreantum_ (was: Books on the Bedside Table) Date: 11 Apr 2003 08:03:57 -0700 [MOD: Apologies for not changing the thread title for some messages that I think already got through.] Sharlee Glenn asks: "Just curious--does *anybody* read _Irreantum_?" As part of the process of helping out with the copy-editing task for the latest issue, I read my first Irreantum cover-to-cover. I was (and this statement is going to acknowledge a condition of prejudice on my part) continuously astonished at how much good writing was in it. I was so impressed, that I've ordered a complete catalogue of back-issues to read to see if it was a fluke or not... But (to admit to the dying of a prejudice) I suspect it was not. D. Michael Martindale noted in a post ages ago that as far as an outlet for certain voices in LDS lit, Irreantum is "just a blip on the radar screen." And that's too bad. There was some really good stuff in there, enough to make me have to rethink the entire negative impression I've had for many years about LDS writers. But then, it should come as no surprise that such strengths were exhibited in an issue dedicated to the theme of YA fiction. Juvenile literature has always been strong, or at least, I've always been a fan of the genre, and I think that some of our best writers get overlooked there. When adult fiction is consistently up to par with YA genre stuff, we will all be well served. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 11 Apr 2003 09:39:11 -0600 >frustrated sexual arousal by masturbating. They claimed that >women do not masturbate very much, contrary to popular belief, >and found it hard to believe that Sheila would. This is one of the problems that we should work hard to overcome when judging characters in fiction, judging the characters after what WE think they would or would not do. The real point is, did the writer make it believable that the character he/she wrote would do a certain act. Or, if you happen to be Brian Evenson or Neil LaBute, did you sufficiently hide the motivation to shock us and make us wonder if people CAN do those things. I received a letter from an audience member of my 1999 production of _Prophet_. The woman was concerned that, every time Joseph and Emma were on stage, they were kissing, passionately so, as it turned out (not explicitly in the script). Her contention was that an "elect lady" would not be that affectionate. As if, for some reason, great spirituality doesn't equate with great sexuality. Instead of trying to understand why the director made them so affectionate, and what in the script led the director to see that physical relationship, and perhaps asking herself what can she learn from such a portrayal, she decided to slap her own judgment on how spiritual people should behave and leave it at that. I've heard similar comments from people who were bothered by the Sacrament scene in Brigham City, in that, rather than asking themselves what the director was trying to tell them, they immediately reacted to what seemed to them the inappropriateness of portraying a sacrament meeting on the screen. Scott Bronson and others on this list I know have had similar reader/audience reactions. It is the common fate of writers who write with passion, that somewhere along the line, someone is going to interpret a writer's work within their own worldview, rather than the worldview of the author. It is hard for some people to leave their own world to explore the world of another person. A woman who doesn't masturbate may feel uncomfortable reading about another women who does. A woman who isn't particularly affectionate in her own marriage may unconsciously transfer her feelings onto two characters in a play. People who are perhaps uncomfortable with their own spirituality are somehow embarrassed by seeing their own rites presented on screen. >I know what all my characters will do under any circumstances. >But I don't know it all at once. For one thing, I don't have >time to figure out every possible circumstance and what they would do. Even a cursory study of human nature will teach you that people will do, well, anything, and ofttimes, for no reason we can understand at all, or for reasons we don't understand. How many people, for instance, can't understand why an abused spouse stays for years in a marriage, when WE think they could easily have left? When we then understand the psychological and emotional motivations of such people, we begin to understand why they do what they do. > >The way in which I know what my characters will do is to "ask" >them. When a question comes up, I interrogate them. Not >literally, but I meditate on them and what I already know >about their character. Sooner or later it becomes clear to me >what they would do. I always "know" by this method everything >about my characters--everything as a need arises. You should be congratulated for this approach. You are not imposing your own values on the characters. ("The Church says masturbation is wrong, so I can't have this character masturbating.") You let the character dictate to you, which is the way it should be. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 11 Apr 2003 22:26:30 -0600 Margaret Young wrote: > > I think it's time we just fess up. Okay, it's true. Marilyn Brown and > I are the same person. > I will not describe my/our real appearance, for > fear of losing an audience. Put it this way: I am not who you think I > am. Or should I say, we are not who you think we are. I should point > out that I do not have a multiple personality order. > The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but > he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? Since I've met Margaret/Marilyn/Thom personally, I'm going to spill the beans. The person behind all these fictitious personas is Steve Martin after his LDS baptism. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 11 Apr 2003 10:54:25 -0600 My "twin" outdoes me! EMINEM YOUNG BROWN fesses up: we know the name BROWN is NOT racially neutral, there are NO promises, (just premises!) and Margaret is definitely an UPPER! Cheers! (Grins aplenty) EMINEM Y.B. ----- Original Message ----- > I think it's time we just fess up. Okay, it's true. Marilyn Brown and > I are the same person. I chose the Marilyn Brown name because it is > racially neutral and so pretty. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 11 Apr 2003 11:02:12 -0600 > jltyner@pacbell.net writes: > > > That said, a quibble with Richard's semantics. > > Mismatching one's socks is a mistake. Misplacing your keys likewise. Taking a wrong turn with your battalion and running into a firefight is a very, very, bad mistake. > > > > Taking nude photos of a 13 year old girl and then giving her part of a qualuude downed with champange before you first raped her vaginally and then sodomized her because you're afraid of getting her pregnant-that's a deliberate, monstrous choice. > > > > It's not that Roman Polanski's work didn't merit an oscar, it's that if he made it, it should've been after he paid his debt to society which he has saucily evaded for many years while enjoying a quality of life I doubt his victims enjoys. >>Kathy To which Richard replies > Maybe he has repented. Maybe his mental anguish has been sufficiently torturous. Maybe he was insane when he did it. Maybe he was possessed by 1800 evil spirits. The point is: I don't know. I was neither there to witness the > event, nor was I inside Polanski's brain when he did it. > > All I know is..."The Pianist" is a great film. It has served every honor it has recieved. I want all my children, and everyone I know, to see it. I'll leave decisions regardnig the degree of Polanski's guilt and his punishment to God and to the Los Angeles County Prosecuting Attorney. > > However...I will also never ask Mr. Polanski to babysit my children. > Richard Dutcher To which Bill willson adds I feel lifestyle or actions aren't a valid criteria for the judgment of an artists work. As I said before, if we judged the worth of art on the merits of the artists lifestyle or their interactions with society, then we would have to throw out much of the classical art, music, and literature, which brings so much enrichment to our lives today. I do not condone immorality or debauchery, but I recognize the free agency of others to choose for themselves. Along with these choices also comes the right of the individual to break the law, and violate any or all of God's laws and commandments. In other words no one has to do anything, or refrain from doing anything. The only thing we absolutely have to do is pay the consequences for our poor choices. Unfortunately sometimes the consequences are anathematizing or shunning by society and friends. If we choose not to read the writing of authors who break God's commandments, then we will have to do without the works of Hemingway, London, Plath, and Woolf, to name a few. As you may recall these literary greats all commited suicide. That is a definite NO! No! from God. Anyway I agree with Richard, let's leave the life judging to God and stick to the criticism of the artists work based solely on its artistic merit, and our own taste. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Value of _Chicago_ Date: 11 Apr 2003 11:09:32 -0700 Thanks for explaining why you liked Chicago, Kim. I can see your viewpoint. But I'm going to have to stick with my original opinion. :) I think if it'd been handled a little differently I could've really enjoyed it--like made it more of a black comedy (but maybe not). I happen to love black comedies. I just didn't see anything funny in this movie. I think I'm seriously ready to just give up on movies. At least, most mainstream movies. I don't seem to enjoy hardly anything I see anymore. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 11 Apr 2003 18:15:01 GMT Alan Rex Mitchell: So I've decided to make a moral stand. I just cut the tags off the mattrasses. AND I have edited that great expressions of art *God's Army* by running the movie half way thru and splicing about two feet at random. AND I showed it to a friend last night and charged him one dollar. AND for fun I am drawing a moustache on a downloaded picture of the Mona Lisa (thanks Richard for the idea). Mattress police! _______________ Sorry to disappoint you, but cutting the tag off the mattress is perfectly legal if you are the retail owner. And, while cutting the tape or drawing the moustache may be considered by some to be the destruction of fine art, if you own the tape or the painting, your actions are still legal. The downloading of the art may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances, but probably was ok, based on your use of the material. Now, about that dollar you charged your friend -- when the slammer patrol knocks on your door, I would suggest you explain that the dollar was reimbursement for the popcorn, not an admission fee for viewing the film. And have your retail resale vendor's license handy, showing that you bought sufficient amounts of popcorn to cover your concession profits. What? You didn't have popcorn? Now *that's* criminal. Larry Jackson _______________ The reader is cautioned that the contents of this post are intended in fun and not as legal counsel. Readers should spend their own good money on lawyers they can sue before using any of this advice for legal purposes. The term Sunday refers to an event on the time continuum. No meteorological prediction is intended nor implied in the use of this descriptive moment. _______________ . ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 11 Apr 2003 12:15:42 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I suspect that it is only > by understanding the day-to-day life of that person can we evaluate his > goodness, level of repentance, or value of "his fruits." > > Because to do otherwise might make us expound, even unconsciously, the false > belief that you have to be good to create great works of art, which Mormons > so desperately want to believe, but which history has shown us again and > again, just isn't true. Can a wicked man (or at least a morally inconsistent > man) create great art? Of course. And I can guarantee you that will not be > the "fruit" by which he is judged of God. [MOD: Preemptive clarification: I am not opening this up for a discussion of individual presidents and their pros and cons politically, except as those can be related--as Eugene relates them here--to a discussion of their linguistic competence. A view of the politician as artist which, I must admit, I had never considered until reading this post...] Consider politicians. Kennedy (I believe) was a mediocre, overhyped president with a dishonest and immoral personal life, but boy did he make some inspiring speeches! FDR, I will (grudgingly) admit, was a great president, but also a political opportunist with a personal life as sullied as Kennedy's. Nixon, by all reports, was remarkably moral in his personal life, but as a politician became a monster, and then (mostly) redeemed himself. And he opened China (like Kennedy's statements about the space program, some things go a long way). Johnson was a monster in his personal life, yet was just the man to fulfill Kennedy's lofty ideals about civil rights (that Kennedy never could have). And how to begin to discuss that most consummate of politicians, Bill Clinton? Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 11 Apr 2003 15:51:52 EDT In a message dated 4/10/03 10:13:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: Re: D. Michael Martindale's Brother Brigham > Sheila dealt with frustrated sexual arousal by > masturbating. They claimed that women do not masturbate very much, > contrary to popular belief, and found it hard to believe that Sheila > would. > > I won't go into what I think of their belief on masturbating women. For > the moment I'll accept it at face value. I didn't tell them, but I was > undetered in my conviction that Sheila most certainly would masturbate > under those circumstances. Michael, Interest in your novel just rose about eight thousand percent. Happy publishing! Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division Date: 11 Apr 2003 12:38:14 -0600 DESERET BOOK FORMS NEW DIVISION See http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480034523,00.html Link Deseret Book Company has created a new division that is designed to help it distribute products from a greater number of authors, artists, and independent publishers. The new division, called Deseret Book Distributors, will pursue published books, music, and gift products to distribute to its wholesale retail network, largely catering to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 11 Apr 2003 14:55:17 -0600 . First, I would like to thank the exteemed H S Clark for the opportunity to reevaluate my own existence and reestablish my belief in myself as a living, breathing entity. I am Theric. I exist. (Or so I say.) But *Harlow*??? Come on--what kind of name is that? At least mine rhymes with a "real" name. Whoever made this character up isn't tring very hard to maintain the illusion of reality. I kid of course. He must be real--who else then would be editing poetry for Irreantum? (Although, may I point out, there is no picture by the byline?) But if he isn't real, I just hope it was not I who created him, because I don't remember doing it and he seems like a nice guy. But this conversation raises an obvious question--if so many people have CONSIDERED creating false personas, how many actually actually have? If you're following this string, write me and let me know. I'll write up a report on how many have done this, but I'll keep who a secret. We don't want you getting in trouble with Mr Langford. I have a suggestion: Mr Enos and I have talked about the difficulties and merits of writing epistolary fiction, but it occurs to me that it might be much more interesting for multiple authors to be involved in writing such a work. Each author takes one character and we create a list like this to play our roles--a nice mix of acting and literarying, improv theater and the novel. What a shimmering genious I have! (Note: I say I have a "shimmering genious" because this will be the final evidence required that I am not Harlow Clark. He, as an editor of poetry, would never be able to allow a trite and hackneyed phrase like "shimmering genious" out, no matter how strong the ring of truth.) So I guess this email may be summed up as follows: 1) I, at least, am real. 2) If you have ever been not real, let me know. 3) If you are interested in moving this discussion from the hypothetical and fun to the practical and hopefully still fun process of creating a multiauthor epistolary work, let me know. 4) Every decent list worthy of the name must be at least four items long. Really, ---------------theric jepson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Blood into Literature (was: Changing Our Minds) Date: 11 Apr 2003 14:35:27 -0700 [MOD: You should know that I was the one who came up with this thread title, which I think is wholly inadequate. I honestly couldn't think of any thread title that would adequately reflect the breadth of JG Enos's post. But I also thought that it deserved a new thread title to reflect the new thoughts he's put into it. "And so, dear reader, we embark upon a new adventure..."] >From Sharlee Glenn: "One recent example: when I was a little kid I had = a pretty traumatic experience that profoundly influenced my opinion of = rock music. To me, rock was the music of the dark side. This attitude = was starting to create some real tension between me and my 13-year-old = Styx/Boston/Chicago-loving son. The "Choose the Rock" thread opened my = mind to the idea that maybe, just maybe, rock wasn't inherently "evil" = and that perhaps I could loosen up a bit on what I allowed my son to = listen to. Did wonders for our relationship!" On a completely side note to Ivan's original question, Sharlee's comment = made me think of a something that hit me this past week. I'm finally = getting a chance to sit down and watch Ken Burn's epic documentary, = "JAZZ". I've already been struck by a number of things in the film which = have nothing to do with that genre of music, per se, finding nuggets of = wisdom on subjects such as American history, race relations, music = theory, and a sheer delight in the intelligent articulation of ideas = from a host of wonderful interviewees.=20 But with respect to Rock, or rather, with respect to the "generation = gaps" that sometime divide us from the cultural movements of younger = peers or our children, I was astonished to hear quotations from = turn-of-the-last-century newspapers talking about Ragtime that could = have been transposed, word-for-word, into the 60's or 70's as talking = about rock. I mean, if the quotation had not been read in context, I = would have had no idea that Ragtime was the subject, and not some more = modern "subversive" form.=20 It seems to me, then, that every generation, every decade, every = movement of change, has been plagued by a division between the creators = and enjoyers of the new movement -- who revel in a freshly-discovered = sense of freedom and expression -- and the observes and disdainers of = the new movement -- who scorn and deride what they see as, at best, a = distortion of better more classic forms and, at worst, a genuine vehicle = for evil.=20 Ragtime, which seems to us now as such a jaunty, fun, classic, and even = innocent music, was truly thought to be music to loose children's souls = by in the 1900's! Perhaps rock will seem as quaint some day.=20 Jazz, which is now seen as a music of the sophisticate, was once seen as = a sensation of debauchery. =20 Fifty years after the fact, as Led Zeplin is becoming, in hindsight, = perceived as that much closer to it's historical Blues roots, and is = thereby becoming equally benign: a music to study as an historic form = rather than a blast of emotion to get high by.=20 And what has changed except time and perception?=20 We are so young, all of us humans, really. What about God, for whom all = of this is just a big been-there-done-that? And yet, He loves us so = much, not even he can completely dismiss our frivolous whims. This thought, in a grand engagement of lateral digression, leads me to = another unrelated topic. Just this morning, as I was popping in to pick = up another title in the series of Avi's "Tales from the Dimwood Forest" = series that my daughter has recently fallen in love with, I saw a book = cover which caught my attention, particularly in context with recent = discussions on the List.=20 The book was called _Speak What We Feel (Not What We Ought To Say): = Reflections on Literature and Faith_, written by novelist, memoirist, = poet and Presbyterian minister Frederick Buechner. I've never read any = Buechner, but I did some research, found some reviews of him, and was = fascinated by the cover copy about his book, an exploration of how = literature, when it dares to plumb the deepest levels of human despair = and questing for truth, can often lead to a well-spring of spiritual = enlightenment. I guess the only tie-in to the music thread is the = concept of changing perceptions, which is the question Ivan stared this = whole thing out with. Let me quote from a few reviews of the book, a book which I have not = read, but the topic of which stimulates me to think about some of our = own literature-and-faith-related issues. Gail Hudson of Amazon.com says: "Great literature is like a spiritual = informant, helping readers derive meaning out of the best of times and = the worst of times. In [the book]... Buechner pays homage to the worst = of times, examining the life and writings of four esteemed writers and = how they each came to terms with despair on the page. The title, Speak = What We Feel, alludes to the bravery of William Shakespeare, Gerald = Manley Hopkins, Mark Twain, and G.K. Chesterton--all of whom opened the = veins to their hearts and let their emotions bleed upon the page. = "Vein-opening writers are putting not just themselves into their books, = but themselves at their nakedest and most vulnerable," writes Buechner. = Not all writers do it all the time, he notes, and many writers never do = it at all. "But for the four writers these pages are about, each did it = at least once, and that is the most important single thing they have in = common." Writers who are fascinated with the process of creativity will = find these essays particularly satisfying..." The Publishers Weekly reviewer didn't like the book much, wishing = Buechner would have even better explored: "...The powerful ways in which = literature reveals the depths of human vulnerability as well as = humankind's constant search to give meaning to the ambiguities of life. = He uses a simplistic and rather vague formula to show that our greatest = literature has come from writers who poured their life's blood into = their work and unveiled their own shortcomings to us. Buechner...selects = particular works...as examples of the artist's attempt to articulate = forthrightly his own deep struggles with sadness, lonesomeness, guilt or = the absence of God. Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for = example, succeeds in staving off the novelist's loneliness and in = "piloting a course around both the darkness of the past and the darkness = that he knew awaited him not much further downstream." Similarly, the = struggle between good and evil central to Chesterton's The Man Who Was = Thursday simply reflects his own struggle with the "black despair" of = depression.=20 Augustine J. Curley, writing for Library Journal says that Buechner: = "...brings a Christian perspective to these works, suggesting, for = example, that Shakespeare's Fool becomes a Fool for Christ's sake, = sacrificing himself for his friend. Buechner's work is not one of = literary criticism. Instead, he uses these works as sources for a = meditation on suffering and the literary process, and he shows how the = four writers wrestle, either directly or obliquely, with the meaning of = Christianity. In an afterword, he reflects on the role of personal = sadness in his own writing and suggests that these works might offer a = lesson in how each of us could deal with sadness in our lives. This book = will appeal to readers interested in either the purgative value of the = literary process or the spiritual side of literature.=20 And finally the Booklist reviewer (I love Booklist; I used to subscribe, = but who can afford it?; however, I've never found myself led astray by = this magazines astute reviewers), points out: "In the personal creed of = ...Buechner, faith requires a harrowing encounter with darkness. = Buechner has probed the meaning of tragedy and evil in his own fiction, = but here he writes as an appreciative critic of four other writers who = have confronted death and malignity, hopelessness and grief, with = unflinching integrity...That Chesterton is included in this group comes = as a surprise, but Buechner has recovered a neglected gem, a haunting = narrative that exposes mysterious connections between the darkest = elements in life and the most radiant. An honest and disturbing = meditation on the deepest questions in literature.=20 I guess why I bring all of this up are all of the interesting allusions = to literature's power to expiate, but also the suggestion that it is = often times, ironically, the exploration of the dark depths of our souls = that is, ultimately, the most expiating. We love Shakespeare, Twain, the = others Buechner talks about, and even someone we know asked = dramatically: "Where are the Mormon Shakespeare's?" I would propose that = one of the reasons we don't see too many Mormon Twains or Bards, is that = we hesitate (is it self-imposed hesitation, or is it such things as the = Deseret Book buying policies?) to truly, honestly, frankly, plumb our = own human depths very much. As a side-effect of our culture, this may be = the single most limiting tendency to all of us as artists. But I propose = that we can "Speak what we feel (not necessarily what we ought to say)" = and still be good Christians. I guess it is a point of perspective. Just as Ragtime and Jazz were once = controversial but now have come into their own, and rock was once = derided but is now seen with less of a dangerous bite, perhaps, too, LDS = writing which "opens its veins and bleeds upon the page" will find a = place, even if it is just a small place, in the pantheon of our growing = literature. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 11 Apr 2003 15:50:35 -0600 Okay, here's an (I hope) interesting question relating to this thread. When we read a dramatic text, like Shakespeare's Henry V, and then read = criticism of it, well, there's a sort of dialogue there. It's a play I = know fairly well, and so I'm interested in criticism of it from any or all = perspectives. I've read, for example, Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The = Invention of the Human, and his chapter on the play. Well, that's = interesting. Bloom detests new historicism, so okay, I'll find a good = Stephen Greenblatt essay on the play, and I get a totally different new = historicist reading of the text. Then I find a feminist reading of the = text--particularly fascinating when looking at the French princess = scene--and that provides some insight, and then I read some Marxist = criticism and that clues me in to class issues in the play which are = interesting, and sooner or later, I've read a dozen essays and I have = learned quite a bit about an interesting text. And maybe I've got some = insights of my own, and so I maybe write an essay of my own. To what end? = Better understanding, I suppose. =20 But see, then I'm asked to direct a production of the play. That's the = world I live in; I'm a theatre guy who pretends to be a critic. And = suddenly, I can't just say 'see, Bloom understands this line this way and = Greenblatt understands it that way. Interesting.' I have to make a = choice. I have to decide which way I'll urge the actor to read it. I = have to put that actor in a costume, and place him in a setting. I have = to cast the actor in the first place. I have to make decisions, and each = of those decisions precludes other decisions and choices. Each feels = definitive. And all those decisions presumably add up to something, a = single reading of the text which I hope to communicate to an audience. =20 Now, by preference and inclination, I'd rather not choose between the = various possible readings a text might support. This is essentially = because, deep down inside, I don't believe in anything. I'm not a = Marxist; I just think it's interesting to read criticism that explores = class and power issues in a text. I'm not a deconstructionist, though I = find deconstruction a tremendously useful tool. I'm not a new historicist,= but I have bought most of their albums,and I'm not really a feminist, = though I regularly sing in their choir. I call myself a 'liberal' = because, to me, 'liberal' means someone who doesn't believe in anything. = It means someone who listens to all the different viewpoints available, = and thinks they all have value, or looks for value in each. And sure, = picks and chooses between them, for sure. But someone who tries to keep = his mind open. (I'm talking ideals here. Y'all know me too well for me = to get away with claiming too much open-mindedness!) =20 Now politically, that doesn't work so well, because there's an end; I have = to go to the polls and vote for someone. I can't ultimately say 'well, = that candidate has some good ideas and that candidate has some other good = ideas; they're both pretty good (or awful). I can say that for awhile, = but ultimately, I have to vote for guy Q and against guy Z. Either we = raise taxes to pay for that new town sewer, or we live with the old one = and agree to hold our noses when we drive past it. The fact that = arguments pro and con have validity is nice to contemplate, but a decision = needs to be made. =20 Criticism is valuable, I think, almost precisely because it's open-ended. = It's an arena where we get to play with ideas, almost purely. As a = theatre guy, I want to play with criticism a lot, because it's close to = the necessarily chaotic approximation of pure thought from which all = structures and paradigms are formed. This is good, because I have to = become pragmatic in theatre. I have to create a paradigm I call a = 'director's concept.' And I have an absolute moral obligation to not be = boring. Which means, the theatrical text I create needs to be as rich and = multi-textured as the combined talents of me and my artistic accomplices = can make it. =20 So my point is this; 'Mormonism' is a paradigm to which we're wedded. But = the Gospel is and must be broad enough to encompass all truth. It IS the = playground. It IS the Chaos. And as readers and critics, we find that = the Gospel does and must support all critical theory, all of it. All = literature contains truth, and all criticism of literature too. Especially= the stuff that contradicts all the other stuff. Now, we may have to make = certain decisions based on it. Those decisions will always be based on = incomplete information, and an incomplete understanding of truth. Which = is why I read. And watch movies. And pray. =20 Or something like that. Any thoughts? Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives, Date: 11 Apr 2003 18:41:27 EDT In a message dated 4/9/03 10:37:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 ddgraham@netutah.net writes: > Does Roman Polanski have the monopoly > on providing spiritual experiences in film making/viewing?=20 >=20 Of course not. But he is also not prohibited from providing a spiritual=20 experience. If he offers one, I'll take it. From anyone. There are so few cinema/spiritual experiences out there. Dianna to Richard: "So, here I am on my soapbox, and I ask you. Is the=20 World's Film Library really so small that nothing else out there could teach= =20 us, move us, change us just as much without assaulting us at the same time?" Richard to Dianna: I enjoyed your post, and I think we probably have very similar taste in=20 films. The good R-rated films you mentioned (Glory, Dead Man Walking, etc.)=20= I=20 also enjoyed very much. My answer to your question is that I simply don't feel assaulted by most=20 R-rated films, even those that seem to horrify others. I understand that=20 other people do feel assaulted by the same films. (Personally, I feel much=20 more assaulted, insulted, and offended by the average television commercial.= ) I don't act out violence that I see in films. I consider myself a fairly=20 self-aware human being, and I don't notice any increase in aggression after=20 seeing violence in films. I seldom dream about the films I see, even the mos= t=20 recent version of "The Exorcist," which had some of the most disturbing=20 imagery I have ever seen (Thumbs up!).=20 As for sexual content, I don't dream (or daydream) about it. It doesn't flas= h=20 in my mind during inappropriate times such as in the temple or during the=20 sacrament or while making love to my wife. It doesn't lure me into seeking=20 out pornography or to committing sexual sins. As for language: when an actor and screenwriter let fly with one of the thre= e=20 or four words that I find particularly ugly and violent, I cringe and wish=20 they hadn't "shared," but I don't find myself using the words either in life= =20 or in my mind. I understand that what I have just said seems to fly in the face of=20 everything we hear in Sunday School, but =E2=80=A6that's my experience. Mayb= e I'm=20 some sort of mutant, but I don't see any distinguishable negative effect tha= t=20 my movie viewing has on my life. I'm sure some would say that I have seared=20 my conscience beyond repair or that I have wallowed in the sewer for so long= =20 that it takes a particularly stinky piece of soil to have any effect on my=20 senses. But I don't think so. I still love and I am still affected by innocence in=20 film. I am still repelled by evil. I'm still not attracted to stupidity and=20 violence and pornography in films. No one has been able to drag me to Vin=20 Diesel's "XXX" or "Showgirls" or any early John Water's movies. Perhaps I just don't meditate on the unattractive images and sounds that I=20 hear in movie theaters. I wonder if I see films differently than most. For one thing, I consider fil= m=20 a powerful and beautiful art form. Most people I know consider it a toy. I=20 wonder if, because I have made movies and I understand in a first-hand way=20 their artificiality and their actual physical construction, I enjoy a=20 distance with films that most viewers don't.=20 I mean, when I see a character decapitated in a film, there is no part of me= =20 that believes that I am watching a real murder taking place. ("Sleepy Hollow= "=20 has some wonderful decapitations, by the way). It is so clearly a fictional=20 occurrence created by a team of movie magicians. I am delighted by the=20 filmmakers' wizardry. The more powerfully effective the fiction is, the more= =20 impressed I am by the filmmaking, but at no point do I forget that it is=20 fiction.=20 (Interesting story: when I was 10 years old I was watching Eastwood's "Magnu= m=20 Force" on television. My step-father passed through the room just as the=20 movie's sniper shot a woman swimming in her pool. You could see the entry=20 wound explode on her shoulder. I said, "Cool." Not because I thought it was=20 cool that somebody got shot. I thought the special effect was cool. But my=20 stepfather freaked. He sent me to my room and called me "sick." He thought h= e=20 was raising a serial killer. It turned out he was raising a movie director.)= =20 However, having said everything that I've said, I must admit that I am not=20 immune to feeling abused by the occasional film. For instance, there are a=20 few films which, because of their content, I wish I had never seen: Kevin=20 Smith's "Clerks," "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer," one scene in "Requie= m=20 for a Dream"=E2=80=A6I'm sure there's more. I just can't recall them. My point is: I'm not willing to throw out all R-rated movies because a very=20 small percentage of them offend me. I'll take the bitter with the sweet. Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, mayb= e=20 violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality=20 television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and= =20 addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images=20 we see. Or maybe I'm totally talking out of my bum. I don't know. How on earth did we get back on this thread? Did I do it? I apologize.=20 Really, I do.=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 11 Apr 2003 16:11:06 -0600 Margaret or maybe Marilyn Brown/Young wrote: The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? But you're not Thom Duncan, we am. Actually, I wrote a very cool story like this in my twenties--very cool. Way cool. It's about a disembodied spirit that possesses the body of a young woman. The spirit is male. Soon a variety of other spirits possess her. They all take turns being the dominant spirit until the first male falls in love with their "hostess." He expels the other spirits/personalities, then embark on a serious romantic relationship with him/her/whatself. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 11 Apr 2003 16:58:22 -1000 Is suffering only the side of the spectrum that can create "art"? Can great joy, happiness etc be the spawn of great art? Is it less suffering in specific or intense emotion that causes people to create? Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 11 Apr 2003 17:02:54 -1000 Another thought, why would suffering be the experience focused on as what enables artists to create art? Is suffering more a condition brought on because someone is trying to be an artist and hasn't been successful yet? I would think that an artist that hasn't produced anything that is considered great suffers from the rejection of his audience, the worry of providing for him/herself and dependants, the questioning of their ability etc. These could all be suffering caused by the attempt to be an artist. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben and Jessie Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 11 Apr 2003 22:56:08 -0600 I guess I'll respond again, since I'm the one who ended up starting this thread. First, to respond to Kathy Tyner: "But, there is often a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle expectation that one should be able to forgive and get past all this in a relatively short time. And if you don't, then you need to straighten up, work harder, pray, read the scpitures and forgive, right now!" I think that you are right that, culturally, we sometimes forget that real trauma takes time to heal, and often professional help. I had a companion for a short time who ended up going home early from her mission because of a mental breakdown. She had been baptized only a few years before, and had suffered several instances of abuse/rape while she was younger. The gospel really had helped her heal and forgive, but she never saw a therapist to resolve some of her underlying issues. These didn't surface until she ended up realizing as a missionary that, psychologically, she could not handle having men in a position of authority over her. That wasn't something prayer could resolve; she had to go home for more therapy. Second, I actually did remember a book I read recently that, while not obviously Mormon, nor necessarily about rape, is a very good depiction of the sexual issues that kids face while growing up. (OK, I'm only 25, so I'm practically talking about myself here) Anyways, it's Louise Plummer's "A Dance for Three". None of the characters are obviously Mormon, probably because that's not really the point of the book anyway. It is set in Salt Lake, and the fact that the main characters are Mormon is implied, but not explicit. While Hannah isn't really raped in the traditional sense, she's the classic example of a lonely, confused girl who stumbles into a sexual relationship with a manipulative guy and ends up pregnant. He turns into a real jerk, and even his family ends up shunning her rather than accepting what he did. Here are the things I liked best about the book: Louise is funny even when she writes about serious stuff; the characters are generally round--none are all good, and none are all bad, even Milo (the guy); it actually presents adoption as a realistic option, but still a difficult choice to make (this is rare in the national YA market). (There's a short story based on a character that didn't make it into the book in the current Irreantum if you want a taste) Anyways, I feel like this book is edging a little closer to the kind of fiction I hope we can have in the future. We need more books for young adults that don't present the "all junior high kids have sex" standards of many people out there, but without the standard Mormon cliches of innocent, church-going youth who know nothing about what everyone else does. Like in "A Dance for Three", sex is a confusing issue when you're a teenager and we need more things that can honestly confront the issue without patronizing. Jessie Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Re: Attitudes toward Mormons (was: Wanting to Be Jews) Date: 12 Apr 2003 12:10:03 -0400 "Travis K. Manning" wrote: > The frustrating thing: I don't know exactly why this Presbyterian friend of > mine won't let me read. I know that their church is sponsoring this group, > Genesis, and that for whatever reason, they don't want me to read, that > they're afraid that those congregation members that are attending will think > the Presbyterian church is endorsing, in some way not understood by me, > Mormons.... I'm this close to going and visiting with their pastor and > laying some things out. For about five years our local branch was cramped into miserable quarters, renting a secular office space for a meeting house. Last year, the Stake/SLC finally got on the ball (finally completed their great and spacious building in Salt Lake and were able to free up $ for some local projects) and approved a room of our own. The steeple on our beautiful chapel went up this week! But for the past interim year, we moved from the abysmal quarters and have been renting, for a nominal fee, a lovely Presbyterian church. They meet Sunday morning, we meet in the afternoon. I thought this was a truly magnanimous gesture, but sadly the regional Presb. synod threw out this one congregation because of it. This is apparently some touchy subject with them. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 12 Apr 2003 10:31:09 -0600 Can I say this about the temple? Bruce and I went to a session last night. I didn't immediately recognize the man who checked my recommend, but he pointed to his name tag--Ivan Crosland--and I immediately embraced him. I love that man. He was my director and friend years ago back in my theater days. And what a joy to move from that embrace to the session room and hear Ivan's voice portraying a particular role. What a joy to hear Cory Sprague, with whom I've also acted (back when he didn't know how to act and was a mere kid) portraying another role. And then to hear Bob Nelson, also another of my directors/friends. I commented to Bruce about the various roles we play, the various assignments we're given in this life, and the direction we receive from our friends--who are also filling their roles and assignments. Bruce said, "I don't think you can take three steps without finding a metaphor." He meant it as a mere observation, not a critique, btw. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] _Brigham City_ Comments Date: 12 Apr 2003 16:04:21 -0400 Hello, I'm new to the list. I read in the latest Irr. that Michael Minnich had a criticism of Brigham City's morality. I'm curious to read the details of his position. Does anyone have a copy? Much thanks. -- Yours, Samuel Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 13 Apr 2003 10:43:58 -0600 The question, as I cut and pasted it (and for which, being new to the list, I cannot provide original attribution), was: > Is it necessary to suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or > from the sins of others (usually both), to be a great artist? Though I think was responding less to the above and more to an attitude observed in college writing classes, that before becoming an "author" of any literary merit one must first "experience" the world (i.e., go fight in the Spanish Civil War, or head to Paris and generally debauch oneself). Now, the life of Emily Dickinson pretty much answers that contention. Nor can I call to mind (maybe somebody else can) any evidence that Shakespeare, say, suffered more than his less-talented contemporaries. While suffering can wake us out of complacency, or prompt us to wrestle with angels, I think the more appropriate/realistic model is Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, whose insights into the darker aspects of human nature come from keen observation of the ordinary goings-on in her sleepy English village. Perhaps, post-Freud, we too willingly prize empathy over observation. To answer the specific question, I would say that, no, it is not "necessary to suffer (or sin) greatly" to become a "great artist." Among other things, this notion leads artists, who, in a desire to become "great" (and not wishing to go fight in the Spanish Civil War and can't afford Paris) to invent personal "suffering" where there is only stupidity and boredom and studied alienation and chickens coming home to roost. At least that's my explanation for the accolades heaped upon a movie like "American Beauty": "great artists," slogging through their pampered, upper middle-class, mid-life crises, have a vested interest in believing that the rest of us are as unhappy and screwed up as they are. And wish to assure themselves (and us) that it is really not their fault at all, but the fault of Dreadful America and the Dreadful suburbs, and the Dreadful consumer culture, and the Dreadful mean-spirited Republicans (or the Dreadful God-hating Liberals). But I don't think you can classify sinning and suffering like felonies and misdemeanors. True, "great" suffering, like "great" sinning, serves dramatic ends by providing a recognizable degree of illustrative contrast--art always being about conflict, and the greater the conflict the easier it is to make the dramatic point. But this doesn't mean that our suffering (or sinning) is so different than anybody else's, or has been reduced to unartistically useful levels. I'm reminded of a quip by Isaac Asimov, responding to the contention that modern man doesn't suffer enough to produce great art. What, he asked, should we then loose Plague & Deprivation upon the world and wait for the next Shakespeare to arise? True, the comforts of modern society make it to harder to rail against heaven without seeming petty or vindictive, or like a guest on Jerry Springer. Consider that when the conflict/sinning/suffering somehow involves the church--and I'm not thinking in kicking-against-the-pricks terms--we tend to become so cautious about our Jobian complaints as to wallpaper over the useful lessons the conflict/sinning/suffering could teach us. This is perhaps why I am drawn more to mystery, fantasy and SF (rather than "literary" fiction), genres that build in the metaphorical buffers, that allow our existential pains to be explored in concrete terms, without inventing the willing-suspension-of-disbelief-killing fictions that the high school cheerleader really does want to sleep with us, or that our next-door neighbor really is a homicidal, gay-bashing misogynist, or that our daughter really is dating a wise-beyond-his-years, peeping-tom drug-dealer. I seriously find it far easier to believe in a teenaged girl who spends her nights stalking about cemeteries and staking vampires. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hamilton Fred Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 14 Apr 2003 10:05:25 -0600 (MDT) S. Michael Wilcox wrote two works of fiction, before he turned to his extended works of gospel explication. One, "One Winged Dove", deals with an institute teacher's struggle to help a young lady, not a Church member, who has been a victim of rape. There is even a description of how the young lady was assaulted, though the word rape was never used in that description. I worked with Dr. Wilcox when he was writing that work. In one way, the work was cathartic for him because it was based on a real experience. The resolution in the story did not represent the resolution in real life. Both resolution's, however, portray the sadness that touches the lives of not only the victims, but also those who so sincerely try to help in a gospel way. And still, the horrors of the world will not allow even them any simple answers. But, somehow, those who have found their sense of membership as fellow saints with Christ also find a way to move on, still trying to do the Lord's work. They are sadder, they are wiser, but they are also the small heroes in that they do not stop in their humble desire to be merciful. Please do not mistake my words here, the large very real heroes are the victims. In spite of having their ability to choose their own identities and their own selfhoods brutally and forcefully robbed from them, they choose to go on, trying to reestablish what they know they will never have again. But those who counsel, even in official capacities, do so with a sincerity that speaks of real desire to comfort those who need comfort. Those who humbly comfort do not cease striving, with one or numerous failures. One Winged Dove speaks about such an effort. In this world of great indifference, and even greater cynicism or criticism about failed, less-than-perfect efforts, can't we see a ray of light in such a novel? As always, only my very fallible thoughts. Skip Hamilton, lurker. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 14 Apr 2003 10:46:46 -0600 In response to the Tim Slover question: Absolutely, knowing that Miramax ripped off March Tale to make Shakespeare = in Love affected my viewing of the film. Tim Slover is one of my closest = friends. I acted in the original production of March Tale. I did see = Shakespeare in Love and loathed it. I went specifically because Tim asked = me to. I went hoping to hate it, expecting to, looking for every possible = reason to hate it. I was well rewarded. It may be a charming and = pleasant entertainment. (It's certainly stolen from one.) I don't care. = I know that Tim sent the script to David Parfitt. Parfitt works for = Harvey Weinstein. I think that Weinstein is a crook, and so is Parfitt, = and that Weinstein hired another crook, Marc Norman to write a screenplay = based on Tim's source (plus a couple of others), and that Norman also got = a producers credit for doing so. =20 What I hate most about it is the way it treats the question of Shakespeare'= s marriage. March Tale specifically shows Ann in a positive light, and = shows the Shakespeare marriage as troubled and difficult, but also deeply = loving and close. He was gone, chasing difficult professional dreams that = required him to be in London, while she ran the estate back home in = Stratford. Those scenes between Will and Ann are the most poignant and = truthful scenes in a lovely play. But Marc Norman, in stealing Tim's = idea, jettisoned the possibility of showing an actual marriage for = Shakespeare. Instead, he chose to turn the thing into this rose-colored = pro-adultery romance. Makes sense; someone with no professional integrity = can't be expected to understand the possibility of marital integrity. I threw a shoe at my TV when it won the Oscar. I missed the TV--bad = aim--but I did hit the TV stand. =20 That seems to me to be different from a situation like The Piano. I have = no idea if Marc Norman has ever committed armed robbery, say. It doesn't = matter. His Oscar for Best Screenplay is utterly bogus. He was rewarded = for work he did not do. He's a plagiarist. Tom Stoppard, I understand, = was brought in to do a week's worth of doctoring, I think in part because = he's Tom Stoppard, for heaven's sake, and they thought his presence and = prestige might help to take the stench off a project that was widely = rumored to be crooked. I think Stoppard was an innocent in this crime, = and so my ill feelings towards Norman and Miramax generally don't rub off = on him. I submit that there's a difference between an artist who does things in = his personal life that are reprehensible (even criminal) and an artist who = acts criminally professionally. I can say that the Pianist is a great = film, despite Polanski's conviction for sex crimes. I can't cut Shakespear= e in Love the same slack. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 14 Apr 2003 11:59:14 -0600 ___ Marianne ___ | The fact is that an artist's personal life/views/politics=20 | *are* a part of the decision-making and I do think it is=20 | not right that people who do such horrible things (and=20 | seek only to save their own skins rather than make=20 | reparations) are not shunned by their peers. ___ This is an excellent point. The fact is that the Oscars are primarily a political award. Yes the quality of ones art is part of the award. But to seriously suggest that it is even the prime part seems terribly na=EFve. Just look, for instance, at most critics "best of the 80's" lists. Then look at how few won Academy Awards. How long was it before Spielberg one. And consider Scorsese. He's considered one of the best directors of all time but has never won an award. Further his _Gangs of New York_ was nominated even though it was *far* below most of his other works in terms of quality. There are many other examples of this. Consider Hitchcock, arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th century. Yet look at how the academy treated him. . . Thus one *can't* help but consider the Academy's decision as, in part, a comment by that artistic community on Polanski the person. That Polanski's sexual antics were so widely discussed during the voting period suggests that his winning was also a "vote" on the rape events. Whether one considers Polanski a great director or not, one can't help but feeling that this does establish a certain cultural disconnect between Hollywood actors and the population at large. (As if there weren't already many examples of that this year) ___ Margaret ___ | Of course, if we're going to ban Polanski, we also must ban=20 | Edgar Allan Poe for marrying his underaged cousin.=20 ___ That's not entirely a fair comparison. For one Poe lived in an era with *very* different views of marriage and sexuality. It would be akin to discounting an artist from the mid 19th century because of their views on African-Americans. Most of us consider that our culture has progressed since the 19th century. Further I think many of us would argue that one ought to be judged within the framework of ones culture and understanding. By that criteria there really is no comparison. If you want a better comparison, perhaps Jerry Lee Lewis or Elvis Presley are more appropriate examples. However even in those cases it seems hard to see the parallels as that pronounced. Perhaps Polanski's later relationship with Nastassja Kinski would be appropriate. After all that clearly *was* a lengthy relationship that was consensual with an extremely young woman. =20 Of course one must point out that given Polanski's relationships he clearly does have a very unhealthy view of young women. He has been in many relationships with underaged women. While perhaps that wasn't *that* uncommon in the 1950's in both the US and France, it became more and more unacceptable as time went on. That Polanski kept up these activities into the 1980's even *after* the events in California ought to count as something. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe we ought to judge a thinker or artist's works in terms of their personal lives. One can, for example, look at Heidegger's relationship with Nazism. An even better example might be Leni Riefenstahl and her masterful film _Triumph of the Will_. We can acknowledge her talent as a film makers. But I must admit that while admiring the talent and thought of the above people, I *can't* separate their Nazism from their work. I simply can't. =20 [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 14 Apr 2003 12:54:33 -0600 ___ Jim ___ | I have met only a very few honest liberals (by which I mean | possessed of only the usual levels of hypocrisy, nothing | exceptional), and fewer still that would actually engage an | idea intellectually. ___ No offense Jim, but you need to get out more then. I'm conservative, but I've met many intellectual liberals. Either you are only engaging intellectually with those you agree with or else (more likely) you are confusing disagreements of how to interpret events with dishonesty. The fact is that for any event your presuppositions will dramatically color how you view events. It has been my experience that many people are unable to see that. They take certain interpretations as "self-evident" when they are anything but. I'll avoid going further into this problem of hermeneutics except to re-emphasize how significant this problem is. I would, however, question the diplomacy of saying "I have met only a very few honest liberals." Whether this is true or not, it tends to communicate not just your limited experience but rather your opinion of the group as a whole. Consider, for example, were you to say, "I have met only a very few honest Jews. . ." I think you'd see the problem were you to say something like that. Yet somehow while we are sensitive to unfair or overgeneralizations of races, we treat ideas as being somehow different. ___ Jim ___ | As far as sides go, however, I'm on the Stoic side, and | that is the prism that I use to criticize literature. | The platonic side was worth reading and learning, but I | don't much care for mysticism. ___ OK, you get some brownie points for being familiar with the Stoics (a very neglected group). I'd add that one can be a Platonist without being a mystic. The mystic element tended to be more due to Pythagorean influences. Further I'd point out that much of Stoic thought came about via a significant grappling with fundamental Platonic texts such as the Timaeus and the Phaedrus. So there isn't necessarily quite as big a gap between Plato and the Stoics as you suggest. I'd also suggest that "mysticism" can be found within Stoicism. After all their view of the Logos is heavily influenced by Heraclitus - right up to the final conflagration of all elements. While it is true that the Stoics approach wasn't quite the same as say neoPlatonic mystics, there was a strong holism to the Stoic worldview that is in keeping with mysticism. ___ Jim ___ | Universals are those things that appear in everything. I | am not speaking of Chomsky's silly theory that there's a | nifty English grammar underlying all other languages, but | of those things that are true. Literature, even fiction, | is part of the search for truth. By denying the existence | of truth (which both marxist and post-modernist criticism | do openly, and feminist & environmentalist do by their | fantastic rejection of reality) one precludes the finding | of it. ___ Just a clarification. Chomskey doesn't suggest that there is an *English* grammar underlying all other languages. Indeed he says quite the contrary. (After all Japanese and Chinese adopt a very different grammar) He, and many others, argue that grammar of all forms are a manifestation of an underlying brain structure. There is abundant evidence for this. Probably Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ is one of the better recent popularizations of this notion. Many people feel that many structures, including those in literature, are also a manifestation of underlying brain structure. Even the popularizers of mythic critical analysis, such as Eliadi or Campbell, have stated that they feel common mythic structures arise from a common psychology. Thus, for instance, our common "hero" story-line arises because of the way the brain evolved. We expect it and many other literary structures because of the way we evolved. How much people buy this will vary according to the individual. I think that there is a strong element of biological structure is undeniable. I think that can be pushed too far though. I'd also once again point out that most postmodernists *do not* deny the existence of truth. I've written on that a lot in these threads though. Feel that way if you wish, but to continue to claim that in the absence of evidence suggests that you aren't engaging those you disagree with. Which is probably why you were able to make your initial comments regarding hypocrisy. ___ Jim ___ | Perhaps the reason why Sophocles' plays aren't ultra popular | today is because many people have no clue that there is such | a thing as universals. ___ Whether there "is such a thing as universals" is very debatable. Most modern philosophies are definitely nominalistic towards universals. Even those that move towards realism, often do so in careful ways. (i.e. Armstrong and his views of universals) http://www.simons-rock.edu/~sara/index.php3?topic=philosophy/universals It is rather odd to me that you reject Platonism yet also are so emphatic about universals. As I'm sure you are aware, realism towards universals is typical of Platonism and not Stoicism. Stoics consider universals to be derivative presentations and do not exist in a primary sense. Recall that for Stoics to exist is to be a body. While they do accept certain things that Platonists would consider forms, they tend to be bodies disposed in a certain way for the Stoics. Thus there are no universals apart from particulars. Here's a brief introduction to Stoicism: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Stoic.htm http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/mores/religion/stoicism.htm So I must confess that your objections seem somewhat self-contradictory. But you are right, most people have a very depreciating view of universals. ___ Jim ___ | Feminist criticism ignores the value of that technology | in gaining equality. ___ I don't quite see how you can say that given the *extensive* writing of feminists with regard to contraceptives. Even with respect to various home appliances there has been extensive writing by feminists. What feminists point out though, is that technology for housework *hasn't* emancipated women as some suggest. For instance instead of washing machines and vacuum cleaners giving women free time, for a long period all that happened was that the requirements of cleanliness increased given women no additional free time. Technology alone wasn't enough. Perhaps it gave a greater *potential* for independence, but society tended to deny the actualization of that potential. My point is that feminists do discuss these things, but point out that things are more complex than they at first appear. Whether one agrees with them or not, one must acknowledge that some of their criticisms have a point. ___ Jim ___ | Stoicism and Platonicism are as different as liberal and | conservative. ___ A rather ironic comment given the way Stoicism evolved and its close connection to Platonism. ___ Jim ___ | Classical liberals are conservatives. ___ It might be more accurate to say that modern conservativism adopted certain trends within classic liberalism. Other trends it repressed. This isn't to say that studying the Renaissance isn't significant for understanding conservatism. However I find that many conservatives pick and choose what elements to discuss. (Further I find that traditional humanism's underlying theme of "man is the measure of all things" to be deeply problematic religiously) ___ Jim ___ | A conservative is anybody who says, "if we're going to | err, let's err on the side of tradition." ___ I don't think that a fair view of conservatism as a *movement*. (It fits the actual term conservative, of course) To bring this out, simple compare modern conservatism with the form of it from the first part of the 20th century - they are dramatically different movements. In many ways modern neo-cons are very revolutionary in their outlook - often with a large does of messianic zeal. In its way the conservative/liberal divide parallels the reformation and counter-reformation. In that I mean that "tradition" tends to be a loosely applied standard. *Some* traditions are discarded and even attacked. And this is especially true in conservative attacks on liberalism. (Which isn't to say that such attacks aren't justified, just that to say this is erring on the side of tradition is difficult to swallow) Now if you want a very good explanation for how this all happens as a literary movement, I think you'll find that the most powerful explanations come from the postmodern camp. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Peter WARINNER, _Sumdar_ Date: 13 Apr 2003 23:52:18 -0400 Hello, I thought people might be interested to hear about Peter, a colleague of mine from residency. He joined the church it seems like a year ago, around the time that his first fiction was published. I don't know if that would warrant inclusion in AML news, but I thought it might be of interest. It is science fiction; he's a fantastic neurologist now practicing in NY. Amazon link included because it's easy, not because I think you need to shop at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967783941/qid=1050291780/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3321522-0422450?v=glance&s=books -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 14 Apr 2003 14:14:40 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | This ultra-conservative approach to reverencing the temple | _will_ hamstring our literature, as Eugene has described. | Such a vital aspect of our religion and our lives forever | banned from our literature? That's paramount to making | LDS literature a lie, in the same sense as pretending | sex doesn't exist is a lie about the human condition. ___ I don't think that apt. First off the view of sex in art some people have *isn't* pretending that sex doesn't exist. Rather it is that sex ought to be treated as sacred. Further they tend to point out that graphic depictions of sex are often due to a lack of creativity than a necessity. Consider many Hollywood films from the height of censorship. I just watched _The Maltese Falcon_. It deals rather heavily with sex, but in a veiled way. Many film noir movies were able to deal with sex while remaining within the censorship of the time. Often, watching those films as compared with modern films, the effect is actually accentuated by that restraint. Agree or disagree with the imposition of these limitations. I tend to think they were overboard, but that's not really the point. The point is that often impositions of these sorts aid a work. It requires creativity and imagination. Often lacking those restrictions mean that artists follow the "simple way" - at their own peril. Free verse is so much harder to do well than those following more restrictive forms of poetry for that very reason. Often this lack of skill and imagination gets manifest by using "shock" to replace style. ___ Michael ___ | Some Mormons think _any_ statement about the internals of | the temple is sacreligious and breaking covenants. ___ I'm not sure that is bad. I'll fully admit that I was very uncomfortable with Orson Scott Card's quotations in the first Alvin Maker series. I think he could have had the same effect without doing what he did. (This was the scene where the preacher meets the devil figure in a church) ___ Michael ___ | I've just started working on another book that opens with a | scene in the temple. There's some detail about the interior | of the temple, but nothing you can't learn in a visitors | center. ___ I'd be very shocked if anyone were to be offended at that. Indeed I think one could turn to the Ensign for examples of this. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantion Fiction Editor Needed Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:02:56 -0600 After about four years of volunteer service, Tory Anderson is stepping down as Irreantum fiction editor, so we need a new person in that position. The job entails: 1) Reading and responding to unsolicited submissions, of which there are surprisingly few. 2) Choosing and editing 2-5 fiction pieces for each issue (including working with authors to prepare copy). 3) Administering the annual Irreantum fiction contest, either by doing the judging yourself or recruiting some help. (And the new editor would need to hit the ground running on this one, since entries for this year's contest are due by May 1st and we hope to make awards by June 1. I don't know how many entries Tory has received--I'm hoping he'll get them to me ASAP.) 4) Making contact with selected authors to ask for stories, novel excerpts, etc. If you would be interested, please drop me a line directly with a note about why/how you'd be able to do a good job on this. Thanks, Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Book Project Update Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:20:01 -0600 Well, I made it to the acquisition board of HarperSanFrancisco again with my new Mormon book proposal but didn't get an offer. My agent was upset because she said they didn't have a good reason. I would guess it's a combination of not quite liking my spin on Mormonism and not quite feeling confident enough in my writing skills. I think the editor whose been taking my work to these meetings, Renee Sedliar, is a younger editor without much clout or experience. She's acquired some books but not many yet. (She's profiled in a recent Writers Digest, but I don't have it in front of me.) To my surprise, my agent still wants to keep sending around the new proposal, so maybe she'll find someone else. I'll let her do it, but I'm feeling pretty apathetic about it. In fact, I'm supposed to be rereading my new proposal again to make any additional changes before she starts sending it around, but I haven't been able to stomach opening it. Lately I've been thinking that writing is a sucky line of work; even at my daytime copywriting job, I rarely seem to write anything the way others would like it to be, and I get sick of trying to read their minds. More and more often lately, I fantasize about working for the post office or some other job that has nothing to do with writing. Anyway, I just want to reiterate that Renee Sedliar at HSF would be a good editor for people to try with Mormon-related projects--maybe she'll be able to squeak one past eventually. And my agent Linda Roghaar is a good one to try; I'm not exactly sure why she's so open to Mormon work, but she is. Here is their contact info again: Renee Sedliar HarperSanFrancisco 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 500 San Francisco CA 94111 renee.sedliar@harpercollins.com Linda Roghaar Linda Roghaar Literary Agency, Inc. 133 High Point Dr. Amherst, MA 01002 lroghaar@aol.com Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 14 Apr 2003 12:20:08 -0700 D. Michael Martindale bemoans the fact (in a very well-written post, I thought), that no matter how carfully he handles his subject matter, no matter how cautious and respectful, no matter how "appropriatly" he handles sensitive matters of reverent secrecy balanced by the obvious need to include such a pivital Mormon experience in his excursions into LDS lit, that no matter what arguments he can rightfully make about his scenes containing only things which are public knowledge, freely offered to the public by the church through its open house tours and Visitors Centers, regardless of all of this, there will still be some contingent of the LDS population who will take offence. Well, yes. This IS going to happen (someone will be offended) and he may be right to bemoan it. But, so what? I'm exploring this thought in an essay I've been tinkering with for weeks off and on between real work, and which I may or may not ever finish, but with respect to the Temple in our literature, again I have to say: you will never please everyone. And how can you. No one can every polarize an audience completely. It is impossible. There will always be someone who thinks you crossed some sacred boundry, no matter what the subject. We have all been discussing recently subjects such as rape, miracles, sex/violence in general, holy topics, religious vocabulary, etc., and all of it will at some level strike some contingent of the reading audience as inappropriate (that oh-so-subjective word again). I can't tell you how many people came up to me after Brigham City and said to me: You can't show a sacrament service! How could he do that? I even had one guy in my ward come up to me and say: It's against the law. The Sacrament Prayer is copyrighted. So go figure. How could you EVER please everyone? Can't be done. But I think Michael is absolutely right, that at some point, if an artist is going to spend a great deal of time trying to create literature which is true to the Mormon experience, at some point, certain aspects of the temple are going to come up. But telling people stories like the fact that the first time I saw cerimonial temple clothes, I was an unendowed kid, and the clothes were pictured in a huge photo on the front page of the religion section of the Houston Post (this was in conjunction with a review of the anti-LDS film "Godmakers"), is not going to convince them that it is okay to describe those sensitive, symbolically sacred clothes in a book. Some contingent will balk, just like some contingent does not even think you should show the weekly and publically exhibited bread and water sacrament symbols in a film. So there is no getting around it. You will have to, as an artist, occasionally do what you think is right, if the story demands it, and you will get rejected by a certain contingent of the audience. That will never change. You will please the more mature aspects of your audience, and alienate the more immature or insecure of your audience. Why cry? (Oh, boy. I'm gonna get RPG's shot at me for that last question.) Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] So Much Art, So Little Time Date: 14 Apr 2003 12:54:01 -0700 Eric Samuelsen recently bemoaned the fact that, even at his unusually prolific consumption rate of arts and entertainments, he will (at the absolute best-case estimate) only be able to consume about "14,352 [more] experiences... with the three art forms I've spent my life loving, so I'd better see and read and watch the very best." At my lower rate of consumption, I will have even less. I used to have serious anxiety about this. No, I mean SERIOUS, like: boarding on neurotic. I used to loose sleep at night freting the fact that I would NEVER actually encounter all of the music in the world that I was sure I would love (or stories or films, etc.) And this is from a very young age, these thoughts plagued me. Like, 14 years old. I used to lay in bed at night and fantasize about some huge supercomputer that was capable of analysing my likes and dislikes, and then analysing every peice of music every created, and then creating a master list for me to hone down my otherwise random chances of discovery. This is a fantasy I played over and over again while growing up. Perhaps the holdover of this neurosis is my propensity for making lists, long lists of books that I might like to in future read. (I printed off all of the Books on the Bedside Table posts and scowered them for titles I might be interested in and transfered those titles to my Master Reading Wish List for future occasions.) So you see, still pretty neurotic. And my childish fanstasy did not even anticipate the inevitable situation that my tasts have continued to evolve as I have aged, altering and expanding the amount of things I will never encounter, but would enjoy if I had. Tad Danielewski, in his 70's, said to me one day (in response to my statement that "Even a bad film can teach you something, even if it is what not to do"): "I do not have time to see any bad films. They can teach me nothing. When I realize that I am seeing a bad film, I immediately stop and go back and re-watch a masterful one again. I would rather spend my limited time seeing something great twice, than seeing something bad at all." He died of cancer in 1992, a book about particle physics on his bedside table, and his children sitting on the bed around him, touching him and telling him it was okay to go, in the moment that he left. I'm still young, not even 40, and my panic about limited time, ironically, fades with every passing year. It peaked in anxiety in my teens, and then had winnowed down to a mild aprehension, coated by a growing certitude in the knowledge that I will live forever... a sense of: relax, there is time. But what I have not yet gained, is Tad's maturity in insisting that everything he experience be of a certain quality. I, like Eric, love action movies, and b-novels, detective fiction and japanese comic books. I love them, and I might be able to argue, from time to time, that there are flashes of greatness between the threds of pulp. I suspect, that as I grow to true maturity, my tolerance for pulp will diminish. I suspect, that when I am 92, like Gordon B. Hinckley (who admitted the other weekend that he would, in all likelyhood, never see "Chicago"), become infinitely less concerned that I am missing a great R-rated movie, or... any movie at all, for that matter. I suspect, that at some level of personal growth, I may be more interested in smelling a flower, or listening to the sound of a great-grandchild's laugh (art), than by spending any of my time experiencing something with the least degree of s*** in it. While I am young, I defend the exploration of extremes as sometimes "nessessary" in "great" art. I'll look you square in the eye today and say: Sometimes you have to look at s***. But when I am old, what will I say? I suspect I will say: I want to see beauty all of the time now... for I have seen the other. And when I counsel young people about their consumption of the arts, they will look at me and say, just as I once did: Ah! Grand-daddy-prophet just doesn't understand! I'm an artist! I'm young. I have to experience the world! I have to understand it all and empathize with everything! I have to see everything that is great, regardless of the MPAA or any other factor! You just don't understand! And my old self will nod and say: I knew you would say that. And I will go on my way, suggesting, counselling, admonishing, presenting my own experience, and hoping you will reconsider... but knowing you won't. But right now, I am not that person. I am my young self, and I defend what I defend. I see what I see. I read what I read. The rest of you can dangle. For now: I'm with you, Eric. But I suspect that some day... I won't be. And, ultimately... neither will you. Perhaps. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Ask the Librarian Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:03:53 -0700 Hey, listfolk: I asked the King County Library System to acquire a copy of Margaret Blair Young's "Love Chains," but they turned me down with a form letter saying that the book was not reviewed. So I wrote back, as follows: ============= Dear KCLS: Please reconsider acquiring Margaret Blair Young's "Love Chains," which is reviewed at . The ISBN number is 1-56085-084-1. Thank you! ============= Here's the message I got back today: ============= LauraMaery, I have reconsidered, and am purchasing 3 copies of "Love Chains." A hold will be placed for you on this book. --Nancy McGill Collection Development and Analysis Coordinator King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 425-369-3329 (voice) 425-369-3332 (fax) www.kcls.org ============= Just thought y'all might enjoy that li'l exchange. --lmg --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 11 Apr 2003 11:24:05 -0600 Marianne Hales Hardinging wrote: >I don't see anything wrong with taking an artist's personal life into consideration when evaluating his or her work. After all, isn't creating art partly an expression of self? To put it crudely, I'd like to know if the hands that made that eclair also handled rancid meat (and whether or not those hands had been washed in between!). > This is not to say that we should reject outright all art created by despicable people. But to say that the fact that the person is despicable has no effect on the art created is ridiculous. Of course it has an effect. If it doesn't have an effect then why even have the artist? Why not have a computer generate the film? > First, how can we possibly compare butchers, bakers, and artists? Second who are we to judge what or who is despicable? And last but not least I could no more be satisfied by computer generated movies, poetry, music or prose, than my soul could be saved by a computer generated sermon. If you do not like the work of an artist, simply refrain from patronizing it, but I feel sorry for anyone who refuses to give eye or ear to the work of an artist just because they don't like their personal lifestyle. and they think the artist is despicable. If the art is despicable, that is one thing, but ... well let's just leave it at that. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 14 Apr 2003 17:15:53 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of D. >Michael Martindale >Since I've met Margaret/Marilyn/Thom personally, Ah, but have you ever seen us in the same room at the same time? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Wanting to Be Jews Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:44:01 -0800 Travis Manning Wrote: I'm this close to going and visiting with their pastor and >laying some things out. Yes, we believe differently in the godhead than >they do--but so what!! I am willing to meet with other Christians--and yes, >I consider myself Christian, though they do not--despite our religious >differences. I don't get it, and my friend won't open up to me. I sense >that he has heard some nasty things about The Church of Jesus Christ of >Latter-day Saints. What you wrote reminds me of a discussion we had in a non-fiction class up here in Fairbanks. The theme was religious essays. We read some Augustine and Kempis, and then some Dillard and other contemporary writers. The interesting thing about the reading selection was that most of it espoused an ecumenical/personal approach to religion - kind of preaching the do-it-yourself spirituality. I'm not trying to demean that approach, it's actually one that is attractive to me. I wrestle with the demands of organized vs. personal religion a lot. But what caught my attention was that the people in the class were easily persuaded that these modern writers had great ideas that resonated much more than Augustine's or Kempis'. The hard line our two ancient buddies took was distasteful to them. And I know why. It's because of just what Travis is writing about here. You know both writers have a line that, if you cross it, will put you out of bounds (i.e. out of the Celestial Kingdom, out of the interdenominational writing group, out of Christian brotherhood). You can just tell. Whereas, with these more contemporary writers, you feel like you could talk with them on the most heretical of your ideas and they would refrain from judging you in eternal terms (unless your convictions happened to entail their immediate sacrifice), though they might not like your breath. I've talked with the hardline type of religious people before. I did it a lot when I was a news reporter. For example, when Stephen Robinson's book _How Wide the Divide_ came out, I interviewed him and then went out to get the opinion of local Pentecostals. I talked to the owner of one of the Christian bookstores in town and was utterly surprised by his attitude. He told me that if someone got hit out on the road and he rushed the rescue with a Mormon, he'd work with that Mormon to help the victim, but when it comes to deliberately trying to work with Mormons, it's simply out of the question. Merely taking them seriously was the sign of major failure in one's Christian convictions. Later I went to the Baptist convention in Salt Lake City. Again, though they were filled with Christian ideals at all other moments (there were times when I closed my eyes during their sermons and realized that I could just as well be sitting in the Tabernacle during General Conference) when it came to Mormons they had an uncompromising position - they're wrong. From my experiences, I would be surprised if Travis finds a sympathetic hearing. But I can still hope that he does. So I can see why my classmates (and, frankly, so did I) liked the contemporary writers better. They give you the feeling that you'll be listened to. But at the same time, there is this tic in me that says, "but gosh darnit, there is something true, and to stand for it is the greatest act a human can perform." Reconciling these two impulses is difficult, and I think sloughing off either of them is a step in the wrong direction. The Presbyterians Travis is wrestling with are falling off one side of the horse, while the contemporary writers I read are falling off the other side. How to stay on the horse? By the way, Travis, do you happen to know Ron Carter? He's my brother who lives in Spokane. Early 20's type guy. Wouldn't catch him dead in a tie. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 14 Apr 2003 17:48:43 -0600 On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:01 -0700, thelairdjim wrote: >I notice that=20 >plenty (not so much on AML, but in general) are very thin-skinned, and=20 >get all upset at descriptive words, but why that should be I don't=20 >know. After all democrat kids called me a Nazi when I was only six,=20 >and I've had so many nasty epithets hurled at me that I would think=20 >that the left ought to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I=20 >don't mind being called a Nazi or a bigot, because in the first place I=20 >know that neither is true, and in the second place it means I'm winning=20 >the argument. So if anybody thinks I'm being too harsh don't worry=20 >about it. It doesn't faze me and I don't see why it should faze=20 >anybody else. It don't sting if it ain't true. I appreciate that you aren't hurt by overly harsh words, but how does = this translate into "nobody else should either"? You suggest that your = personal experiences are what made you so tough, but I'm pretty sure that you're = the only one who's had those exact experiences. So if you're wondering why nobody else reacts to nasty name-calling the way you do, well, it's = probably because everybody is different and everybody has had different lives. Telling people that it doesn't matter if you're harsh with them is like going around with a stick poking people and saying "Don't mind me, it's = just the way I am." Just because being poked with a stick doesn't hurt you = does not give you license to poke others, nor to expect them not to bleed when you do. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division Date: 14 Apr 2003 16:47:58 -0700 Okay, great, a new wrinkle. I'm not sure I know anything about what this means. With DBD stock titles they won't allow in their stores? Is this a way of getting around their new policy? ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 14 Apr 2003 20:14:18 -0700 I hesitate to edit the material sent by Thom. It would facilitate the posting of the reply, but I must react with vitality, excitement, and many other emotional and logical means. In being a member of this list for lo these many years, I have finally read a post from Thom with which I agree and say amen to every point. I am now going out into the garden to watch the sky in case the second coming is about to begin. Forgive me moderator for using up so much bandwidth for such a short comment. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > This is one of the problems that we should work hard to overcome when > judging characters in fiction, judging the characters after what WE > think they would or would not do. The real point is, did the writer > make it believable that the character he/she wrote would do a certain > act. Or, if you happen to be Brian Evenson or Neil LaBute, did you > sufficiently hide the motivation to shock us and make us wonder if > people CAN do those things. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Artists' Personal Lives Date: 14 Apr 2003 17:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Once upon a time, I never missed a Woody Allen movie. I was a huge fan and made a point of seeing every one of his films in a theater. (I was one of the few people in the audience for "Shadows and Fog", the last one I saw in an auditorium.) When the Soon-Yi scandal hit in 1992 I wasn't particularly surprised or shocked because you come to expect deviant behavior in the rich and famous. But a curious thing happened: I completely lost interest in Allen's movies almost overnight. It's like a switch was flipped in my mind. Since then, I occasionally come across one of his newer movies on cable but I haven't set foot in a theater for one of his films or actively sought them out on television. (And to judge from the recent critical and commercial response to his latest movies, I'm not alone in my reaction.) As I say, this was not a deliberate decision on my part to shun his work in the 1990's. It was almost like a reflex that I didn't really think about. I still cherish his early, funny movies. "Sleeper" and "Love and Death" remain two of my favorite early movie going memories. But the scandal of his messy rupture with the Farrow clan has colored my subsequent thinking about his films. "Manhattan" seems now to me to be a far darker film than it first appeared, and my appreciation for it has deepened. On the other hand I used to really like "Crimes and Misdemeanors." But now I look with some suspicion on Allen's insistence in that film that God doesn't exist, that there is no justice in this world. Now, to my ears, it sounds like excuse-making. I still enjoy Allen's jokes. But I no longer look to him for serious moral or spiritual insights. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: [AML] Movie Rights: To Buy or Not Date: 14 Apr 2003 18:57:43 -0700 On the topic of copyrights, etc., here's a very interesting article about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and the subject of buying/selling movie rights. http://slate.msn.com/id/2081488/ -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 13 Apr 2003 20:39:40 EDT Why is Deseret Book listing Duane Crowther's "old book" Life Everlasting in their New Catalog? Maybe because it has 150 pages of new material in it. I actually never read the old one. Somehow I missed in the first time around. And having just read it, along with 6 others published by his Horizon Publishing on the same topic, I'm sorry I did not read it years ago. These 7 books which I have come to call "the angel books", as they contain hundreds of the best interviews, out of thousands conducted by Brother Crowther over the last 30 years, gave me an overpowering glimps through the veil that possibly even approaches gazing there 5 minutes myself. Then again maybe not. But I would consider myself much the poorer without accidently running into Duane Crowther at the last yearly LDS booksellers convention and trading our book and a few dollars for his new version of Life Everlasting and 5 other books on life after death. Some consider these writtings to be fiction but To Brother Crowther and now myself they are unimpeachable withness of not 2 or 3, but hundreds of thousands who combined testimony almost eliminates even the need for faith. Our departed loved ones are truely neither dead nor gone. They are near to us and know the thoughts and intents of our hearts and are often pained thereby. And on the same principle they also often rejoice over our thoughts, feelings, intents, and actions. I wonder though if the critique in each of us mortals is not a bit too highly exercised at times, especially when compared to those in the spirit world. However, I too have wondered at the "raising of the bar" at Deseret Book and still do. I wonder with my partner, author of The Keystone- The Day Alma Died, if they will pull our book and if I would be glad or sad if they did. But mostly I remain simply grateful for every brother and sister that attempts to say or write what they feel and think the best they can. And while I'm on the issue of raising faith in the work of those on the other side of a thin and thinning veil, the Keystone-The Day Alma Died is an intriging piece of fiction that has done as much as anything I have ever read, other than the scriptures of coarse, in increasing my testimony of things in the unseen world. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: [AML] Addictions and Art (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 14 Apr 2003 22:12:15 -0400 At 06:41 PM 4/11/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, mayb= >e=20 >violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality=20 >television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and= >=20 >addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images=20 >we see. Or maybe I'm totally talking out of my bum. I don't know. Wherever he may be talking from, I think Richard has hit on something really important here, and back when the most recent R-rated thread was in full swing, my sister Krista mentioned this very thing (off the list). She observed that the real (and infinitely more interesting and useful) question--instead of dithering over ratings--would be to assess a potential addiction to film, and ask ourselves not should I watch R-rated films? but, is there some sort of addiction I'm indulging? Am I hooked on the (potential) escapism of romantic comedies? The (potentially) voyeuristic thrill of violence? The "innocent" and/or "just" satisfaction of a revenge drama? I don't know what methodology might be employed to investigate this, but, like Richard, I think it's a really good question. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] Fw: Elizabeth Hansen's Screenwriting Seminar Date: 14 Apr 2003 20:32:55 -0600 --------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Friends, colleagues and everyone I've ever met: Due to popular demand, and my need to warp young minds, (and old alike) I am going to be giving a Screenwriting Seminar. It will be geared to Beginning and Intermediate writers and will concentrate on the basic elements of good, solid, mainstream Hollywood screenwriting. It will be on Friday, May 9, 2003, from 7:00pm until 10:00pm, and on Saturday, May 10, 2003, from 9:30am until 6:00pm at 1226 south 1480 west in Orem, UT, with a break for lunch when we all get cranky. We will be covering all the basics of Screenwriting: Structure, Scene construction, Character, Dialogue, Theme & premise, Screen Directions... Pretty much everything. The seminar is VERY AFFORDABLE. Go to my website... Yes, I actually have a website... And take a look at the bang you'll get for your buck. (I just learned that the website will be online in 24-48 hours from when I've sent this email.) If you have any questions... Feel free to email me. I hope you can make it. And please, tell everyone you know. Bring someone with you, and I'll give you a discount. I butts in seats! Love you, mean it, Elizabeth http://www.screenrighter.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 15 Apr 2003 10:15:44 -0600 Margaret or maybe Marilyn Brown/Young wrote: > > The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but > he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? > So, Paris wrote a story about "spiritual possession!" I vote we include the subdued Thom Duncan! And maybe not so subdued, if he just keeps in touch with compassion! (Or at least when he doesn't, we can tell.) And I vote that Margaret and I ought to lead out waving a banner with something printed on it like High M&M (or the UP SIDE OF EMINEM): (the "EMINEMS that DO melt in your hands.") We could all take heed of Paris's story, and Samuel's dictum that the phenomenon of great art takes us into the spiritual realm of ALL others so that we can actually "live" MANY lives. Bad and good. WE ARE in the RIGHT BUSINESS, everyone! Our activity broadens us, thrills us, challenges us, gives us DEPTH. It is THE ACTIVITY that should follow the establishment of a stable government and peace. (Take note, Middle East!) All right, everyone, keep writing those poems, stories, songs, books. And SHARE! Put together shows, dance---or even hike or play ball. Read. It's FUN! It makes us all happy, (except occasionally, if we're ignored or we get rejected by our audience or the critics, and then we must learn to just say "EVERYONE has his particular suffering," and we can learn to SMILE SWEETLY and TRY AGAIN, thinking of how much FUN we had while we were CREATING under the impression that someone else would want to share what we are doing). Our brand of fun doesn't cost a lot (if you use the library or wait until the movie's old and rent the video) and we can live each others' lives! (By the way, get ready to enter the AML novel award contest by July 1st !!) (P.S. Also study FORM so we can enjoy that part of it, too!) Marilyn Brown (who should be writing, but just can't resist blowing off occasionally, especially when the other M of the M&M responds with such brilliance and aplomb!). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 15 Apr 2003 10:37:00 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Michael Martindale blabs: > Since I've met Margaret/Marilyn/Thom personally, I'm going to spill the > beans. The person behind all these fictitious personas is Steve Martin > after his LDS baptism. Michael, I can't understand how you could let this out! How could you! We weren't supposed to tell that Steve Martin got baptized! (The buried-in-many Marilyn Brown) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: [AML] Butterfly Kisses Date: 15 Apr 2003 11:15:48 -0600 I was just reading Middlemarch by George Elliot, a classic, and it talks about Butterfly Kisses. That means this term has been around a lot longer than the song references. > > The butterfly kisses didn't work for me either, but I can't understand the nauseas response to it as being overused, > either. The only other work I'm familiar with that uses the same image is that wildly popular song by the > > same name. > I _have_ been exposed to more uses of it. I never liked the concept the first time I heard it (in that song you mention). > Does that help? > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives, Date: 15 Apr 2003 12:51:40 -0500 "I wonder if I see films differently than most. For one thing, I consider film a powerful and beautiful art form. Most people I know consider it a toy. I wonder if, because I have made movies and I understand in a first-hand way their artificiality and their actual physical construction, I enjoy a distance with films that most viewers don't." --from Richard Deutcher (minus the unfortunate code clutter): I think this is an extremely important point that applies beyond the subject at hand of films (though maybe most powerfully to films because of the total sensory nature of experiencing a movie). When we are educated in the theory and conventions of a given genre, we will of necessity encounter that genre differently than someone who is not educated in that field. Those of us who have been trained in literary theory, for example, read a novel differently than someone who is trained in economics, or computer science, or whatever. Even if we are just reading for "entertainment" we will approach the text and experience the reading differently. We might see the author's techniques in creating a character or we might be particularly attuned to the use of a certain word or image. We might view the work through the lens of similar texts or the prevailing aesthetic standards by which it was written. To someone who doesn't have the same background, those things may go unnoticed or may even be interpreted as offensive (e.g. the Sacrament scene in Brigham City). I can't read The Work and the Glory. Besides the fact that the writing is, um, banal, I also know enough about history to dispute many of Lund's portrayals (and omissions) to the point that I can't accept it as an accurate retelling of Mormon history, and I can't willingly suspend my disbelief and enter into it as a story even for entertainment. Even if we can detach ourselves from the aesthetic experience and encounter a "text" (written, cinematic, musical, whatever)analytically and critically, we still have to make value judgments on what we see, and that's a highly personal thing. For example, I can understand the symbolism and essentially moral vision of Flannery O'Connor's fiction, but I just can't bear to read most of it. The story where the guys take the family out in the woods and shoot them ("A Good Man is Hard to Find"?)--I can't read that. It upsets me too much, even though I know there's more to it than the face value. I would love to see "In the Name of the Father" because I like Daniel-Day Lewis and I'm very interested in Ireland's history and political issues. But when I tried to watch it I had to turn it off because the language was too much for me. I can take a lot of F words but when it's the Lord's name over and over, I just recoil. Our knowledge or experience of a given author may not affect our ability to enter into his work. But it might. And that's okay in my book. And my training in textual analysis could cut either way on this one. I might be unable to appreciate someone's artistic merits because of what I know about him personally (and thus "read" into the text) or I might be able to put extraneous issues aside and enter into the artistic experience for its own sake. And it might vary from day to day or artist to artist. I reserve the right to use whatever terms of judgment I choose when I decide how to evaluate--or whether to encounter--a given work of art. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 14 Apr 2003 21:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Eric Samuelson wrote: > All literature contains truth, and all criticism of literature too. >Especially the stuff that contradicts all the other stuff. Now, we may >have to make certain decisions based on it. Those decisions will always be based on incomplete information, and an incomplete understanding of >truth. >Which is why I read. And watch movies. And pray. >Or something like that. Any thoughts? Yes. I was in Gospel Doctrine class yesterday and we were talking about the miracle of the bread and fishes. And like I generally do, I was reading all the verses that our teacher skipped or glossed over, and I hit John 6:63. Christ is talking to the disciples here and he says "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Now this comes after the whole bread of life sermon, so from what I gather he's reiterating the fact that it's not all that extra bread that's the real miracle, the real reason to believe---it's his teachings. But I'm fascinated by this idea that the words he speaks are spirit and are life. I agree that a plurality of readings and texts and meanings is important because of our incomplete understandings of truth. And because words can never fully express truth. But there's got to be a reason that this is the primary way we communicate with each other. And it's the primary way that we get in tune with the spirit and commune with God. While the experiences of the Holy Ghost testifying, speaking to our spirit, are difficult (indeed impossible) to express in words, the only way we know how to seek out these experiences and the only we know how to trust the experiences of others is through the catalyst of words. As Alma the Younger reminds us in Alma 32, the seed of faith is the word. To me this is a vital part of human and Mormon experience. And it is an amazing workaround of the problems of representation that deconstruction points out----the problem that meanings can't be fixed, that the relationship between the signifier and the signified (the word and the thing the word represents) is always slippery, that there is no original meaning or essence or Utopic language----because if Christ says that it's in his words that you have spirit and life, and if we can make the leap that it's in words that we all can find spirit and life, then while it may be messy and incomplete, what matters is the relationship between words and the spirit/wisdom/light/truth. Now some Mormons interpret this in a rather strict manner----that the only words that are of value are those that either sound like scripture or seem inspirational----seem to invoke the spirit. We (meaning those of us who read, foster, write, edit, critique Mormon literature) believe that this relationship between words and spirit, between words and life, can take place fruitfully in narrative form----in literature. That's there's something about the truth found in literature that can't be completely captured (or solely captured) in sermon---in declarative statements of doctrine and good principles. And because of this incompleteness that Eric mentions, but also because words can be spirit and life, there's a whole lot of room for trying to portray truth. For trying to capture this life as we live it, it's physicality and spiritualness, in narrative form. The interaction between words, flesh, spirit and truth in this life, this dark glass, this mortal existence (and I really should add time to my list above), creates endless moments worthy of representation in words (or images or music---but I remain at heart, a man of words). I don't know whether this attitude is conservative or liberal. And in my own thinking and reading, I try to give room to a whole variety of texts. But essentially, the scriptures tell me that there's power in the word. Their very existence attests this power. And if others can tap into this power and deliver words that are words of life, then I want to read them [And yes I do have the latest issue of Irreantum on my night table]. And that's why I read and watch and pray, too. I'm not saying anything new here. But it's good for me from time to time to reaffirm the power of literature for myself. I hope it's the same or similar for you. ~~William Morris Oakland, CA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Awareness of Filmmaking (was: Artists' Personal Lives Lives) Date: 15 Apr 2003 11:20:21 -0700 > I mean, when I see a character decapitated in a film, there is no part of me= > =20 > that believes that I am watching a real murder taking place. ("Sleepy Hollow= > "=20 > has some wonderful decapitations, by the way). It is so clearly a fictional=20 > occurrence created by a team of movie magicians. I am delighted by the=20 > filmmakers' wizardry. The more powerfully effective the fiction is, the more= > =20 > impressed I am by the filmmaking, but at no point do I forget that it is=20 > fiction.=20 In general, I don't enjoy films where I'm greatly aware of the filmmaking--whether it's acting, or directing, or whatever. It's a distraction for me, because what I'm always seeking is the story. I want to be wrapped up in a good story. My favorite films are those where the story really resonated with me. _Life is Beautiful_, _The Journey of August King_, _The Spitfire Grill_--I love stories of redemption and sacrifice. I also love oddball stories--_Ruben & Ed_, _Stranger Than Paradise_, _After Hours_, black comedies like _Ed and His Dead Mother_, _Heathers_. Although except for _Ruben & Ed_, I haven't seen any of those movies in years. If I'm watching a movie thinking, "What a cool effect," or "Wow that actor is really doing an amazing job," I may enjoy it but not as much as I could. For me it's a more valuable experience if I'm thinking, "What a great story." I've never read Les Miserables, but I love the film. I think it's one of the greatest stories ever told, and when I see the film I just marvel over it. I'll get around to reading the book someday. Probably when I'm no longer working fulltime. But there's nothing in it to distract me from the story, except for an occasional fleeting "I love Claire Danes," but that's left-over affection from her My So-Called Life days. (What a well-written show that was!) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 15 Apr 2003 15:02:35 -0400 Just to quibble, I think Dances for Three was overtly Mormon. One of the characters is Hannah's Bishop. And, he didn't turn into a jerk, he always was one. At least one underlying issue in the book is who we as a culture look at as being *good*. He looked good to her, and she ignored signs that maybe he was not all she was looking for--with all the emotionally issues with her family thrown in for good measure. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > > Second, I actually did remember a book I read recently that, while not > obviously Mormon, nor necessarily about rape, is a very good depiction of > the sexual issues that kids face while growing up. (OK, I'm only 25, so I'm > practically talking about myself here) Anyways, it's Louise Plummer's "A > Dance for Three". None of the characters are obviously Mormon, probably > because that's not really the point of the book anyway. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] _Chicago_ (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 15 Apr 2003 15:55:32 EDT In a message dated 4/8/03 10:53:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time, susanpc@platformcreative.com writes: > Can you tell me what there was to love about Chicago? I think it's one of > the worst movies I've ever seen. I love musicals, too. It was so depressing > to see so much creative talent wasted on such a horrible story. I really don't have time to reply to this post. I've been saving it in my mailbox for several days, hoping that someone else would voice my opinion. Nobody did. So here I am. Susan, surely CHICAGO is not one of the worst movies you have ever seen. Not unless you don't see many films. Maybe by "worst" you mean "most offensive." I'd buy that, although I was not personally offended by it. > > Every character was despicable. Even Roxy's husband? The innocent Russian prisoner? The reporter? The short, balding extra in the crowd scene? > > My s-i-l on the way out said that maybe they were trying to make some type > of commentary on corruption. If that's the case, they failed miserably, cuz > I didn't see any. How could you and your fellow viewers possibly have missed the satire? CHICAGO is one of the most blatant, heavy-handed critical commentaries on American culture that I have ever seen. The lyrics of the songs are soaked with ironic, accusatory meaning. The characters are functional (and truthful) stereotypes: the dishonest, charming do-anything-to-win attorney. The sleazy do-anything-to-succeed performers. The lesbian do-anything-for-a-buck prison matron...etc...etc...etc. I think what probably confuses you, and many other viewers, is that while being a strong satire of our corruption, it also shamelessly celebrates our corruption. It's as if the creative team behind the film is saying, "Look how shallow, immoral, selfish, and vicious we are. Ain't it great?!" To me, the film says: "We're going to hell in a fast car. We know we're bad. We like it. And we're having so much fun that we're never going to stop." And, to me, that's what American culture is whispering beneath all its hollow shouting about "family, tradition and patriotism." CHICAGO reveals our nation's true values even more than it reveals the dancers' bodies. After seeing the film I am convinced there is far more corruption beneath our fancy business suits than beneath our fishnet stockings. Actually, I don't own any fishnet stockings. Honest. Whenever I need some, I borrow Jongiorgi's. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Movie Rights (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 15 Apr 2003 15:16:22 -0500 So.... How does one send a screenplay or dramatic work to Hollywood, in hopes of getting it on the silver screen, WITHOUT getting it ripped off, especially if it's good and therefore ripe for ripping off? Will Tim ever have any recourse? What precautions can be taken? Linda Adams At 11:46 AM 4/14/03, you wrote: >Absolutely, knowing that Miramax ripped off March Tale to make Shakespeare >in Love affected my viewing of the film. Tim Slover is one of my closest >friends. I acted in the original production of March Tale. I did see >Shakespeare in Love and loathed it. I went specifically because Tim asked >me to. I went hoping to hate it, expecting to, looking for every possible >reason to hate it. I was well rewarded. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 15 Apr 2003 12:02:15 -0600 ___ Eric ___ | Absolutely, knowing that Miramax ripped off March Tale | to make Shakespeare in Love affected my viewing of the film. | [...] | I think that Weinstein is a crook, and so is Parfitt, and | that Weinstein hired another crook, Marc Norman to write a | screenplay based on Tim's source (plus a couple of others), | and that Norman also got a producers credit for doing so. ___ Tom Stoppard being one of the most significant people doing rewrites. While he didn't really modify the basic structure I believe that a significant amount of the dialog is Stoppard's. I give it a break if only because Stoppard is my favorite playwright after the Bard. (Not that _Shakespeare in Love_ can touch Stoppard's other works) ___ Eric ___ | Tom Stoppard, I understand, was brought in to do a week's | worth of doctoring, I think in part because he's Tom Stoppard, | for heaven's sake, and they thought his presence and prestige | might help to take the stench off a project that was widely | rumored to be crooked. ___ Here's an interview with Tom Stoppard giving his view: http://www.filmeducation.org/secondary/s_archive/shkspr/shake17.htm "I said I would have a go at it and ended up working on it, on and off for ages. In the event I wrote Mark Norman's screenplay again as it were, with new dialogue and some adjustments." Also: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/1280/silstoppard.html I don't know anything about the _March Tale_ vs. _Shakespeare in Love_ parallel. So I can't comments. I'd just say that there are a finite number of ideas and so I could see it going either way. Further, we are dealing with an actual historic figure with an actual life which makes the significance of parallels that much harder to deal with. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report Apr 11 03 Date: 15 Apr 2003 23:46:37 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of April 11, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 8 The Core 3,306,820 3,019 17 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 25,755,993 12 Piglet's Big Movie 1,420,979 1,859 24 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 18,974,376 47 Final Destination 2 76,689 75 73 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,568,403 53 The R.M. 43,243 27 73 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 809,727 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 67 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 18,080 10 794 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,422,589 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 89 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 4,085 3 1073 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,142,562 94 Jack Weyland's Charly 2,337 7 199 Adam Anderegg (director) 803,135 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 96 Handcart 1,879 3 185 Kels Goodman (director/DP) 96,097 David Greenslaw Sapp (producer) Mark von Bowers (screenwriter) Eric M. Hanson (composer) Actor: Jaelan Petrie, Stephanie Albach Chris Kendrick, Shannon Skinner, Gretchen Condie 99 Galapagos 1,412 4 1263 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,987,295 104 China: The Panda Adventure 325 2 626 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,007,388 THE R.M. AND CHARLY PASS THE $800,000 MARK - Both "The R.M." and "Charly" passed the $800,000 mark this past week. "The R.M.", which has so far grossed $809,727, passed "Charly", at $803,135, to move into the fifth spot on the LDS Cinema Box Office Gross chart - probably for good, since although both films are still in theaters, but "Charly" has been in theaters more than twice as long as "The R.M." and has nearly finished its theatrical run. It still remains to be seen whether either film will pass "Brigham City" which grossed $905,073 and stands fourth among LDS-niche films in terms of box office gross. BAPTISTS AT OUR BARBECUE LEAD CHARACTERS ANNOUNCED - A highly placed in the "Baptists at Our Barbecue" production camp has confirmed the names of the lead characters in the upcoming Latter-day Saint-themed feature film, an adaptation of Robert Farrell Smith's critically acclaimed hilarious novel. The lead characters will be none other than Tartan Jones, a 29-year-old but scandalously-still-single Latter-day Saint forest ranger from Provo, Utah who moves to the small mountain town of Longfellow, U.S.A. The town is home to 528 people, equally divided between Latter-day Saints and Baptists. Tartan's arrival stirs up controversy and conflict because he tips the scales by one person in favor of the Latter-day Saints. The other lead character is the lovely and incomparable Charity who... well, if you've read the book, you know what we mean. Published by Bookcraft, an imprint of Deseret Book, "Baptists at Our Barbecue" is the second LDS market novel to be adapted as a feature film. The first was Jack Weyland's "Charly," which was adapted as last year's hit movie titled "Jack Weyland's Charly," soon to be released on DVD/video on May 6. CARMEN STILL ALIVE - Teenaged Latter-day Saint singing sensation Carmen Rasmusen is still in the game on "American Idol." Over 21 million people voted in the last round. Carmen, who was recently dubbed the "most commercial" singer in the remaining bunch by celebrated judge Simon Cowell, was not even in the bottom three on last Tuesday's show (8 April 2003). Her place in the bottom 2 on the previous show must have rallied her fans to vote for her. But then... on the 15 April 2003 episode Carmen, one of 7 remaining contestants, gave the performance of the evening that least impressed the judges. Every one of the 3 regular judges, as well as celebrity judge Smokey Robinson, strongly criticized her performance. Simon Cowell said that it sounded like going to a party and at the end of the party a kid gets up and sings a song. Simon said if he was the parent and she was the kid giving that performance he would tell her to "shut up." Ouch. Actually, I thought she was awesome. Anyway, it's the votes that count... so we'll see tomorrow if Carmen has enough fans to pull her through this. SUDDENLY UNEXPECTED WEB SITE UPDATED - The "Suddenly Unexpected" official website has been updated extensively. There are new cast and crew bios with details about the backgrounds of the people who made the movie. The news section also features a series of questions and answers with the director and producer, Mark and Marjorie Potter. They discuss the casting of the movie, the LDS Cinema genre, when and how "Suddenly" will be released to theaters, the mix of LDS/non-LDS cast and crew, the financing of the movie, and what it was like to make a movie as a family. See http://www.suddenlyunexpected.com NEWS ABOUT "HANDCART" DVD - The LDS-themed pioneer epic film "Handcart" will be released on video/DVD scene, complete with considerable revisions meant to enhance historical accuracy. The DVD will be the most extras-packed DVD in LDS Cinema history. Pre-sale in May. Thomson Productions will distribute "Handcart" in the LDS market. UPDATE ON HEIMERDINGER MOVIE - Quoting from Chris Heimerdinger's latest online newsletter: Summer of the Nephite Update. I've concentrated mainly on writing the novel for "Summer of the Nephites" over the last month. We've even explored the idea of doing a comic book (excuse me, GRAPHIC NOVEL) on some of the characters. I'd love to have some feedback on this idea to see if it's something you'd like to see. Raising money for the movie is a pain in the ptush (yes, I said ptush). We have several big nibbles right now, but no one has as yet taken the hook. Hopefully we'll have great things to report on this subject next month. All you aspiring actors, hang in there and be patient. This film WILL be made. As I've always said, if I don't shoot it this summer, I'll shoot it using my own $$ next summer. THE CROW SEQUEL TO FILM IN SLC - The fourth installment of movies about the "The Crow" will soon be filmed in Salt Lake city. "The Crow: Wicked Prayer" is the title. The first two movies were feature films, the third, also filmed in SLC, was direct-to-video. Edward Furlong will star in the new movie. LABUTE'S "BASH" STAGED AT WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY - Weber State University in Ogden, Utah is presenting what it calls "the first Utah production" of "Bash," Neil LaBute's controversial trio of Latter-day Saint-themed plays, on May 1-3. POSSIBLY UPCOMING FEATURE FILMS BY A FEW BYU FILM SCHOOL STUDENTS/GRADS - Ben Gourley is finishing the screenplay for a feature, working title "Gulag." D. Kohl Glass is finishing the screenplay for a feature, "The Strawberries of Aldritch." Glass' short film, "The Promethian," recently won accolades at BYU's Final Cut film festival. Wyatt Wooley is finishing the screenplay for a feature, working title "The Bishop's Daughter." THE GENESIS PROJECT - an independent SAG feature film is being cast now, casting college age students for classroom scenes, campus, ect. ages 18-30. Male, Female, any ethnicity. Shooting Days: May 5 -9. SLC, Utah. If you fit the description and will be available those days, please mail your headshot and resume, include e-mail to the address below. This is for Extra and Featured parts. There is pay. Exec. Producer: David Parker. Producer/Director: Frank Johnson. Utah Casting Director / Extras Coordinator: Michelle K. Wright. Start Date: May 5, 2003. Location: Salt Lake City / Park City, Utah. Mail headshot/resume to: "Genesis Project" PO Box 163 Kaysville, UT 84037 Genesis Project Story Line: A group of college students are given an assignment by their professor to come up with a topic for the group to study and investigate. The group decides to study serial killers to see what turns a normal person into a cold hearted killer. But things go wrong and break loose and soon they find themselves caught in the middle of a bloody web of lies and deceit. WAR IN HEAVEN UPDATE: From Stephen Groo, the director of "War In Heaven": There are still about 30 spots left for female extras for the film. Ages can range from 17-65 years of age. I'm in need of 80 male actors still. I'm looking for experienced cinematographers. Camera and equipment is available. Story-board is finished. Just need someone who has had experience in film making with video productions. I'm looking for post production in music scoring. The music will be gothic based choir effects. Please email Stephen Groo at if you are interested. Please give resume, head shots (optional), and phone numbers to where you can be reached at. This is a non-paid volunteer film that will take place July 12th in Provo. Contracts issued June 1st, so get on the cast list now! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AML Subject: [AML] Two Mormon Writing Contests Date: 16 Apr 2003 10:14:14 -0700 This e-mail contains final reminders about two Mormon writing contests: the IRREANTUM Fiction Contest and the Marilyn Brown Unpublished Novel Award. [Please forward this e-mail to anyone else who may be interested. If you do not wish to receive occasional news from the Association for Mormon Letters, please use the unsubscribe link at the end of this e-mail.] ++++++++++ IRREANTUM Fiction Contest The Association for Mormon Letters (AML) is pleased to announce the third annual IRREANTUM fiction contest. Because IRREANTUM is a quarterly literary magazine dedicated to exploring Mormon culture, all contest entries must relate to the Mormon experience in some way, either explicitly or implicitly. However, authors don't have to be LDS. As long as the entry doesn't exceed 8,500 words, any fictional form will be considered, including short stories and excerpts from novels, screenplays, and play scripts. Any fictional genre is welcome, including literary, mystery, romance, science fiction, fantasy, historical, and horror. No entry fee required. The first-place author will be awarded $250, second place $175, and third place $100 (unless the judge determines entries are not of sufficient quality to merit awards). Winners agree to give IRREANTUM first-time publication rights, after which all rights revert to the author. To facilitate blind judging, entries should be submitted with a removable cover sheet that includes the author's name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and manuscript title, with only the manuscript title appearing on the rest of the manuscript. Stories should be double-spaced in easily readable type. Entries will not be returned. Submit manuscripts by May 1, 2003, to IRREANTUM Fiction Contest, c/o AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605. Send any questions to irreantum2@cs.com. For a sample copy of the current issue of IRREANTUM, send $6 to the AML or use the online order form at http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/index.html. IRREANTUM is supported by a grant from the Utah Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. ++++++++++ Marilyn Brown Unpublished Novel Award The biannual Marilyn Brown Novel Award will next be presented in 2004. The winning novel will be the well-written work for mature readers that best reflects Mormon values and culture and fulfills as many of the following criteria as possible: by a Mormon, about Mormons, for a Mormon audience. Explicit Mormonism is not necessarily a prerequisite, but consideration of high and moral values is. Only unpublished novels are eligible. The author may be seeking a publisher while the manuscript is being judged, but a contract with a publisher must not be signed until after the award is presented. Postmark deadline is July 1, 2003. For return, include SASE. Late manuscripts or manuscripts with format flaws will be considered only in special circumstances. No entry fee required. The prize is $1,000, and honorable mentions may or may not be awarded. Two anonymous judges from the AML will help Marilyn Brown pick the winner. If the majority of judges feels no entry is worthy of a prize, the prize will be withheld. Authors should try to attend the AML annual conference in February 2004, as the winner will be revealed at that time. Manuscripts should be typed, double-spaced, copied on both sides of regular white paper, and bound in a comb or spiral binding like a book. Include a self-addressed stamped postcard if you want to be notified that your novel has arrived. The title of the novel and the author's name, address, and phone number should be placed in a sealed envelope, which will not be opened until the day of the AML conference luncheon in Feb. 2004. On the outside of this envelope, indicate only the title of the novel. No other author identification should appear on the manuscript in any shape or form. Send your manuscript to: Marilyn Brown Novel Award, 125 Hobble Creek Canyon, Springville, UT 84663. If you have any questions, contact Marilyn Brown at 801-489-4980 or wwbrown@burgoyne.com. ==================================================================== Update your profile here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp Unsubscribe here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://topica.email-publisher.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 14 Apr 2003 11:49:18 -0700 great art], and made a tentative decision that suffering is necessary for "great" (as opposed to good, competent) art... Suffering can come from your own sins, it can come from the sins of others who victimize you, it can come from the sins of others whose well-being you care about, whether you're personally victimized by the sin or not, it can come from acts which are caused by carelessness or ignorance but not sinful intent, or it can come from events that have nothing to do with human choices (e.g., F5 tornadoes)." This made me think of the great blessing (read: curse?) given to the Three Nephites and, one assumes, John the Revelator (and possibly others?) who requested to live out the remainder of history until the Second Coming in translated mortal bodies. These specialized "immortal" bodies are highly unique. They are not yet resurrected beings, so they are technically mortal. But of course, they do not die, cannot be killed, do not even get sick. Not only that, but, we are told, these bodies (or the individuals in them) will not even suffer any pain at all EXCEPT (and here is the huge caveat which makes me think of this condition ironically as a "curse"), "save it be for the sins of the world." In other words, these guys suffer vicariously, in their hearts and minds, when they witness the sins and suffering of others, the humanity they loved so much they decided to stay behind and perpetually serve them. This suffering, a suffering which, it is implied, is equal to the suffering of God in the witnessing of our hurting ourselves through sins and the other things Michael mentions (natural disasters, etc.), must be fairly acute. And it drives these beings to pray for us, and to reach out in longing of spirit towards us sinners, day and night for countless eons. Well, I suppose you can count the eons: about 2000 years, so far. Is this not suffering indeed? And are not these beings without sin of their own, indeed, perfected, as far as any being still in its mortal frame can be perfect? Certainly. So Michael has hit the nail on the head. Our suffering need not be directly related to our own choices. A truly charitable person, a Christ-like person, groans in their heart for the pains of others, mourns with those that mourn, etc. It is absolutely possible to create a condition of empathy within us, such that we can understand, relate, regret, mourn with, feel a connection sufficient to translate into artistic impression, any human condition on the earth, and thereby make our art great. (IF this is indeed a necessary condition.) Vicarious experience is just as important to the artist as direct experience. I have never directly experience war, but I have interviewed others who have, and I may have experienced sufficiently connected emotions that I can communicate such knowledge in the form of acting or writing, without having done it. Take, for example, the act of murder. Even if it were not immoral or illegal, why would it not necessarily behoove an actor who is about to play a murderer in a film, to go out and kill someone in preparation for the role? Again, take away the laws. Let's say that it is, for one day, okay to kill. For the sake of our experiment, let's say that there will be no immediate or eternal repercussions. Should that actor or writer go out and kill someone to gain the experience needed to play the role or write a scene? And why would such an act not necessarily work? Because it might not be the right kind of murder. For example, I assume that most everyone on the list has made love at some point in their lives. If not, you've all certainly had erotic dreams outside your control or experience with masturbation. (Even if the woman's writer's group who critiqued Michael's book denied they had much experience with this act, they'd be hard pressed to suggest it never happened.) So, not to make anyone uncomfortable, but for the sake of example, it is reasonable to suggest that some kind of orgasmic experience (or other extreme experience of feeling) has been had by everyone reading these words. But: has everyone's orgasms been the same? Has every orgasm one single person has ever had, been the same? Of course not. Every person's experience is different, and every individual experience can be somewhat different to the same person. So if you are going to play or describe or write, a love scene, what KIND of orgasm will it be -- if any at all? The same goes with murder. What KIND of murder? If an actor is supposed to portray a specific kind of experience while committing a fictional murder, what is to say that if he goes out and commits the actual murder, that that experience will be sufficient to assist him in his fictional recreation? There is no guarantee. It may be wrong. He may have to look to another kind of experience, which he can translate into an appropriate "murder feeling," or in the other example, an "orgasmic feeling" to properly play or write the scene. But on the other hand, that actor or writer, may have had the experience in their life of slapping a mosquito, viciously killing it, and felt, in that flash, that split-second of insect-murder, sufficient experience to be able to create a readable and believable fictional illusion of a murder. So not only is there vicarious experience, there is the "translation" or "substitution" of one experience for another, that may be sufficient for the artist to create a realistic sense of something he himself has not done or would never want to actually do. For the orgasm example, perhaps the writer or actor has never had one they felt was truly satisfactory. But, perhaps they had a roller coaster ride, or ate a bar of chocolate, or had some epiphany listening to music, or any other host of experiences which may be sufficient to translate or substitute in the artist and allow him or her to express (or at least communicate to an audience in some unique way) the illusion of ecstatic love, or murderous hate, or desperate sin, or any other extreme which we ourselves have not actually "Experienced" (with a capital "E"), but which we have sufficiently "experienced" (with a small "e") vicariously or in substitution. And so it may be possible for an artist to write about anything, or act out the consequences of anything, and yet not have actually indulged in the sins which may be necessary to describe. And so great art can be achieved without doing actual damage to the body or the soul of the artist. But what is required is a certain sensitivity to experience, especially the experience of others. We must be like the Three Nephites, deeply in love with humanity: warts and orgasms and all. We must begin to refrain from damning judgments such that we truly love the sinner; and while we do not (cannot) love the sin, we must absolutely understanding it. Understand its pleasures and pains; its consequences, and the justifications that allowed the sinner to indulge in it despite the consequences. We must see it all and vicariously experience it to be able to have "suffered" sufficiently to translate these experiences of ourselves (but more often others) into great art. Of course, there must be balance in all things, I suppose. There was a great, if somewhat strange, animated short that used to be played on Sesame Street when I was a kid. The 60-second cartoon showed a young, Greek fiddler trying to master his instrument. He squeaks inexpertly on the strings. A wizened mentor walks up to him and says, "Not enough suffering." So, in a series of quick cuts, we see the young artist going through the trials of life, literally wallowing in the mud. Then suddenly, it is years later. The young artist is no longer young. Matted hair hangs past his shoulders, scraggly beard hangs down his chest. Standing in the rain in a filthy toga, the artist PLAYS the violin. Loud, sad, expertly-played strains of sound come out of his instrument, seemingly effortlessly, and all of the pathos of the world is expressed in his music. The wise mentor comes back. He stands listening silently for a second. When the playing stops, the mentor pauses, then says: "Too much suffering." Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 14 Apr 2003 14:20:03 -0700 Jacob Proffitt took issue with a side comment I made about the difference between gun-related deaths in Europe versus the U.S. I made the statement to illistrate the irony of differing perceptions and who perception can greatly alter our outlook and ability to understand others, which may or may not assist or conversly hamper our ability as writers or readers to create or identify with others. At least I think that's what I was trying to convey. My gut reaction is to simply ignore Jacob's post. After all, there are aspects of it that I agree with completely; and with respect to those aspects with which I think his comments misses the point, well, isn't it a fool who cumpulsively needs to prove their point over and over, despite the fact that we can never truly do so. So, my desire to not be a fool makes me want to remain silent. (Not only that, but I've exceeded my daily aloted amount of "essay" time today, and really should be writing other stuff -- stuff that might someday generate me an income!) So why speak up? Well... it's so stinking FUN! Jacob says about my comment "...Where Europe suffers shooting deaths with guns by only handfuls annually, we suffer them by the THOUSANDS annually," that: "...Even if it is true, the statement is a lie." Of course, I don't think his argument goes on to show that the statment is a lie, in fact, he agrees with the statement, but goes on to make a new statement which he feels is more important, that gun-related violence and non-gun realted violence are two different categories, and that Europe (and he pulls out a wad of statistics to prove his point) sufferes as much if not MORE general violence and crime than the U.S. does, therefore negating the importance of my original statement about the disparity of U.S. gun-related violence. Okay, that's an intersting point, but not what I was talking about. Frankly, I'm not interested in entering into a political debate related to guns, vilence, crime in different cultures, or the statistical practices of various law enforcement agencies. Political discussions, by themselves, are off-topic for the list, and also, disinterest me viscerally. The point I was making was about cultural perceptions. Europeans PERCEIVE THEMSELVES (you may argue that they do so wrongly, and you may be right, but that was not my point) as living in a culture that is less violent than what they imagine the U.S. culture is. In fact, Jacob goes on to tell a story himself which preciesely agrees with and confirms first hand the point I initially made. He says: "When we were in Germany a couple of years ago, the member family we stayed with remarked once on how they would hate to live in the U.S. because of the guns and gangs." Of course, then Jacob goes on to describe an irony in his own perceptions by saying, "We're riding the bus at the time surrounded by rampant graffiti and having heard stories of people they knew who had had violent encounters. A stark contrast to our home where graffiti is almost unheard of, and quickly removed when present, and guns only ever encountered by choice. There is a deep disconnect between perception and reality." Which is indeed my point. By Jacob tends, at least I interpret his comments to tend, to lean towards a degree of empirical judgementalism. He states at the beginning of his post: "...It would behoove us to search for facts and not perpetuate fantasies no matter their origins--Mormon, U.S., European, or Moore." But you see, part of what I have been trying to propose is that this empirical "search for facts" may have absoltely nothing to do with the search for "truth" in a literary sense, when dealing with the creation of characters who behave in a fictional creation of the madcap and often unreal world around us. Also, there is an implication in the statement about "perpetuating fantasies" which dismisses the perceived realities of others and makes it impossible to write about them empathetically or portray them as an actor. But first, let's deal with so-called empirical truth. Jacob puts a lot of importance in facts and figures, but my father used to tell a joke which goes something like: "Ask a person what's two plus two? They will tell you: four. Ask a programmer what's two plus two, and they will ask you: what base do you want it in? Ask a statistician what's two plus two, and they will say: what do you want it to be?" Jacob admits that the statistics he quotes have been mathamatically altered to try and correct for the drop in police reporting of crimes in Europe. So, by his own admission, nobody really knows WHAT the crime statistics in Europe are. Is Jacob right? Is someone elses mathimatical correction more correct? What is the empirical truth? Let's say that Jacob is right. I made a comment about gun deaths, and he refutes it by talking about rates of burglary. Uhhhh, okay, that's interesting. But I was talking about gun deaths. How is my statement about gun deaths a lie? It isn't. It is true. You may make a counterstatement that the fact that we have more gun deaths is true, but unimportant: but what about your own German friends, who said to you that they would not want to live in the U.S. because of their perception of gun violence and gangs? My statement was not a lie, and it was not a fantasy. It precicely conveyed both the empirical truth (there are more gun deaths in the U.S., despite the fact that there may be a lot more robbers in France) and it also conveyed the percived truth, that Euoropeans THINK we are more violent (whether or not they are right). The FACT is that they THINK something. You may belive that what they think is a fantasy, it does not make them think it any less. And I am not entering into a political debate about crime statistics; I am talking about people. I am trying to understand human beings. For a literary purpose. Furthermore, in Jacob's story of his experience with German friends, his own literary telling of it (and since it was written down, I will analyse it as a literary critic might) reveals some and his own geocenteric and socio centric bias. For example, Jacob heard the German comment about percieved U.S. gun violence as ironic, becuase the statement was made in a neighborhood surrounded by graffiti and after having heard second-hand stories about violent encounters. Firstly, graffiti was instantly perceived as a symbol of violence, hence the irony, and that is very interesting in and of itself. Someone else might percieve graffitit as the outcryings of an oppressed and economically disenfranchised social element desperate for some form of artistic and social expression. (I'm not saying that's how I percieve it, but it could certainly be perceived as such.) Jacob's instinct to equate graffiti with vilence may be correct, but it may also be a completely American notion. The fact that U.S. graffiti is usually gang-related may account for it, but what about the German's worry about U.S. gangs, even while feeling safe in a German neighborhood rife with graffiti? Might it be that German kids draw on walls, but are not in gangs? I don't know. At any rate, Jacob then states that in his neighborhood, there is almost never graffiti, which means, I suppose, that he implies that his neighborhood is les violent. Which is probably true. But are the observations related. Also, it implies, by extensiton, that Jacob's neighborhood (where "graffiti is almost unheard of, and quickly removed when present, and guns only ever encountered by choice") might be in some way indicative of U.S. culture in general. But this could not be further from the truth, and the comment reveals a completly geocentric bias. For example, even though I have now moved my family to a semi-rural setting, my family lives in LA, New York and Houston, the first, second and fourth-largest cities in the U.S. Actually, statistically, the vast majority of young people in the United States (if you are just going for a per-capita comparison) do live in urban settings. These neighborhoods, arguably the statistically majority of the American experience, compreise settings which are the exact opposit of the Proffitt's experience where they live. Every dense, urban setting where I have lived (Los Angeles, Houston, etc.) contains graffitti, violence, crime, and frequent contact with guns. Even in my beautiful semi-rural home, two years ago, a guy walked into the local Lyons diner and shot three people. So, Jacob's German friends may have a skewed and partialy fantasy view of American society, but then, so does Jacob himself, have a skewed and partially fantasy view of American society, because he happens to live in a peacable region of the country. His comments failed to not the truth of that dicotomy and used a single lens of experience to make generalizations about the whole which come off as unrecognizalble given a different, but also truthful, perspective. So what are the facts? What is a "lie"? What is percieved? And what is the more important of the two, specifically for a practitioner of literature? Jacob says: "You're implication is that the U.S. is more violent because we have guns..." Which is not my implication at all: We are percieved to be more violent by Europeans because we have more guns. And then concludes the sentence with, "...Whereas that is wholly unsupported by rigorous statistical analysis." But you see, I am utterly disinterested (in this particular case) with a rigorous statistical analysis, becasuse, as you can see, such analysis revealed not one iota of additional truth about the cultural assumptions and biases which might affect characters in literature, or humans in relation to one another. Jacob argues that an understanding of context is important, and I fully and completley agree with him, and found his paragraph on this subject very well stated. His own biases must be placed in to his context, just as his German friend's biases must be placed into their context. By doing so, we come up with, as Eric suggested is good the other day, with a both/and scenario. Where statistical analysis would seem to demand an either/or, a human contextual analysis shows that both may be right, in thier context. Jacob and his German's views seem to be opposed, but both may have merit, given context. A paradox. Which makes for wonderful literature. Richard Dutcher already woderfully explored this concept in a short but brilliant scene in Brigham City where the tough-as-nails New York FBI agent and the down-home rural Utah Sheriff talk about thier relative reactions to each other's realities. The FBI agent admits that Utah's wide open dark spaces give her the creeps, and Clayton can imagine himself terrified by the mean streets of New York. Both feel comfortable in their own worlds, and they openly consider each other "nieve" for believing as they perceive each other to do. When this admission comes out, they share a moment of ironic laughter and a human connection. Yes, they can both be nieve, they can both be wrong, they can both be right. New York can be lethal and, if you know the rules, pretty safe. Utah can be pretty safe and, if you don't know the rules, pretty lethal. Irony, human perception, humor, truth, drama: a little nugget of literature and art. Rigorous statistical analysis be damned. Jacob is absolultly right when he states: "In fact, interesting stories lie in those areas where there is a disconnect between objective, factual analysis and subjective personal belief." Beautifully put. He also makes some good points about Polanski, which I don't want to get into, as I'm already disinterested in him personally. But then Jacob goes back to a thought, versions of which he has expressed before: "Examining with a generous heart is a great ideal. It's something we should strive for always. But a generous heart is going to run into trouble when it comes to certain fundamental truths." I feel like I need to address that concept in another post I've been working on in response to some of D. Michael Martindale's and my disuccsions. In short, my issue is that a sense of fundamental rightness on our parts sometimes stikes me as the "meeting the Buddah" analogy I earlier expressed. I get worried by it, even though I have difficulty answering Jacob's arguments because they are "fundementally" correct. But if I am going to err, I will err on the side of looking at others with an eye of forgiveness rather than condemning judgement, but only because that is how I hope others will err in thier perception of me. Well, I've gone on long enough. Just a few final points. Jacob: "So what happens when my understanding of an issue (like, say, guns in society) differs vastly from yours? Can you only produce art for the like-minded? Can you understand an opponent's position and still disagree with them? And more usefully, can you understand an opponent's position, still disagree with them, and yet communicate with them in a useful way that doesn't require their conversion to have efficacy? Well sure. Jacob: "Is there a way to dig deeper and find a universal truth somewhere? Again, I'd say that the answer is yes, it is possible. I'd further claim that Mormons do it better than any other group I can think of, but that we're still learning how to do it well." Well, that's something I might argue about, but then again, you may be right. And your examples about watching artistic works from men you may or may not have complete political or philisophical agreement with is an excellent example of case in point to the issue of art breaking barriors of bias. Bact to erring and a sense of caution towards "empirical rightness" when Jabob states that" In reaching out to others, it is important that we not loose our grip on those things that are deeply important and relatively absolute," my suggestion (misguided as it may be) is that I believe there are much fewer "relative absolutes" in the univers than we might sometimes think. Thanks for the passionate exchange! Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Addictions and Art Date: 15 Apr 2003 15:24:13 -0600 Richard Dutcher said: >Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, maybe >violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality >television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and >addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images >we see. Or maybe I'm totally talking out of my bum. I don't know. I think you nailed a good point in the above (the addiction reference, not the bum reference). I was actually thinking along similar lines before you reached the point. If you feel that you are relatively immune to the negative influences of some films, then you have a gift. I'm jealous, because (and I do not say this with self-pity, believe me) I am an addict (well, a recovering one). A lot of people are just like me, and, for us, it is just too dangerous spiritually to allow nudity, harsh language, violence, etc., in our viewing diet. I winced when you wrote the following: >I seldom dream about the films I see, even the most recent version of "The Exorcist," which had >some of the most disturbing imagery I have ever seen (Thumbs up!). >As for sexual content, I don't dream (or daydream) about it. It doesn't flash >in my mind during inappropriate times such as in the temple or during the >sacrament or while making love to my wife. >As for language: when an actor and screenwriter let fly with one of the three >or four words that I find particularly ugly and violent, I cringe and wish >they hadn't "shared," but I don't find myself using the words either in life >or in my mind. I winced because I cannot say the same for myself, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. I could go on and confess to you some sins or name films that I'd give back in a second, but do you need to hear that? Of course not. I simply responded (and am glad I did because I appreciated the responses) to your statement about not having any respect for the R-rated film rule. It may have been semantics that got to me. I know some individuals, however, who, years ago, carefully selected the films that they viewed, and were pretty discriminating about which R-rated films they would watch. As time has passed, however, their standards have loosened a great deal, and it seems that they'll watch pretty much anything that a critic says is good or interesting or different (and then some), regardless of the subject matter or content. They have to be "in the know" about film today. If the craft is good, they're usually glad to have seen it. It's not my business, and who am I to judge, right? But, it breaks my heart, because I care about them, and I believe that, in some small way, it has been a step away from the church for them. Perhaps there's a little tinge of guilt or something, or maybe there's a sense that the society at church is beneath them. I don't know. Either way, part of me mourns it. As far as detaching yourself from film, it's something that we all need to do. And yet, isn't the ability to involve or engulf an audience a characteristic of great film? Here's a silly example in my life: I love scary movies, and when you mentioned The Exorcist, I had to share this. When I was about 13 or 14, I decided to watch that movie alone on a Saturday afternoon. I'd already seen it, and I just loved it (it is quite the crafty piece, I admit, and I'm terribly fond of Max von Sydow). I was also not religious at all, so I didn't take offense to blasphemous language or behavior the way I do now. I closed the blinds and turned out the lights so that I could get the full effect. (How's that for the behavior of an addict. One might suggest that it was akin to rolling up and smoking a hash joint and whiling away the afternoon eating gingersnaps and pizza. Anyway, I digress.) Then, about 30 minutes into the film, Regan tipped her head back and let out that voice. You KNOW that voice I'm talking about. I stopped the film, opened the blinds, turned on a lot of lights, and took a bathroom trip before watching more of the film. Oh, I'm still laughing at that. (I hope somebody else thinks that is funny and that it's not just crickets out there). Anyway, I was completely involved. Maybe I have too great a willing suspension of disbelief, or maybe some filmmakers are just too darned good at their jobs. Who knows. One more thing: My good friend Eric said the following in his response to me: >I read, on average, five books a week. Assuming that I'm able to keep >reading five books a week for the rest of my life, and assuming ye old >Biblical life span of threescore and ten, I will be able to read 5980 >books the rest of my life. >That's it. A little under 6K. >I watch, on average, about four movies a week. Making the same actuarial >assumptions, I should be able to see about 4784 movies the rest of my >life. >That's it. Under 5K. Well, first of all, happy belated birthday, Eric! I hope that you had an enjoyable evening (and that Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant delivered beyond your expectations). Though the above was not really the point you were making in your message, I just have to say that *you read too much and watch too many movies*!! Either you have way many more hours in a day than I do, or you read very quickly. If it is the latter, I'm jealous and I resent you for it. ;) But seriously, I did get your point, and I was happy for the response. Well, thanks for the exchange, the insight, and the patience and willingness to let me restart this thread. I'm new to the list and missed the first one. Though I'm unchanged in my view, I have greater empathy and appreciation for your views, folks. For that, I thank you. Yours, Dianna Graham "He never did tell me who the Fat Lady was, but I shined my shoes for the Fat Lady every time I ever went on the air again..." _Franny and Zooey_J.D. Salinger -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 15 Apr 2003 15:43:22 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | Except that all of those things are not interesting to the | real point here--creating a conservative criticism. I mean, | I see your point kind of, but your point doesn't really | relate to building a conservative criticism. ___ Unfortunately I no longer have the original post I was responding to. So I no longer remember the exact point of pointing out how open Shakespeare is to differing interpretations. I thought, however, that the issue was the follow assertions: Neo-Con literary criticism as postmodern criticism Neo-Con literary criticism as criticism via "authorative texts" Neo-Con literary criticism as "natural law" To me they seemed rather contradictory. I even seem to recall pleading for someone to explain what exactly "conservative criticism" is. ___ Jacob ___ | Well, you're going to have to define what you're calling | post-modernism. I think you underestimate the influence | that Jim Faulconer has had on your interpretation of | post-modernism. ___ Actually most of my views on postmodernism have come through reading various books and not discussions with Jim. My discussions with Jim were primarily at initial understanding of Husserl, Derrida and Heidegger. However I can assure you that I have dozens of volumes of classic postmodern works in my library ranging from Paul deMan to Richard Rorty to Giles Deleuze and even criticisms of postmodernism such as Habermas' _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. I'd say that my views on postmodernism as a "whole" (if such a term is even vaguely appropriate) come from many discussions with literary critics and philosophers from various forums on the Internet. (I'm sure someone could spy on my exchanges and see all the places I put my foot in my mouth via Google were they so inclined) I'm very grateful to Jim Faulconer if only for pointing out the issue of transcendence and how it relates both to classic literary and philosophical texts. As such it has radically transformed *how* I see texts. But I must admit that on many matters Jim and I disagree relative to the problem of transcendence. ____ Jacob ___ | I don't want to *emphasize* the contradictions, I want to de- | emphasize them. The *emphasis* of break-downs is the post- | modernist realm. Post-modernism has nothing to do with any kind | of universal unless you accept Jim Faulconer's heresies (he *is* | a post-modernist heretic and his essay is at least partially an | attempt to justify himself as such). ___ I'm not sure I agree. First off postmodernism in many guises parallels very closely many significant forms of neoPlatonism. As such it can be seen as a more careful analysis of the one and the many, or the universal and the particular. To say that postmodernism has nothing to do with any kind of universal really is to miss the point of a lot of postmodernism. A good book on this, relative to Heidegger, is Sikka's _Forms of Transcendence_. It is very interesting - especially to a Mormon audience. I'd not be so universal as to say that *all* postmodernism focuses in on this. But clearly postmodernism denies a *stable* universal. But that is not the same as denying the universal. This difference between the dynamic and the stable is certainly key to understanding postmodernism. Getting back to Jim, what exactly is a "post-modernist heretic"? Is that a heretic from postmodernism? Or a heretic from modernism who is a heretic because of his postmodernism? Some of Jim's views on Heidegger are somewhat controversial. (Sorry, I could name any off the top of my head) However I'm not sure that is the same as being a heretic. And Jim is hardly alone in them. ___ Jacob ___ | I'd prefer to undermine post-modernism by showing that it's | deconstruction is inapplicable--that it doesn't describe | reality any better than the rationalism it supplanted. ___ Lots of luck. After all "describing reality" entails the completeness of ones descriptions. But if modernism can not avoid the "aporias" that postmodernism points out then modernism as a narrative of reality is *less* complete than postmodernism. ___ Clark ___ | Natural law though has the obvious parallel to law of | nature - i.e. physics. And, in a real sense, the various | forms of structuralism are an attempt to find this natural | law as it applies to language acts in general. | ___ Jacob ___ | Yeah, but who cares? By which I really mean "why should this have | anything to do with conservative criticism?" ___ Jim was discussing conservative criticism as an appeal to some "natural law" by which texts were criticized. I simply pointed out the problems inherent in the concept of natural law. (Natural law is simply the imposition of universals on particulars, btw) ___ Jacob ___ | To see what I mean, read all the conservative essays you can get | your hands on and count how many of them actually mention, let | alone discuss, natural law. ___ There certainly is a strong conservative movement that depends upon various notions of natural law. I'd never claim *all* does, of course. But then perhaps this is the problem of *a* conservative criticism? As I said, I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by conservative criticism. Clearly it isn't just some collection of orthodox texts ala Bloom. Otherwise your point about *a* conservative reading of Shakespeare makes no sense. It apparently isn't a criticism in terms of a "natural law." So what is it? ___ Jacob ___ | Post-modernism began as a revolt from scientific rationalism | and it moved from there to a disdain for all rationalism. ___ I don't think that fair. Certainly that is the strawman set up by many *criticizing* postmodernism. However when we move to actual texts we find that things are much more complex. Either they focus on what is simply bad scholarship/editing (of which postmodernism is hardly uniquely susceptible) or a fundamental misunderstanding of the texts in question. ___ Jacob ___ | It doesn't actually propose *anything* to take the place of | (i.e. fulfill) rationalism. ___ So? Isn't claiming that there *can't* be anything higher - that certain goals of "modernity" are unobtainable enough? ___ Jacob ___ | Conservatism doesn't have to discuss the origins of universals/ | morals/core beliefs because the origins don't matter. ___ Then why pick one "core belief" above others. Isn't that irrational? Isn't conservativism (if what you say is true) only your strawman of postmodernism taken to even further extremes? It is irrationalism imposed by force of will or tradition rather than reason? It is the *denial* of reason as being relevant. It is just a kind of cultural relativism that puts on the cloak of there being no "cultural relativism." ___ Jacob ___ | We can have two "conservatives" with entirely different lists | of "universals" and still find them valuable because a) they're | talking about universals at *all* and that's something | distressingly rare in academic discourse today and b) they're | showing the binding application of those universals through text | and art and the human condition. ___ Here you make an even *stronger* case for relativism. It doesn't matter *what* values/universals are. (Thus it doesn't matter if the universals are *actually* universal) They show the "binding application" of these not-universals through text and art and human condition. (i.e. *not* reason) It becomes a free wheeling textual interpretation where some external "meta-text" imposes upon other texts, art, and the very human condition. It is the project of Freudian interpretation taken to its next logical level - where Freud's lie of having found "universal categories" is rejected but the project retained. The idea that there is *a* set of universals is replaced with the idea that universals are not objective, but are subjective. It is categorization without appeal to the utility, objectivity or logic of the categories. Anything goes so as one can show a "binding application." But what do we mean by binding application? Is it that the universals were present *before* in these texts? If so, what does that suggest about the relationship of universal to text if *any* collection of universals will do? Doesn't that undermine the entire project? ___ Jacob ___ | If we'll stop getting so caught up in justifying ourselves and | start exploring the *how* of our ideas, we might get a little | further along and maybe understand each other a little better. ___ But isn't this just the appeal that instead of focusing in on questions of truth we ought to focus on matters of style? Performance rather than content? Form rather than meaning? And if one asserts that it is through this inversion of the traditional goal of scholarship we can "understand each other a little better" what does that say of understanding? That understanding is contentless? Is that really understanding at all? It seems a return to an extreme nominalism that even the sophists might fear to take. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Neil LaBute Interview Date: 15 Apr 2003 18:04:05 -0600 Some of you might find this interview interesting, especially given recent discussions. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/entertainmentstorydisplay.cfm?st oryID=3401294&thesection=entertainment&thesubsection=arts&thesecondsubse ction=general The most interesting part is towards the end. It raises interesting issues for Mormon artists. ---- He admits that his adherence to a faith which at least appears authoritarian, doctrinaire and conservative, is at odds with such artistic iconoclasticism. But his trio of plays about three violent and disturbed individuals changed all that. bash: latterday plays "was not about the church but about people who happened to be members of the church," LaBute says. "But I got into some trouble with the church and I continue to be in that [trouble]. It will probably come to some head which will not be excommunication but something close to it. Ultimately I will be asked to decide whether I want to continue in the church or continue to work the way I am. "Like all good writers I continue procrastinating for as long as I can, but I will at some point have to decide and a decision will be made. "I understand the dichotomy for some people, that the church and my work don't seem to go hand in hand. I've been able to reconcile it quite easily - but then I'm a great self-justifier." Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Date: 15 Apr 2003 21:02:53 -0600 AML LIST EXCLUSIVE: Notes from Prison. I knew it would come to this. I always knew it would come to this. The first sentence of Kafka I read years ago taught me that you didn't have to block the entrance to a building, or burn a flag or a brassiere. No. They will eventually come and get you. Incarceration isn't bad if you don't have anything else to do. But I need nicotine--I've never smoked in my life and don't want to jeopardize my recommend, but there is something about prison that makes the memory wobbley so you need tobacco. The Horizontal Brigade was cruel, but comical. I could help but remembering how the Cubists excommunicated one of their own for painting diagonals. Was is Modrian? Was it Mona Lisa? I can't remember, but he must have been relieved that he found the middle ground. I suspect the judge must be related to Giorgi. Why else would he release a serial mis-speller like myself? How else would he know how to spell Giorgi? Maybe it's Dutcher himself. I vaguely recall there was some relationship like brother-in-law, or making out with each other's sisters. I don't understand what making out means to actors. I mean, I saw Scott Bronson making out with his real-life wife in the Nauvoo Society's production of the Samuelson play. What did it mean? Was he really making out with his wife, or just acting? I spent five hours on that question yesterday. And did she ever tell him she wasn't doing that scene tonight because she had a headache? Art is complex. So I refused the freedom they offered, although it was nice to be out of the strait jacket so I could pick my nose. I correctly surmized that freedom, in this context, would be like Samuelseon's (sp?) liberalism, the ability to believe in several contradictory spellings at the same time. I'm not intelligent enought to be a liberal--I want my Video Rights--I belong in jail. I screamed, I AM G-I-OR-G-I in real loud capital letters, and they put me in a different ward for GI's. Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jared Walters Subject: [AML] Re: Shakespeare in Love (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 15 Apr 2003 21:06:24 -0600 Eric, Thanks for that insight in SIL. I thought I was the only one who didn't understand how it was hyped up so much by fall season critics. You don't want to get me started on Weinstein. I swear the Academy must live in his pocket or something. I guess it helps when you have Disney as a silent parent company shelling out the dough to shove movies down critics throats for award consideration. IMO, that's really the only reason SIL won the Oscars it did. It's all about the media spin these days, Weinstein and Miramax have a great marketing staff that can hide any evidence of plagiarism and use reverse tactics on potential Oscar competitors. Most recently, the attempted sabotage of last years Oscar winner, "A Beautiful Mind" where stories were leaked out about racist allegations of the real-life protagonist. Weinstein later had to apologize to Universal head Stacy Snyder. Although, Weinstein did gain a little respect in my eyes with his public endorsement of Spielberg's under-appreciated work on "A.I" SIL is not a terrible movie, but it definitely wasn't worthy of the Oscar attention it got although my wife loves the movie which is strange since she's turned off by any movie justifying adultery, go figure. If I was wearing a shoe, I would've thrown one at the TV too when SIL won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan. One of the biggest travesties in recent memory for the Oscars. [Jared Walters] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Interview with God Date: 10 Apr 2003 15:16:25 -0600 This moved me, and I wanted to share it with those who might also = appreciate it. The site is a pop up presentation of some very beautiful landscapes shown in a PowerPoint like format with music and a written poem about a dream the author had in which he was allowed to interview God. I have enjoyed it and I have shared it with many of my family and friends. It may not load easily on all browsers or a slow modem speed. I have a cable modem and I use Explorer 6.0 http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division Date: 15 Apr 2003 22:16:58 -0700 What this means is that Deseret is going to get into the business of distributing works they do not publish. This is what Publishers Distribution, Origin, and Evans Book used to do and it is still the principal business of Granite Publishing, and to a large extent CFI. Brigham Book Distributing (I think that's the name) up in Brigham City is trying to enter this market. They will probably be edged out by Deseret now. This is a smart move if done correctly. It could allow Deseret to essentially take over the distribution end of the LDS market, leaving the small publishers to do nothing but publish, then pass their products over to Deseret to distribute. It is not a terribly profitable venture unless it's done on a large scale, and I think Deseret has the best shot in the LDS market to achieve that scale. (In the trade market, Ingram and Baker & Taylor are the big national distributors.) This will essentially consolidate the LDS market in the hands of Deseret, but that may not be a bad thing, depending on how open they are to different kinds of product. It may take some big internal changes, though. Deseret's wholesale arm has been notorious for creating ill-will amongst their (non-Deseret) customers. Perhaps Sherri Dew will correct that problem and with her correction add this powerful new twist. Verrrry interesting. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 15 Apr 2003 22:27:52 -0600 [MOD: I'm going to impose a prior restraint ruling on this part of this thread. That is, debate Thom's interpretation of these scriptural/historical readings if you wish, but only if you also engage with the larger point he's making about the relationship of the life of the artist/spiritual leader and the message.] >-----Original Message----- >If you do >not like the work of an artist, simply refrain from >patronizing it, but I feel sorry for anyone who refuses to >give eye or ear to the work of an artist just because they >don't like their personal lifestyle. and they think the artist >is despicable. If the art is despicable, that is one thing, >but ... well let's just leave it at that. Not to mention the fact that the founders of own religion also exhibted human traits on occasion, and errer, or made mistakes, or acted in an egotistical manner. Do we throw out the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith was less than a perfected human being? Or do we, instead, read the book and let IT speak to us, not Joseph. Noah cavorted naked in a tent. Moses sinned so badly he couldn't get in the promised land. Jonah was a failed missionary. Peter and Paul argued on occasion. It is fairly well known what Brigham Young and Orson Pratt thought of each other. All men exhibiting very human characteristics. The message is not, and never has been, the man. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 15 Apr 2003 22:33:42 -0600 We have agreed on other points, but maybe you don't remember. I seem to recall we share a mutual love and admiration for the late Max Golightly. Thom >-----Original Message----- >In being a member of this list for lo these many >years, I have finally read a post from Thom with which I agree >and say amen to every point. I am now going out into the >garden to watch the sky in case the second coming is about to >begin. > >Richard B. Johnson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 15 Apr 2003 23:25:29 -0600 I assume you mean that the boy was a jerk, not the bishop? ;-) I've read the book also. I thought Plummer did a good job of showing that the boy was a complete jerk, yet also convincingly showing what Hannah saw (or thought she saw) in him. Not easy to do. --Katie Parker Quoting Tracie Laulusa : > Just to quibble, I think Dances for Three was overtly Mormon. One of > the characters is Hannah's Bishop. > > And, he didn't turn into a jerk, he always was one. At least one > underlying issue in the book is who we as a culture look at as being > *good*. He looked good to her, and she ignored signs that maybe he > was not all she was looking for--with all the emotionally issues with > her family thrown in for good measure. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 15 Apr 2003 21:38:21 -1000 I most heartily agree. How can we compare the work of butchers to that of artists. The butcher's work is so much more important. IMHO. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net -----Original Message----- First, how can we possibly compare butchers, bakers, and artists? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 16 Apr 2003 07:31:20 -0400 At 7:50 PM -0700 4/10/03, you wrote: >Well, my new Deseret Book catalog arrived today. What a shocker! > >Herein my comments: > >1. It's a somewhat larger catalog than before. No wonder -- they've >stuffed it with junk and golden oldies, things you never thought would see >the light of day again. I didn't know why they were listing Duane >Crowther's "Life Everlasting." Gosh, how old is THAT book? And, tell the >truth, I can't remember them ever featuring this book in a catalog before. Does anyone know if they are charging the publishers for listings, like the "books and things" catalog? > >2. Many books had little snips of reviews attached. Naturally, I searched >for any that originated with AML. Total number of AML-related reviews -- >zero. Total number written by Deseret Book employees -- I stopped counting. >Most were fairly anonymous -- first name and city and state. And it isn't >as if AML members haven't favorably reviewed some of these titles. I wonder >why Deseret Book essentially gave AML the cold shoulder? Very curious. > They want 'customer' reviews, so I'll bet those in the catalog either came from their website or from in-store review forms or something. I don't think the idea of any serious reviews ever entered into their minds. Notice they don't have any review from local newspapers either - no Deseret News, no Provo Daily Herald, nothing. Not that these do many reviews, but they have done a few. >4. And, the introduction of a slogan at the upper-right portion of the >cover page: "What matters to you matters to us." > In my case I can't see how that could possibly be true! Kent -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Ask the Librarian Date: 16 Apr 2003 07:56:04 -0700 A big "hoop" to you! Power to the people!!!! Next stop -- Deseret Book. Inasmuch as their current catalog contains reviews, and not a ONE from AML, I think an invasion plan is justified. We can call it "Operation DB Catalog." I don't think we'll get Congressional funding, though... ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 16 Apr 2003 08:36:41 -0700 It's rather odd that Deseret Book didn't mention that this is an enlarged edition. When did he add the material? I now wonder which edition I actually have on my shelves. Reaction to Crowther's work is mixed. I reviewed a book published by him (something about a fellow dying, visiting heaven, and returning). It was a slim book and, frankly, I thought it was a bit silly. If the story actually happened as described, I would be surprised. I do not for a minute question the reality of the hereafter, or of God being able to work things out as He chooses, but when heaven looks as much like Salt Lake City as this fellow related, my skepticism rises to the top. As to the book that you have published, I've read very little about it (I haven't read the book itself), mostly here, and it hasn't been very positive. Have the comments been passed along to the author, in an effort, perhaps, to make the second volume better? Thanks for your thoughts. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > Why is Deseret Book listing Duane Crowther's "old book" Life > Everlasting in > their New Catalog? Maybe because it has 150 pages of new > material in it. I > actually never read the old one. Somehow I missed in the first > time around. > And having just read it, along with 6 others published by his Horizon > Publishing on the same topic, I'm sorry I did not read it years ago. > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Book Project Update Date: 16 Apr 2003 09:58:55 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- . Chris wrote: Lately I've been thinking that writing is a sucky line of work; even at my daytime > copywriting job, I rarely seem to write anything the way others would like > it to be, and I get sick of trying to read their minds. More and more often > lately, I fantasize about working for the post office or some other job that > has nothing to do with writing. I had to laugh, Chris. And I LOVE the word sucky here! EXACTLY, you have hit it on the head. How MANY times have I wanted to be a WAITRESS! Well, I finally got into the theatre, and though it's connected in an artistic way, it doesn't devour me in the same manner! The only problem is that the pay is zero. (Actually, as Thom and Scott will affirm, the theatre bleeds.) And over all these years my writing has brought in about two cents an hour (at least enough to help me establish the Marilyn Brown Novel Award, and I'll be darned if I'm going to collapse when someone criticizes me for naming at after myself--I tried to call it MBNA at first, but I was stepping on the toes of some bank). My husband keeps reminding me that he's supporting me. But I did write computer programs for WICAT for several years, and performed other editorial jobs, etc., so I'm DUE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SOON! I am willing to live as a pauper to write. Or buy some income property and let other people's money pay for it! And after all this time has passed, I'm the age of Tolkein! But YOU WILL NEVER STOP WRITING because it's in your blood! How I agree that a post office or waitress job looks inviting sometimes! Thanks for giving us your editor and your agent! (Although I'm not sure they want a bunch of Mormons converging upon them all at once!) I KNOW you're going to make it one of these times! And you will look back, and the behind (is this a freudian slip?) will make the foreground come up roses! So cheers! (Which reminds me, I should be WRITING at this moment! But I'm on page 162, so I'm allowing myself to indulge in some of these conversations I can't resist. The outline is DONE, and I (the illusive Margaret/Marilyn/Thom/Steve Martin?) am on the movie script now---even though I have to admit that Dutcher's dialogue seems to jerk my whole work up a notch and I'm completely aware I am struggling to be in synch with a genius! C'est la vie. But even peon novelists need to hone their skills as penpals once in a while. I must admit it feels good to be back talking to the astute crowd!) Hi EMINEM [Marilyn Brown] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Peter WARINNER, _Sumdar_ Date: 16 Apr 2003 10:17:42 -0600 Welcome, Peter! This is wonderful. Please, Sam, get him to come on and tell us about his work! And now to Chris, in reference to his sucky career: Maybe we should all become neurologists! (Again. No wonder I try to stay off the list, I can't keep still.) Marilyn Brown (Sorry, Jonathan!) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 16 Apr 2003 09:18:21 -0700 > Susan, surely CHICAGO is not one of the worst movies you have ever seen. Not > unless you don't see many films. Maybe by "worst" you mean "most offensive." > I'd buy that, although I was not personally offended by it. No, I mean worst. I rarely attend movies in the theater, and when I'm at home watching a stinker, I turn it off. Or leave the room. And you're right, I don't watch many movies anymore. > > Every character was despicable. > > Even Roxy's husband? The innocent Russian prisoner? The reporter? The short, > balding extra in the crowd scene? Yes, even the husband. The reporter, yes. The innocent Russian prisoner, I don't know. I'm sure there was something to despise about her, too. :) > How could you and your fellow viewers possibly have missed the satire? I don't know how we missed the satire, but we did. I usually find satire funny. This I found appalling. Nothing funny about it anywhere. I think it's like you said--the movie held up all this horrible stuff like it was something to celebrate. I just can't get into that. I have a thing about movies that potray murderers like they're something wonderful. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm serious when I say I'm about to give up on mainstream Hollywood movies. I don't seem to like hardly anything I see anymore. I'm not even interested in seeing the Matrix sequel that's coming out. I did see and enjoy Willard, but I love Crispin Glover--and it's not something I'd necessarily call mainstream Hollywood. I'm interested in seeing Holes, so maybe there's some slight hope for me yet. Anyway, I have different taste than just about everyone I know in movies. So feel free to ignore my opinion. :) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 16 Apr 2003 10:35:57 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > >The way in which I know what my characters will do is to "ask" > >them. When a question comes up, I interrogate them. Not > >literally, but I meditate on them and what I already know > >about their character. Sooner or later it becomes clear to me > >what they would do. I always "know" by this method everything > >about my characters--everything as a need arises. > > You should be congratulated for this approach. You are not imposing > your own values on the characters. ("The Church says masturbation is > wrong, so I can't have this character masturbating.") You let the > character dictate to you, which is the way it should be. Thanks for the praise, but I don't feel it's warranted. It's like praising a painter for using paint. If an author doesn't understand that truth and honesty are his artistic medium, then he's likely a lousy author (or an LDS author). This is why I never feel bad about what I write, no matter how "inappropriate" someone else may think it is. I write what I believe is the truth. I was born to Mormon parents, and from my first primary lesson until today, I was taught that telling the truth is a virtue, not a sin. Therefore when in my stories someone has sex or masturbates or is nude, someone commits horrible sins while thinking he is doing the Lord's work, someone has negative reactions to her first time in the temple, someone uses language that ought not to be heard in sacrament meeting, someone uses drugs, etc. etc., I don't feel the slightest guilt. I never include these things gratuitously or for shock effect. I never celebrate evil or whitewash its consequences. But I do include them when relevant to the story because these things are true--they happen to real people in real life, including real Mormons. I'm just telling the truth. Hopefully writing or reading the truth will set me and my readers free a tiny bit more than we currently are. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Time Heals Artistic Wounds (was: Blood into Literature) Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:17:31 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I'm finally > getting a chance to sit down and watch Ken Burn's epic documentary, > "JAZZ". > I was astonished to hear quotations from > turn-of-the-last-century newspapers talking about Ragtime that could > have been transposed, word-for-word, into the 60's or 70's as talking > about rock. I mean, if the quotation had not been read in context, I > would have had no idea that Ragtime was the subject, and not some more > modern "subversive" form. > > It seems to me, then, that every generation, every decade, every > movement of change, has been plagued by a division between the creators > and enjoyers of the new movement -- who revel in a freshly-discovered > sense of freedom and expression -- and the observes and disdainers of > the new movement -- who scorn and deride what they see as, at best, a > distortion of better more classic forms and, at worst, a genuine vehicle > for evil. This is true, and I have already lived long enough to have witnessed this personally. My pop music heyday spans the mid-60s to the mid-70s, which as every true connoisseur* of pop music knows is the golden decade of rock and roll. Before that was cute (quaint, in Jon's words) rock and roll of the three-chord variety, and after that was the dismal decline of rock into disco and new wave/punk. Now that I have two teenagers under my roof and want to share the great music I grew up with so they can enjoy it too, I am appalled to discover that what I consider artistic genious they dismal as "old." They treat my golden age of music the same way I looked at 50s and early 60s rock music. And what are they listening to? Backstreet Boys, N-Sync, and the abominations that ABBA knock off A-teens generated. Groups that technically sing well, but who perform music that is aesthetically and sociologically vapid. I'll gladly take the diamond-in-the-rough works of the musical greats of the golden age of rock and roll. Of course, this is just a generational thing. Everyone thinks the golden age of pop music is the one they grew up during. I can enjoy early rock and roll in the right mood, and I'll even concede that disco and punk rock, those assassins of great rock music, have their artistic merits, in spite of my inability to appreciate them. But when it comes to rap and hip-hop, there I draw the line. I can't believe that it's a mere subjective, generational thing that these forms of alleged music actually have artistic merit. My father called my music "noise," but I truly can't accept these new manifestations of pop "music" as anything but. I live in dread that I may be suffering from the same generational myopicism that my father did, that in twenty years Snoop Dog's music will be covered in elevators by Muzak. I do have hope, however. In my one-time occupation as airport shuttle driver, I transported several people in the music industry, several of whom voiced the same opinion. That opinion was summed up well by one individual's statement: "I can appreciate just about everty kind of music, but I truly don't get rap." These are people a generation or two younger than me, too. So I have hope that my aversion to such music is an absolute aesthetic, not mere old-fogyism. > Ragtime, which seems to us now as such a jaunty, fun, classic, and even = > innocent music, was truly thought to be music to loose children's souls = > by in the 1900's! Perhaps rock will seem as quaint some day. It already does. A decade or two ago the Beatles' "Revolution" was used to sell sneakers. Carly Simon's "Anticipation" was used to sell Heinz ketchup. I listen to the drug-promoting "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with quaint nostalgia as my children sit in the back seat of the car, not once worrying about the harmful effects my parents once did. I explained to them what the song meant: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, LSD--get it? They don't care. It's "old" music. We were weird back then. > I guess it is a point of perspective. Just as Ragtime and Jazz were once = > controversial but now have come into their own, and rock was once = > derided but is now seen with less of a dangerous bite, perhaps, too, LDS = > writing which "opens its veins and bleeds upon the page" will find a = > place, even if it is just a small place, in the pantheon of our growing = > literature. Once the floodgates open and the same time-healing effect as with "evil" music takes place (i.e., people get used to it and so it becomes less threatening and therefore stops being labeled "inappropriate"), I think this "bloodletting" LDS literature will become quite popular. -- * One of the few words I always have to look up to spell right. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Escaping Faith? Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:16:16 -0600 I've really enjoyed reading Marilyn's, Paris's and Michael's takes on my revelation, but this will be on a serious note. I got caught by the following line: G. Keystone said: "Some consider these writings to be fiction but To Brother Crowther and now myself they are unimpeachable witness of not 2 or 3, but hundreds of thousands who combined testimony almost eliminates even the need for faith." Now, did I miss something here? ELIMINATES the need for faith?? That sounds even more dangerous than anything Richard Paul Evans will ever think of. I will confess that I have never read a Duane Crowther book, and I don't know the controversy that surrounded _Prophecy_ (but I'd like to). I'll further confess that the whole premise of "life after life" stories makes me nervous. The study group Bruce and I belong to read a book describing in detail a "life after life" experience. The group's response was pretty unanimous: "Why would this guy not only share but MARKET something so personal and sacred?" One of our group said that if the author of this book had approached him with his story, he'd say to keep it personal-and definitely not to publish it. I can freely confess that I was hired by Aspen Books to do the first audio recording of _Embraced by the Light_--sight unseen. I thought some parts of it inspiring, but found other parts a bit far-fetched, but I did record it. My overall impression was, "I believe Betty Eadie did indeed have a significant experience, but I suspect her memory has been embellished over the years." (Still, I found _Embarrassed by the Light_ to be mean-spirited, badly written, and brimming with logical fallacies.) I frankly don't trust memory. I have some very strong feelings, for example, on Zebedee Coltrin's memory of events leading to the priesthood restriction. To be honest, when I read Zebedee's accounts of all the things he claimed to have seen, I got a picture of a very old, poor man who needed attention and had a ready audience. So suddenly he's remembering visions of Adam and Eve, of the Father and the Son, etc. If this guy had every experience he claimed to have had, he surpasses anyone I know of in angelic visitations-including Joseph Smith. I am suspicious, even cynical. And more so because I see Zebedee getting all sorts of attention for his stories and telling them not in sacred places, but at Pioneer Day celebrations. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I suspect death will be something like many people have described, but I will not be spending much time reading about other people's near deaths. I have far too much to do in my LIFE, and besides, I don't want the surprise spoiled. Seriously, I think there's a place to share such experiences, but I don't think booksellers' conventions fit into that category. And if anyone tells me that a particular book will remove my need of faith, that book is automatically banned from my personal list and nightstand. I'll take _The Brother's Karamazov_ over a Duane Crowther book, thanks. Dostoevsky and others of his rare skill and thought leave me more and more convinced of my NEED of faith. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:24:46 -0600 Peter Chamberlain wrote: > > Is suffering only the side of the spectrum that can create "art"? Can > great joy, happiness etc be the spawn of great art? Is it less suffering > in specific or intense emotion that causes people to create? That's exactly what I want to know--exactly why I brought the topic up. So I'm asking you to answer your own questions. Even if you're not sure of the answers, give us your best guess. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:38:30 -0600 While I enjoyed Richard's response to Chicago, and mostly agree with it, = I'd take it a step further: >CHICAGO is one of the most blatant, heavy-handed critical >commentaries = on=20 >American culture that I have ever seen. The lyrics of the songs are = >soaked=20 >with ironic, accusatory meaning. The characters are functional (and = >truthful)=20 >stereotypes: the dishonest, charming do-anything-to-win attorney. The = >sleazy=20 >do-anything-to-succeed performers. The lesbian do-anything-for-a-buck = >prison=20 >matron...etc...etc...etc. Absolutely. That's what's great, and moral, about it. It's a satire. = But . . . >I think what probably confuses you, and many other viewers, is that = >while=20 >being a strong satire of our corruption, it also shamelessly celebrates = our=20 >corruption. It's as if the creative team behind the film is saying, "Look = >how=20 >shallow, immoral, selfish, and vicious we are. Ain't it great?!" I'd put it this way; it's primarily a satire on celebrity, and on the = depressing reality that it doesn't matter how you become a celebrity, as = long as you do. If you're a showgirl, murder, as long as it's well = publicized, can be a rather good career move. Example: last night, I'm watching TV, and I see a promo for a new reality = series. Host: Monica Lewinski. Makes sense. She's a celebrity. She's = famous. People will watch this new show because she's hosting it, = presumably. =20 Now, if they watch the show and Ms. Lewinsky's awkward and uncharming and = not entertaining, well, the show will flop. But heck, the Anna Nicole = Smith show is very popular, based on what? Well, she's famous. She slept = with an old guy and got his loot, and posed for Playboy; never mind that = she's dumb as a brick and that she dresses like she thinks she's still a = size 4 hottie which she decidedly isn't anymore. She's famous, and = watching her on television is amusing. What else matters? So what Chicago is saying is 'you folks out there, you like corruption. = You think corruption is great fun, as long as it's amusing. If it's icky = or boring or dull, we don't care, but we love sexy murder and sexy = murderers as long as they're entertaining.' And therefore, Chicago says = something completely and utterly true. And saying it, I maintain, is = moral. >To me, the film says: "We're going to hell in a fast car. We know we're = >bad.=20 >We like it. And we're having so much fun that we're never going to = stop."=20 >And, to me, that's what American culture is whispering beneath all its = hollow=20 >shouting about "family, tradition and patriotism." Well, yeah. But we do like it, as a nation anyway.=20 And what's fun about Chicago is that it's set in The Past. It's saying, = not only do we celebrate evil, we've done so for a very long time. Which = is also true. >CHICAGO reveals our nation's true values even more than it reveals the=20 >dancers' bodies. After seeing the film I am convinced there is far = more=20 >corruption beneath our fancy business suits than beneath our fishnet=20 >stockings. Actually, I don't own any fishnet stockings. Honest.=20 >Whenever I need some, I borrow Jongiorgi's. And I used to borrow Tim Slover's, until I stretched 'em out. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] RE: _March Tale_ and _Shakespeare in Love_ Date: 16 Apr 2003 12:03:14 -0600 I appreciate Clark for pointing out interviews with Stoppard I'd missed. = Like Clark, I'm an enormous fan of Tom Stoppard's work as a playwright and = screenwriter, but I've never believed that Stoppard had anything to do = with Norman's plagiarism. >I don't know anything about the _March Tale_ vs. _Shakespeare in >Love_ parallel. So I can't comments. I'd just say that there are a finite >number of ideas and so I could see it going either way. Further, we are >dealing with an actual historic figure with an actual life which makes >the significance of parallels that much harder to deal with. The facts of the case are suspicious. What is true is that Tim sent his = screenplay version of March Tale to Parfitt personally. It didn't just go = to the Miramax reading room, along with the other fifty thousand they get = annually. Parfitt was a friend of a friend, and Tim's only real Hollywood = connection. Tim sent it registered mail, and Parfitt signed for it. Now, = if Parfitt was in fact working on producing a film based on Shakespeare = material, the standard practice would be for him to send Tim's screenplay = back unread, with a covering note saying 'I can't read this. I'm working = on a project that has a similar subject and approach. Good luck to you.' = Never happened. Instead, Parfitt produced SIL, and all the while did not = respond to numerous letters and phone calls from Tim regarding it. =20 So, sure, it's possible that two writers could get similar ideas and = develop them in parallel ways based on certain historical material. But = in this case, one of SIL's producers had Tim's screenplay for two years = before SIL came out. Had it personally, in his hands. So I don't buy = coincidence. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] Mormons and Others (was: Wanting to Be Jews) Date: 16 Apr 2003 13:27:30 -0600 [MOD: A word of caution here. I think the questions and issues Eugene raises are central to our discussion; however, I can easily see how this could lead to a more general discussion of the relation of our Church, doctrinally and sociologically, to other faiths. Such discussion is not appropriate here, except insofar as it affects Mormon art (particularly literature). So feel free to reply to Eugene, but keep the strong tie-in to what Mormon artists are and should be doing, and how our work is received both within the Mormon world and outside it.] >I am willing to meet >with other Christians--and yes, I consider myself Christian, >though they do not--despite our religious differences. I don't >get it, and my friend won't open up to me. I sense that he >has heard some nasty things about The Church of Jesus >Christ of Latter-day Saints. >Again, though they were filled with Christian ideals >at all other moments . . . when it came to Mormons >they had an uncompromising position - they're wrong. But, of course, that has always been, and remains, the equally uncompromising Mormon position. Right there in Joseph Smith History 1:19, 20: all other religions are wrong. We're not disagreeing here over points of doctrine or interpretations of scripture. They're not just wrong, but "corrupt," "an abomination in [God's] sight." Ouch! So we share no sacramental authority, no baptism, no ordinances, no priesthood. No nothing (well, a few hymns, and a conservative political agenda). And then we say, Hey, don't take it so personally. Well, if you take your non-Mormon Christian faith seriously, how do you not? Here's this upstart religion, and to concede the legitimacy of its claims means to discredit your own. (I think that is also the essence of general Protestant antagonism towards the Catholic church.) The great irony in all this is that the Mormon view of salvation is ultimately the most liberal of all the Christian faiths. So liberal that you might be prompted to ask, why the need to evangelize? But as long as we lay claim to JSH 1:19, 20, should we not then admit that there can be no true fraternity with the non-Mormon believer? Because an implicit attitude of condescension will be communicated in the dialog: the unspoken "Yes, but . . . we're right and you're not" that follows any deferential statement--that you (the "gentile") are never going to know everything unless you're first one of us (unless, in order to find out, you talk to anti-Mormons who are rude enough to publish the details of things like the temple; unfortunately, information from such sources often comes with large helpings of bitterness and vituperation). Additionally, I think there is the general perception that Mormons are constantly changing the rules while the game is being played. We're the One True Religion, but what do we (now) believe about polygamy? (I do wonder, having polygamists in the family tree.) About King Follett? (A work of 19th-century Socratic and Transcendentalist literature that belongs alongside Emerson and Thoreau.) Faith vs. Works? (2 Nephi 25:23 gets it right, but does that mean we're saved by grace, or no?) Infallibility? (If we believe that the Bible is only as true as it was translated correctly, why do we cling so tenaciously to the King James?) Or is this all simply the current "face" we're putting on our doctrine? Are we saying, Well, we won't talk about such things if it offends you, but we'll still assert them behind your back . . . ? Our most-quoted unofficial General Authority, C.S. Lewis, was an Anglican, but I have found nowhere in his writings that his particular sect-of-choice was superior to all others. His opinion on the subject, as far as I can tell, was that such things were of small importance. Yet his ecumenicalism did not mute the stridency of his opinions. The Space Trilogy (which I consider his best work) is built upon a foundation of firmly held principles and beliefs, strongly argued, no quarter given. Yet you can disagree with Lewis and respect him and enjoy and learn from his books precisely because you know exactly where he stands. He demonstrates that you can be highly tendentious about your beliefs without rousing a reflexive antagonism--when you don't at the same time automatically foreclose the legitimacy of all other viewpoints (without adding several paragraphs of qualifications). At the root of the problem I see a profound confusion. When Mormons articulate a belief-set in a work of art--novel, play, film, etc.--are we representing only ourselves? The community? The church? Are we governed how we will be interpreted--whether 51 percent of the churchgoing public says yea or nay? When I write for a public forum, I am representing what the church believes, or asserting a personal interpretation of what I believe the gospel is? And can it be held against me if it doesn't conform closely enough to "doctrine"? Does JSH 1:19, 20 remain a necessary and fundamental part of our catechism? I don't think a "Mormon art" (not to be confused with art that comes from artists who happen to be Mormons) can fully develop until such questions are resolved. That is, until freely answering the question doesn't subject you to the "Do you bet your life?" fine print that again forces you to qualify, qualify, qualify, not only what we say to our own community, but what we say to those outside it. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:08:01 -0500 At 06:15 PM 4/14/03, you wrote: >Ah, but have you ever seen us in the same room at the same time? > >Thom Duncan Oh! Oh! Oh! I know I know! You three *should* have been all in the same room at the November AML Writers Conference... but WAIT: --now that I think on it, I'm not sure I did see each of the three personas simultaneously... and Margaret DID leave early... Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Date: 16 Apr 2003 13:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Forgive me if someone has already posted information on this publisher, I can't remember if this has come up or not. But I came across this Web site through an unrelated google search: http://www.mapletreepublishing.com/ The company claims to be an LDS publishing company that is not an "LDS publishing company." The company is located in Iowa, but intends to reach both national markets and LDS bookstores. Perhaps of more interest to this group is the page directed to LDS authors: http://www.mapletreepublishing.com/ldsauthor.htm And yep, _Fiddler on the Roof_ gets mentioned. A quote: "Since our aim is higher (we want to be noticed on a national level), the quality of our titles needs to be better than the average L.D.S. publisher. Fiction works need to be of the cream of the crop of L.D.S. fiction. That is a key step in establishing our credibility on the national scene. We're fortunate to have signed some of the outstanding L.D.S. authors that will help us establish that credibility. Non-fiction needs to be well-written, well-researched, and needs to address a general need. We will probably reject manuscripts that may be accepted by other L.D.S. publishers." There is a small list of forthcoming titles with brief descriptions. I don't have time to go into it now, but the marketing copy on this Web site, especially that directed to LDS authors takes an interesting rhetorical stance. The quote above gives you a taste of it. I'm most interested to see if their actual products, authors roster, and marketing/publicity programs/materials match the rhetoric. I've noticed that Mapletree has a links page that contains a link to the AML Web site. If any Mapletree employees are lurking on this list, would they care to share more info? What do the rest of you think? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Duane Crowther Date: 16 Apr 2003 11:33:41 -0500 At 07:39 PM 4/13/03, you wrote: >But I would consider myself much the poorer without accidently >running into Duane Crowther at the last yearly LDS booksellers convention and >trading our book and a few dollars for his new version of Life Everlasting >and 5 other books on life after death. I'm sorry, but praise for this man's work hits a sore spot. I consider my life much the poorer for having to have any dealing with him whatsoever. Would it bother you very much, Glen, to learn that Crowther also willfully cheated me after receiving the inventory of my published book as part of a settlement, by selling it with full knowledge he had no right to do so? I was *startled* to find MY book listed in the Horizon catalog. No representative had contacted me previous to their advertisement. It was a clear and provable violation of copyright law. He asked for no permission, offered me no explanation for the 200 copies that somehow "disappeared" from his inventory, and utterly refused to stop selling my book illegally after a written request that he cease and desist. He also called me personally to ask for information about Cornerstone's business that he had no legal right to have. (I can only assume he thought I would be naive enough to give him the information, which I did not.) This is not an honest man. I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get his selling price for the books down to a reasonable amount. Frankly, I'm still well within my legal rights to sue if I want to. I chose to purchase the books from them *only* because that cost was far less expensive than pursuing a lawsuit, and it would close the deal much faster, and I could be done with it. Or so I thought. Last week I heard that a CA bookstore received a copy of my book. That copy did not come from me, and I am *supposed* to possess all remaining unsold copies. I'm still in the process of discovering where it DID come from. Therefore I'll refrain from placing the blame on Horizon until I find that out for sure. But I am NOT happy. I've tried not to mention this mess too much here on the List out of a sense of personal decency, but if by their fruits ye shall know them, he offers a rather mixed-up fruit salad, in my opinion. And while I agree that the spirit world is closer than we think, and quite real, I will *never* purchase any of Crowther's books. Or any other Horizon book. I think this is appropos to our discussion of an artist's personal life being relevant to the quality of his art. How can a man with plainly dishonest business practices, worthy of being sued, patently disobeying the law of the land, produce something of such an apparently high spiritual caliber? How is this possible? Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dhunt_aml@juno.com Subject: [AML] Edit One Novel for $100 Date: 16 Apr 2003 21:22:24 GMT [MOD: Let me reiterate Darvell's request not to respond to this on AML-List, unless you want to make a comment on the offer itself. And yes, I do consider this sort of thing at least marginally appropriate for AML-List, at least until/unless the volume of such notices grows too great. Where else but here does it make sense for us to conduct the business, as well as the pleasurable discussion, of the Mormon literary community?] I have decided to publish my pre-Mormon-Utah historical novel _The Last Expedition_ by myself, in the absence of an offer from a mainstream LDS publisher. But I don't feel comfortabey doing it without a professional editor looking it over first. I made a similar offer awhile back for my novella _A Mormon Christmas Carol_ with the offer of a free book,which still stands for those who did the work for me. I am planning on publishing this Christmas novella by Thanksgiving. But since it's a seasonal item, I would like to do my historical novel first. Today I've just hired a professional artist to do a montage cover and now I want to get an editor, but I want an editor with past experience doing this sort of thing. I will pay $100 plus a free published copy of the book for this service. I'll even autograph it for you, if you wish :-), and give you an acknowledgement inside the cover. The novel isn't long at about 65,000 words. The theme of the novel is "very LDS," though it is based in Utah, even before Joseph Smith's first vision, in 1812. If anyone is at all interested, please email me and please give me your credentials. Your eyes will be the last who see this novel before it goes to the printer. I think it's already pretty polished, but I want that last "seal of approval" that says it's 98% error free. You can reach me at DarvellHunt@Juno.com. Please don't respond to me on the list or to this posting address, or your message may get lost with the rest of the AML messages. This is a bonified, paid offer for work. Upon selection of an editor, I will send out a copy of the text on a CD in any format that you wish. Thanks, Darvell (P.S. To those who did my Christmas story for me, I GREATLY appreciated it and you will yet get a copy of the book, hopefully by Thanksgiving of this year.) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Date: 16 Apr 2003 14:34:24 -0700 Linda Adams asks: "So....How does one send a screenplay or dramatic work to Hollywood, in hopes of getting it on the silver screen, WITHOUT getting it ripped off, especially if it's good and therefore ripe for ripping off? Will Tim ever have any recourse? What precautions can be taken?" Well, the issue is a little bit complicated, and it will certainly strike some as splitting hair and harping on semantics, but unfortunately, that's what the law is. Let me try to explain what I have experienced as Hollywood's attitudes towards law and their interpretation to it with respect to screenplays. Also, while it is on a different topic, BJ Rowley shared with us an excellent article the other day about "life story movie rights" with respect to Private Jessica Lynch, which also explains some of these iterations very well. If you did not follow his link and read the article and are interested in this thread, you should do so. So, about Hollywood stealing screenplays. (Let's be clear, I'm a screenwriter and I don't necessarily condone anything I'm about to say, but the statements I'm about to make are very much the belief and M.O. of Hollywood.) First, Hollywood does not steal screenplays. They will, however, steal ideas. (More on this in a second.) The reason that the first statement is true is that they don't want to be sued. They can loose and have lost millions, and these guys are in the business of making millions, not losing it. It's very hard for Hollywood to blatantly steal a screenplay. The reason is that their product is so public. Typically, when somebody steals something, they disappear with it, try and stay out of sight. Naturally: they don't want to get caught. But Hollywood product is specifically designed to be seen by as many people as they can coax into those empty seats, so it is inherently hard to get away with stealing. So by and large, they don't do it. But they will get as close to it as the law allows. And this is how: You cannot copyright an idea. You cannot copyright historical or scientific facts. You cannot copyright themes, plots, structures, research, stereotypes, stock scenes or situations, style, unique words or phrases, literary devices, quotations from the public domain or the interpretation of facts. And again, I'll say it again: YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT AN IDEA. So, in Tim's case, as I understand it, he sent out a script (which is an original, protectable, copyrightable creation as a whole, which can be stolen), and some producer allegedly liked the idea, but thought he could develop it without buying Tim's script. The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that Tim's script is based on historical facts, factual figures, quotations from the public domain and actual people. All things which cannot be copyrighted or protected in any way. Only Tim's actual lines can be protected; only the integrity of the whole can be considered original to Tim. So this producer, again allegedly, hired some writer to go do research independently and come up with a love story about Shakespeare and Ann. And, you know what, legally, he had every right to do that. Even knowing that another script on the same topic had been done by someone else, it is legal for any of us to go out and do 89 different scripts on the same historical topic. Hey, I have a Martin Handcart Company script. So has Kels Goodman. So has Johnny Garbet. So have 89 other people I don't know about. We are all legal and nobody is infringing on anybody. That's the trouble with history. Then, there is the absolutely true possibility of simultaneous yet independent creation. I can't tell you how many times I have come up with an idea (truly of my own devising) and then later come across the exact same thing in another script. That's why you get two Meteor-Hitting-The-Earth movies, two Mission-To-Mars movies, two Robin-Hood movies in the same year. It happens. Somebody hears that another studio has got a similar script in development, and depending on how far along they are, they both race to get them out into the market first, and you get two similarly themed movies in the same summer. Happens all the time. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT AN IDEA. So, Hollywood does not steal screenplays. They don't have to. They already have one just like yours (and they can prove it), or they can steal your idea and go out and make their own version of it. But then, how do you protect yourself? First, recognize that you are not the original creator of any idea you ever had. Someone else already had your idea (I don't care what it is) and that person already has a script just like yours on somebody's desk. Recognize it, live with it. Get over the idea that everyone is stealing from you. I steal every idea I can, and so does everybody else. And Hollywood, which is run predominately by Jews, does not even feel bad about it. Remember, we Christians are all about turn the other cheek, love thy neighbors, etc. But the Jews are all about the Mosaic Law. An eye for an eye, kill thine enemies. Their basic tenant (and they do not loose one second of sleep over it at nights) is that if you have some idea and are too lazy to make it into a movie, and they take your idea and through their own sweat and tears and risk and money do make a movie about it, well tough noogies for you and they're going to heaven! I'm serious. They'll tell you this to your face. So, get over the fact that you have original ideas. You don't. They will have read aspects of your screenplay before, no matter what you write. Second, register and/or otherwise date-protect your original works. Third, record, very meticulously, every script you send out and to whom, and if possible have a return receipt and/or (as is most often the case) a signed release form. This seems ironic, because most release forms say that you waive the right to sue the studio you are releasing your script to, but that's not really true. If you can prove all of the conditions I'll mention below, you signed release doesn't matter a hill of beans. But it does allow you to prove the date they got the script. Now, that's what you do to protect yourself. 1) get over yourself; 2) register (to establish date of creation); and 3) document script delivery to third parties. Once you think someone has stolen your SCRIPT (not your IDEA -- because you can't do anything about that), you have to sue. And this is what the court is going to ask you to prove (and remember, you are the accuser, the burden of proof is in your camp and they are innocent until proven guilty). 1) You have to prove that your script was created BEFORE their script. 2) You have to prove that they HAD A COPY OF YOUR SCRIPT, and that their receipt of this copy of your script also was received BEFORE they came up with their script. 3) You then, here is the kicker, you have to prove SIGNIFICANT SPECIFIC POINTS OF SIMILARITY between the two scripts. I think the legal rule-of-thumb is something like there have to be about 400 exact duplications between the two scripts (and by points of similarity, I'm talking about exact wording) before they will begin to consider a case of theft or plagiarism. So, you can see, it is very hard to prove. If some guy was stupid enough to take your script, change the title and shoot it, he's busted and you just caught him. You'll win every time. But if some guy liked your historical idea, researched it himself, independently created a script like yours, but which is, ultimately, very different in dialogue and everything else that can legally be copyrighted (even though it's got the same basic characters, situations and even outcome), then... well, I'm sad to say, and you can see it coming: What can you do about it? Nothing. No wonder so many of us become cynics. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Armand MAUSS, _All Abrahams Children_ (Review) Date: 16 Apr 2003 21:52:38 GMT Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: All Abraham's Children Author: Armand L. Mauss Publisher: University of Illinois Press Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 343 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-252-02803-1 Price: $36.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Matters of race and ethnicity have been with us throughout the span of recorded history. I'm not aware of any time when the exclusionary impulse has not been a part of the motivating rationale of clan and tribe. Determining who is "in" and who is "out" is often central to tribal definition, and as such merits the attention not just of anthropologists, but of sociologists and religionists as well. Mauss, a sociologist by training, is also a Latter-day Saint, and thus takes a special interest in such matters within his own faith community. Indeed, the subtitle of the present work is "Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage." And Mauss, having studied this subject for many decades, is in a unique position to pull together the research and discussions that have proliferated within Mormonism, especially in light of an ongoing awareness of the weakness of its own historical positions. "All Abraham's Children" focuses on Mormonism's relationship to three major groups: the Lamanites (racial descendants of the rebellious eldest son of Lehi in the Book of Mormon), the Jews, and those of "African lineage." Each study presents its own unique problems, as will be seen shortly. Identifying racial attitudes within Mormonism can be a tricky enterprise. Because Mormonism accepts the idea of "continuing revelation" -- the capacity to clarify or even change direction with a single commandment from the Lord -- it is not surprising that such attitudes will vary over a period of over 150 years. And when one considers the radical shifts in American society during that period, with strong advances not only in race relations but also in our understanding of the nature of revelation and the place of historicity in the revelatory process, it is to be expected that beliefs and attitudes will change. The larger question within Mormonism involves the degree to which social mores and cultural demands impact the beliefs of a church based on revelation. When, for example, the priesthood was opened to all worthy males in 1979, critics questioned whether the change was mandated by God, or by pressures brought on by society and the state, or perhaps a combination of both. And here is where Mauss makes a remarkable contribution to our understanding of these matters. Meticulously researched and, happily, told in an interesting and compact way, Mauss brings us through the complex and sometimes contradictory world of the Mormon journey toward racial understanding. He studies not just the trends within the Church, but the intersection of those trends with the larger society. I believe it is only in this context that his subject can be understood. Mauss begins his treatment with an interesting survey of American attitudes toward its indigenous Indian population. Theories of an Israelite origin of the American Indians were not peculiar to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Such claims were common at the time; Joseph's ideas would not have been so unique. What was different, however, was the esteem in which the Indians ("Lamanites") were held among the Mormons. Indians were bound to be treated better by the Mormons than by others. And even though the relationship between the Indians and the Mormons was not always ideal, on balance, Indians fared much better when united with the Mormons. About half the book is dedicated to the subject of the "Lamanites." He explores the role of scholarship (and pseudo-scholarship) in formulating the "Lamanite identity," a vexing problem in Mormon circles. He likewise shows the pendulum-like swings in Mormonism's attention to the question. It is a fascinating story. Mauss follows with a two-chapter study of Mormonism's attitudes toward Jews, its unique relationship with the Jewish people, and manifestations of anti-semitism within the Mormon community. There is a focus on the peculiar Mormon belief, taught early on but not much mentioned these days, that the blood of coverts to Mormonism undergoes a literal change -- one that physically identifies them with the blood line of the tribe of Ephraim. In this day of DNA and advanced science, such a claim is difficult to support. But it does provide a context for an understanding (in Mauss' words) of the "dual partnership and blood tie" between Mormons and Jews. The second chapter dealing with this subject is basically an historical and statistical overview of Mormon attitudes toward Jews over the years. It contains interesting data and much food for thought. Mauss then deals with the subject of Mormonism and people of color. Here "inspired assumptions" (see below) run rampant. The "curse of Cain" is dealt with in its own chapter, along with efforts to distance itself from the assumptions about black skin that have survived generations of Mormonism. How did the doctrine of "no priesthood for Negroes" develop? Did Joseph Smith himself subscribe to it? What were the results of the official declaration opening the priesthood to all worthy males? And how did Mormonism confront the fluid civil rights issue in the U.S.? Mauss answers all these questions, and more. Stylistically, Mauss begins each chapter with a series of citations from authoritative Mormon voices. In doing so, he illustrates how shifting attitudes accompany shifting times. An example: heading up chapter 3, "From Lamanites to Indians" (page 41), are the following quotes. The first is from Orson Pratt: What says the Book of Mormon in relation to the building up of the New Jerusalem on this continent...? Does not that book say that the Lamanites are to be the principal operators in that important work, and that those who embrace the Gospel from among the Gentiles are to have the privilege of assisting the Lamanites to build up the city called the New Jerusalem? The next (quoted in part) is from Bruce R. McConkie: An occasional whiff of nonsense goes around the Church acclaiming that the Lamanites will build the temple in the New Jerusalem and that Ephraim and others will come to their assistance. How does one account for such a clear discrepancy in the words of two men held in very high regard in their Church's intellectual circles? They can't both be right. And, in fact, McConkie is downright dismissive when referring to an idea promoted by a respected thinker, albeit of a different period. And therein is a key to understanding Mauss' work. If one is searching for a single "Mormon attitude" toward any particular racial group, you simply won't find it. The accepted view changes over the years. New thinkers, new prophets, alter not just attitudes, but the underlying "facts" that inform those attitudes. Consider for example, the Church's position concerning the "Lamanites." Given that no generally accepted view of Book of Mormon archaeology has ever been promulgated by the Church, and given that the Lamanites are described as being descendants of some of the Book of Mormon peoples, it would appear to be bit of a sticky thing to clearly identify any particular racial group as "Lamanite." But despite general agreement on Book of Mormon archaeology, certain peoples have been, at times, identified as "Lamanites," the American Indians being a prominent example. In order to make the facts fit the theory, some scholars have had to promulgate a view of where the Book of Mormon lands are. But nothing of certainty has come forth as of yet. Absent particular revelation, Mormonism has nurtured a particular process that I am calling "inspired assumption." It can be seen in ward meetings, Sunday schools, Institute classes, in fact, virtually anywhere the Saints are gathered. Anecdotal evidence suggests that attitudes among the Mormons are often defined by such "inspired assumptions." Lacking a trained clergy, such gatherings are often fertile ground for baseless teachings and giant leaps of understanding. Mauss does a masterful job of pointing to the existence of assumptions as a continuing problem in the Church. For example, note these brief excerpts from his chapter 9, "The Campaign to Cast Off the Curse of Cain": It is not clear how much the lingering racial myths in the Mormon religious heritage affect missionary work or the congregational relationships between blacks and whites. (p. 261) To repudiate any of the cherished religious lore of their immediate ancestors seems to some Mormons, especially the older ones, to be almost a repudiation of the grandparents themselves, to say nothing of *their* teachers, who might have walked with God. (p. 262) Further reading in this, perhaps the best chapter in the book, studies the effects of both religious, and family, legends in the perpetuation of stereotypes and the sometimes-astonishing longevity of cherished, but wrong, beliefs. At heart, Mauss is a sociologist. And so it should come as no surprise that his focus throughout the work is on the interaction of society with Church doctrine and practice. His conclusions may be a bit discomfiting to some Latter-day Saints who have heretofore not studied out the issues as carefully as has Mauss. And, to be sure, the temptation to make the book larger and more complex must have been overwhelming. As a scholar and a student, Mauss no doubt had a considerable body of data from which to choose. But his goal was to be understandable, not necessarily exhaustive. And he accomplishes this very nicely. The non-scholar will find this book readable and intriguing; the scholar is given sufficient reference with which he or she may pursue any particular angle of study. I'm very glad to have read this book. It is an important addition to the corpus of writing concerning Mormonism and racial identity. It approaches its subject with objectivity and with courage. And readers will find herein a cogent and understandable study of a problem that continues to vex the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, written by one of their own, from a standpoint of sound scholarship and deep respect. I highly recommend this book. It's fully worth the cover price. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] S. Michael WILCOX Titles Date: 17 Apr 2003 03:58:46 +0000 Well, that got me interested. So I looked up S. Michael Wilcox's two novels. To See His Face. Deseret, 1984. Still in print, available at the Deseret Web site. About a man who turns to his grandfather to understand his father who abandoned his family. One Winged Dove. Randall Book, 1986. Out of print. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan S. Michael Wilcox wrote two works of fiction, before he turned to his extended works of gospel explication. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] Gene WOLFE, _Book of the New Sun_ Date: 16 Apr 2003 23:34:17 -0600 [MOD: As a long-time fan of _Book of the New Sun_ I have to chime in here. This is a seriously good set of books, folks. Science fiction (or is it fantasy?) that quite possibly holds its own with anything that the 20th century has produced literarily. But very, very challenging, as Scott says. One clarification: _Book of the New Sun_ itself consists of four titles, _The Shadow of the Torturer_, _The Claw of the Conciliator_, _The Sword of the Lictor_, and _Citadel of the Autarch_. It is followed by a single-book sequel, _Urth of the New Sun_, which features the same main character. If I get time, I'll comment on Scott Bronson's comments in another post. But others should feel free to do so as well.] This isn't really a review. I'm not any good at that. This is a reaction to a literary "experience" I just had. Back at the beginning of the "Books-on-the-Bedstand" thread I mentioned that I was reading this massive twelve-book in three-series maximus opus. Well, I just finished the first leg of the journey: the five part _Book of the New Sun_ by Gene Wolfe. Fifteen hundred pages of some of the most amazing writing and story telling I've ever read. Correction, fourteen hundred and forty pages of some of the most amazing writing and story telling I've ever read. I started reading this huge book several years ago and got about three quarters of the way through it before I got so bored and confused that I could not go on. When the second series started to appear, _The Book of the Long Sun_, I actually read the first volume and enjoyed it. Enjoyed it enough to want to read the whole thing. But I hate starting in the middle of things and so determined to try the first series again. This time through I was a smarter person and so I was able to grasp a great deal more of what was going on. So much so that I was actually really enjoying the reading. I was thrilled by the imensity and depth of the world-building, intrigued by the unique quality of the voice and astonished at some of the insights: "The tale I read to little Severian said that the universe was but a long word of the Increate's. We, then, are syllables of that word. But the speaking of any word is futile unless there are other words, words that are not spoken. If a beast has but one cry, the cry tells nothing; and even the wind has a multitude of voices, so that those who sit indoors may hear it and know if the weather is tumultuous or mild. The powers we call dark seem to me to be the words the Increate did *not* speak, if the Increate exists at all; and these words must be maintained in a quasi-existence, if the other word, the word spoken, is to be distinguished." And this: "I understood at that moment how the Increate must feel about his creation, and I knew the sorrow he knows because the things he creates pass away. I think it may be a law binding even him--that is to say, a logical necessity--that nothing can be eternal in the future that is not rooted in eternity in the past, as he himself is. And as I contemplated him in his joys and sorrows, it came to me that I was much like him, though so much smaller; thus an herb, perhaps, might think concerning a great cedar, or one of these innumerable drops of water about Ocean." And then it all turns into gobblety-goop. Apparently I'm not a smart enough person because I could make no sense of it. It seemed that a couple of Wolfe's stylistic peccadillos, only mildly irritating throughout the narrative, had come to a boiling head. First, whenever Wolfe (through his narrator, Severian -- who never forgets anything) refers to some bygone event, or individual of the tale, he gives us NOTHING in the way of a reminder of that event or individual. I mean, listen, I am NOT Severian, I forget a lot of things. I forget things like ... oh, say, the name of the guy who was walled up in his house for a week by the time we met him and who died within two pages of our arriving at his house, so that when he gets mentioned again about seven hundred pages later, I can make no sense of the reference unless Severian accidently drops a hint, which he frequently does not do. Second, the archaic terms were overwhelming. I think the reason I couldn't hang onto the story the first time through was because of all those weird words -- only about ten per page. I had the Oxford English Dictionary right beside me. I had to look up words like heirodule, autochthon, cacogen, dimarchi, pseudothyrums, catachtonian, androsphinxes and so on. These two things combined with a penchant for oblique obtuseness made the end of the whole thing register as a giant question mark in my brain. If someone with more intelligence than me (Parkin, I'll bet you've read it, and Jongiorgi might have it on his list) will please explain it to me I would be very grateful. This disappointment has not deterred me from finishing the project however. This morning I got started on "Nightside the Long Sun." Talk to you later. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 17 Apr 2003 00:36:58 -0600 On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:20:03 -0700, Jongiorgi Enos wrote: >Okay, that's an intersting point, but not what I was talking about. = Frankly, >I'm not interested in entering into a political debate related to guns, >vilence, crime in different cultures, or the statistical practices of >various law enforcement agencies. Political discussions, by themselves, = are >off-topic for the list, and also, disinterest me viscerally. The point I= was >making was about cultural perceptions. > >Europeans PERCEIVE THEMSELVES (you may argue that they do so wrongly, = and >you may be right, but that was not my point) as living in a culture that= is >less violent than what they imagine the U.S. culture is. Jongiorgi, I went back and looked at your post, and you didn't make this connection when you spoke about gun violence. What you said was: >You might rail at Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" depending = on >your politics, but it is absolutely true what where Europe suffers = shooting >deaths with guns by only handfuls annually, we suffer them by the = THOUSANDS >annually. To me this reads like a statement of fact rather than a reference to European perceptions of American culture. I think the implication (in = the context of the rest of the post, which was about European perceptions = about sex with regard to Roman Polanski) is certainly there, but as you stated = it above, it's not overt. Jacob's statistical response was therefore legitimate, since you appeared to be making a factual comment about = shooting deaths. (And it's painful for me even to admit it, because I live with = him and I hear about the gun control issue ALL THE TIME and I've already = heard these statistics about a dozen times already.) What's more, while I agree with you about understanding the way people perceive themselves, I also think the issue of whether those perceptions = are based in fact or not is important when we consider HOW we might, as = artists, portray other cultures and beliefs. Or how to engage others whose = cultural conditioning is not only different from ours, but contains elements that from our point of view are evil or even just repugnant. If a European is going to be disdainful of me because they believe my country is more = violent than theirs, and I can prove that their belief is untrue, you can be sure I'm going to bring that point up. (But only because I am argumentative = and nasty. Okay, FINE, we did encounter this attitude in Berlin and I wasn't nasty, I was totally polite, mainly because the guy was serving us the = best meal I've ever had in my life and I didn't want to lose out on dessert. = So my moral outrage is occasionally subsumed by gastronomic bliss.) Oh, and one more thing about this sentence: >So, Jacob's German friends may have a skewed and partialy fantasy view = of >American society, but then, so does Jacob himself, have a skewed and >partially fantasy view of American society, because he happens to live = in a >peacable region of the country. (which was in reference to the various urban neighborhoods you've lived = in and the high rate of violence, graffiti, etc.) And naturally the urbanites have a realistic outlook? *Everyone* has a skewed and partially fantasy (in the "nonfactual" rather than the "ideal" sense) view of American society when they believe that where they live is representative of everywhere else. Even if the majority of the = population lives in urban settings, those settings are not the only "reality"--as opposed to all the placid Lake Wobegons in the rest of the country, which are, of course, full of naive people who don't know what real life is = like. And *yes*, I realize you weren't claiming this, but the idea that = violence and horror and mayhem are somehow more legitimate in discussion, fiction,= or even life just annoys me...and it's still way too common in fiction, particularly in young adult fiction. So I used your comments as a springboard. You can have them back now. Sorry they got a little = stretched out from all the jumping. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Gene WOLFE, _Book of the New Sun_ Date: 18 Apr 2003 10:52:08 -0600 (MDT) Bronson wrote: > If someone with more intelligence than me (Parkin, I'll bet you've read > it, and Jongiorgi might have it on his list) will please explain it to me > I would be very grateful. Well, since I wrote my thesis partly on the Book of the New Sun, I can hopefully enlighten you on a few parts: 1. Get the book "Lexicon Urthus" by Sirius Press (it is in the BYU Library, or can be ordered online) as it is a dictionary of all the odd terms. 2. Read Gene Wolfe's books "Castle of Days" - skip the short story collection that makes up the first third of it and read the second and third parts "The Castle of the Otter" (which was also orginally published seperate as "The Castle of the Otter") and "Castle of Days." He explains a lot of what he was trying to do in the Book of the New Sun. If you're still confused, email me, since for my thesis I went through that series with a fine toothed comb. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Gene WOLFE, _Book of the New Sun_ Date: 18 Apr 2003 15:24:08 -0500 Okay. I said I would write on this, and I will. Or at least I'll start. We'll see how far I get... I'm tempted to try to turn this into a formal review, but that would take even more work; so I'll include what seems relevant to me right now, and maybe someday come back to this and take it all the way to becoming a review. I have to start by admitting, again, that yes, Gene Wolfe is a challenging author. Difficult in all the ways that Scott Bronson says. But immensely satisfying, in my view. I have no real hesitation in placing him alongside T.S. Eliot as a major figure in 20th century literature (a comparison that I'll be coming back to later). He's also profoundly Christian, as well as a cracking good science fiction writer. I'd say there's a lot that Mormon writers can learn from him, except that he's so unusual and individual a writer that I'm not sure how applicable any lessons would be. But if this is at all your sort of thing, you have to at least try these books sometime in your life. For what they are, they are the absolute best there is. The Books Themselves ================= Okay. As I said before, there are four books in the original _Book of the New Sun_ series: _The Shadow of the Torturer_, _The Claw of the Conciliator_, _The Sword of the Lictor_, and _The Citadel of the Autarch_. These four books are also available now in two 2-book sets: _Shadow and Claw_ and _Sword and Citadel_. They have a sequel, _Urth of the New Sun_, with the same main character. As Scott Bronson points out, there are also other books written in the same universe; however, they are not (so far as I know) really part of the same story. (I haven't read all of either other series.) The books are set in an Earth of the far future--called Urth in the books. Humans have colonized other worlds, and encountered (or created? this is still unclear to me) a variety of alien creatures. Urth itself has fallen into--not ruin, but it's become a backwater: forgotten most of its earlier technology, and many of the people live in squalor. Warring factions (at least two human realms, and other forces as well) struggle to dominate Urth. The planet as a whole is suffering from a sun that puts out less heat than it used to, so the planet is slowly growing colder, from the poles inward. Urth's fate is to die in eternal ice. However, there has been a prophecy that a new sun may come--an invigoration of the existing sun, perhaps. The first four books tell the story of Severian, a boy raised by the Order of the Seekers for Truth and Penitence--the torturers guild: those assigned to exact legal penalties of torture by the government of the Commonwealth (one of the factions mentioned earlier). Only later do we learn that this means that his own parents must have been tortured and killed by the guild while he was still very young, since this is how the guild gains its members. Early in the first book, he falls in love with Thecla, one of the "clients" of the guild; when it comes time for her to be tortured, he smuggles her a knife with which she kills herself. He is thereafter sent out journeying, still a member of the guild but in disgrace. Over the course of his travels, he gains and then loses a religious artifact, the claw of the Conciliator, which has supposed healing powers that come from the Conciliator himself. Eventually, he becomes the Autarch--the ruler of the Commonwealth. As Autarch, it becomes his job to go on trial on behalf of Urth before the aliens who must decide whether Urth has earned the right to the New Sun. Then, in _Urth of the New Sun_, we read the account of Severian's actual journey, the trial, and its aftermath, as Severian brings the New Sun back to Urth--among other things, traveling through time to appear as a variety of historical figures, including the Conciliator himself (a clear Christ-figure). The basic movement of the book--torturer's apprentice to Autarch--is pretty simple and straightforward, which is a good thing, because it's almost the only thing in the books that is simple and straightforward. The plot is involved and often difficult to follow, in part because of the point Scott Bronson mentions: that the books are written in first person from the point of view of someone who never forgets anything, in an environment he's familiar with (at least somewhat) but that is very different from our own. In particular, the fifth book, _Urth of the New Sun_, is very difficult reading. The plot becomes, if anything, harder to follow, and the philosophy considerably denser. Though it may thematically complete the earlier series, it lacks much of what makes the earlier books so good, in my view. But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Why These Books Are So Good ======================= Someone, I forget exactly who (maybe Dryden?) once wrote of Chaucer's _Canterbury Tales_, "Here is God's plenty"--that is, here we see, laid out before us, a full range of human experience, character type, and such. Confronted with _Book of the New Sun_, I'm forced to say much the same. Where to start? Well, the sheer inventiveness of the world is astounding. Of all the science fiction and fantasy I have read, only Gene Wolfe, in my opinion, deserves elevation to the same level as Tolkien in the arena of worldbuilding (very high praise, if you know what I think of Tolkien). I cannot even begin to list the really cool features of Gene Wolfe's Urth. The avern flowers with poisonous, heat-seeking petals that duelists throw at one another. The giant water-breathing women under the sea. The mountains which, as Severian climbs, he realizes are composed of ancient cities, compacted into rock. The Matachin Tower where the torturer's guild is housed, which is actually an ancient spaceship. (I have to admit that I didn't pick this up from my own reading, but only from commentary by others.) The alzabo, a beast that consumes the brains of humans, then temporarily gains their memories and uses them to lure additional victims. The feast of Saint Katherine, patron of the torturers. The sword Terminus Est, which Severian is given as a parting gift by one of his masters in the guild, with its two sides and the channel of liquid hydrargyrum (mercury) that runs inside it. The detail is baroque, and overwhelming, and wonderful. And then there's the characters. Severian himself, who makes a moral progress through the books which makes them the equal of any coming-of-age story I know. The slow giant Baldanders and his companion Dr. Talos, who eventually wind up being so horribly different than we originally think them to be. The waitress Jolenta who wants more than anything to be beautiful. Dorcas, whom Severian unwittingly raises from the dead. Thecla, his first love, for whose sake he betrays the guild, and whose memories join with his later on in a bizarre ritual. The eunuch Autarch, once a servant, who runs a house of prostitution in mockery of his own court--and whom we come to respect as a truly great and self-sacrificing character. The phony rebel Vodalus. Master Ash, the gentle-seeming scholar from the future. The part-human Jonas, and the soldiers Severian comes to know in the field. If the action of _Book of the New Sun_ is difficult to follow (and I know it is; when I was reading the books for my PhD-level comprehensive exams, I wound up taking a set of outline notes, chapter by chapter, to try to keep track of what was happening), the characters are absolutely memorable, and we come to care about them very deeply. And then there is the storytelling. The book is studded with stories, which range from entertaining to brilliant. Some of them are retellings of legends, some ghost stories. One particular tour de force is the tale told by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen, a captured enemy soldier from a land where the only language is based on phrases taken from the political leaders' set of approved texts (rather like Mao's Little Red Book). Part of the worldbuilding, but also very worthwhile in their own right. And the philosophy. Scott's already treated you to a couple of quotes of this, so I won't say much more about it except to say that if you like to be entertained by ideas as you're reading a story, there's a lot here. One blessing is that Severian himself is depicted as thoughtful but not highly educated in these areas, so that although the terminology of the philosophical statements is often odd, they're often relatively simple--or the main character is shown struggling to make sense of them along with us. Much of the philosophy is highly religious in emphasis. And the imagery. Much of this, as I've already demonstrated (I hope), comes in the worldbuilding. The books sparkle with vivid images, which both enliven the prose and reinforce the underlying thematic structure of the books. Which brings us to theme. And all I can really say is that there's much to chew on here, but it's by no means overwhelming. First and foremost, it *is* a story, and whatever you get out of it thematically will come from contemplation of what happens, not from being whacked over the head with it. What Makes These Books So Hard ========================= Several things here: * Density of detail. It's easy to lose track. * Confusing plot lines. Severian doesn't always know what's going on. Sometimes when he does, as Scott Bronson said, it's hard for us to follow, in part because (unlike Severian) we don't have a perfect recollection of everything that happened before. And some scenes are simply confusing: I defy almost anyone to come out of Dr. Talos's play with any clear idea of what just happened. * Vocabulary. Yes, there's lots of it. None invented--according to Wolfe--but lots and lots that no one ever uses these days, or that you have to know your Latin and Greek really well to be able to figure out. Smilodons (large cats--it's the genus name for the saber-toothed cats, after all). Destriers (instead of horses). Psychopomps. And more. Your vocabulary gets a workout. * Digressions on philosophy. If you don't like this, you're likely to get stuck. If you do like this, you may still get stuck at times, particularly in _Urth of the New Sun_, where the ratio of philosophizing to story seemed to me much higher. * General style. Gene Wolfe is *never* truly easy or fast reading. Several of these get notably worse in _Urth of the New Sun_. With Severian jumping back and forth through time, it gets harder to use logic to inform you about what's happening. The story keeps jumping back to events and items learned at different points during the previous four books, without--as Scott says--much reference point. The philosophy gets denser. There's no character continuity, except for Severian himself. And in my view, there's less of the good stuff that makes the earlier books such a joy to read, so it gets harder to want to put in the investment of energy required. Still worth it, if you liked the earlier books and want to go on, but not (in my view) on the same level of excellence. Tips on How to Read the Books ======================= To start with, I guess I can offer up my set of chapter-by-chapter notes (23 pages on computer) for anyone who wants some kind of guide to what happens next as you're going along... However, I'm not convinced that this is the best way for most of us to experience these books. I mentioned T.S. Eliot earlier. Some people--the real Eliot scholars--work out every detail of every line of T. S. Eliot, every reference, and such. Those people certainly have a more complete experience of the text. However, I'm not personally at that level. And yet I can enjoy Eliot--enjoy the experience of Eliot, get something out of him even though I can't follow everything that's going on. Be struck by the images, and get a general sense of where he's going, and have my imagination fired by his use of language. And that's pretty much what I recommend for most of us with Wolfe. Read the books, enjoy what you can, let the rest slide. If you find your brain starting to melt, try rereading the chapter you're in and maybe glancing at the end of the previous chapter; if you still feel like you're in warp space, simply read on until you reach more solid ground. Enjoy it for what's there, and try not to get too frustrated at what may escape you. A few other specific recommendations: * Don't try to take things at too fast a pace. * If you find yourself weeping at the thought of going back to these books, then stop. Nothing is for everyone, and Gene Wolfe is certainly not to everyone's taste. * Talk with someone else who's reading the books about the things you find. * Try reading _Castle of the Otter_, a set of essays and oddities written by Gene Wolfe about the writing of _Book of the New Sun_. It's worth it for its own sake, for the insights it gives into one major author's writing process, and it makes you see a little more clearly where Wolfe is headed. And the jokes are good. * Think of _Urth of the New Sun_ as a separate endeavor. If you found _Book of the New Sun_ heavy going, you may not even want to try _Urth_. Not reading _Urth_ doesn't really detract from the experience of the previous books. A final note: I've emphasized how hard these books are. But maybe that's a mistake. My 14-year-old just finished reading all five of them--including _Urth_--and enjoyed them. Did he understand everything that's there? No. Do I understand everything that's there? No. Did he feel the reading was worth it? Yes. When he first started this project, about six months ago, I was sure he would stop before too long, because it would be too challenging or too boring or something. Guess what? He didn't. And this from en eighth grader who plays video games as his main hobby and owns every Redwall book there is. You don't have to be able to follow everything in order to really get into these books. Enough on that. I'd love to hear the views of anyone else who has read these books. More from Scott Bronson, too. It sounds like he was paying more attention to the philosophy than I was (which is probably why he got so confused), and I'd love to hear what he thinks of it. Keep on reading. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dallas Robbins Subject: Re: [AML] Gene WOLFE, _Book of the New Sun_ Date: 18 Apr 2003 07:33:51 -0700 (PDT) J. Scott, It's great to hear people's reactions to Wolfe's Sun books. I love the New Sun series, and found it to be some of the most amazing prose I have ever read by a "science fiction" author, or any author for that matter. To help you further along, I would recommend Wolfe's "Castle of the Otter" which can be found in print in the omnibus volume "Castle of Days." He wrote this series of essays during the same time he was writing the New Sun books. He talks about several things, covering word choices, symbolism, etc... It helped me get just a little bit of perspective, making the books a little less difficult. Which I readily admit they are difficult, but endlessly satisfying. I haven't read the Long Sun or Short Sun books yet, but am currently re-reading the New Sun books to gear up for them. I did once begin Nightside of the Long Sun once, and found it much more readily comprehensible than the New Sun books. Good luck in your reading. Dallas Robbins ===== _________________________________________ For great nutritional and herbal products visit http://www.home.awarenesslife.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience Date: 16 Apr 2003 08:36:49 -0700 I know you'll all forgive me, but... The very idea of Thom morphing into either Ms. Young (whom I met and thorougly adore) or Ms. Brown (whom I've not met, but suspect I'd likewise adore), is just a bit too much. (Not that I don't adore Thom; it's just that "Beauty and the Beast" dichotomy that bothers me...) ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 16 Apr 2003 12:02:12 -0600 Eugene Woodbury wrote: > > Is it necessary to suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or > > from the sins of others (usually both), to be a great artist? > Now, the life of Emily Dickinson pretty much answers that contention. > Nor can I call to mind (maybe somebody else can) any evidence that > Shakespeare, say, suffered more than his less-talented contemporaries. > While suffering can wake us out of complacency, or prompt us to > wrestle with angels, I think the more appropriate/realistic model is > Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, whose insights into the darker aspects > of human nature come from keen observation of the ordinary goings-on > in her sleepy English village. > > Perhaps, post-Freud, we too willingly prize empathy over observation. I think this is right. An artist doesn't necessarily need to suffer personally to created great art. A person of superior observational skills can vicariously experience human suffering and write effectively about it. This is ostensibly how William Shakespeare and Emily Dickinson became great. I imagine someone like Mother Theresa, had she a literary bent, could have become a great artist too from what she observed. Which opens up a new can of worms. (By the way, I don't understand why Eugene set up a dichotomy between empathy and observation. To me, they go hand in hand to make observation effective. A person who observes but doesn't empathize with what he observes won't become a great artist. Empathy is vicariously feeling the suffering of others. The dichotomy is between that and the suffering we feel ourselves.) I want to point out that for observation and empathy to work, we need to expose ourselves to the suffering of the world. While it may not be necessary to _personally_ suffer to create great art, surely it can't be true that we can become great artists without observing, acknowledging, and empathizing with the suffering of others. Linda Paulsen Adams is a good example. In her book _Prodigal Journey_, her protagonist develops a problem with drugs. Adams describes the experience so effectively that a number of her readers accused her of taking drugs herself, otherwise she couldn't have described the experience so realistically. (The accusation can be thrown back at them: how did they know it was so real?) Adams assures us that she has not taken drugs. Rather, she has researched (observed) the experiences of others who have. So to become great artists, we do not necessarily have to suffer. But the fact is, _someone_ has to suffer so the artist has something to observe and empathize with. So does that mean, to produce great art, that we either have to experience suffering ourselves or haunt those locales where suffering is taking place? Must we visit crack houses and abortion clinics and seedy bars and strip joints? Must we fly out to Iraq or the Israeli-occupied Palestinian regions and observe the destruction? Must we hang out with people of questionable character and immerse ourselves in their lives to observe and understand? Or is there a safer apporoach? More than once I have described literature (and film--I consider the two interchangeable for such discussions) as laboratories where we can safely experience things without the usual consequences real life experiences inflict upon us. What's it like to be in a war? The embeds in Iraq can tell you, but I don't want to go to Iraq. Yet there are a number of graphic war films where I can get a taste of what it's like, then try to extrapolate as best I can (empathize) so I can make a scene of destruction in my stories as real as possible. How does it feel to murder someone? You bet your life I don't want to find out from personal experience, nor am I overly thrilled to seek out murderers and carry on lengthy conversations with them. But there are multitudes of stories with murderers in them, and I can vicariously experience with them what it's like as the murder scene takes place. Much safer. Extreme examples, but they illustrate the point. I shudder to think how shallow my writing would be had I not absorbed all the vicarious experiences I've expose myself to in literature, film, and television. I've had personal experiences that have caused personal suffering, but hardly enough to give me the breadth I need to be a great artist. What's the lesson we learn from this? To produce great art, we either have to suffer ourselves or vicariously experience the suffering of others. We can do that through direct (and risky) observation of real suffering, or through the much safer method of exposing ourselves to stories of human suffering. Put more pithily, to avoid having to be a suffering artist ourselves, we should be avid viewers of R-rated films. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: Temple in Literature Date: 16 Apr 2003 13:39:00 -0600 Clark Gobles wrote: > the view of sex in art some people > have *isn't* pretending that sex doesn't exist. Rather it is that sex > ought to be treated as sacred. Further they tend to point out that > graphic depictions of sex are often due to a lack of creativity than a > necessity. Consider many Hollywood films from the height of censorship. > I just watched _The Maltese Falcon_. It deals rather heavily with sex, > but in a veiled way. Many film noir movies were able to deal with sex > while remaining within the censorship of the time. Often, watching > those films as compared with modern films, the effect is actually > accentuated by that restraint. Yes, but what does that have to do with us? I'm not talking about the reasonable objection Mormons have to gratuitous sex. I'm talking about those Mormons who think reverencing sex _is_ pretending it doesn't exist. This pretending can take more than one form. It's not only an insistence that we never mention sex. It's also the notion that we can acknowledge the existence of sex, but we never follow the couple into the bedroom--we must close the door and stay outside. Balderdash! I'll follow my characters everywhere they go and witness everything they do. It's what fiction is for. I'm already shut out of real people's private lives. The whole purpose of fiction is to enter private lives so we can understand people better. Fortunately fiction is about fictitious people, so we're not hurting anyone when we peek into fictitious private lives. If I don't need to follow my characters into the bedroom, I won't. If I do, I will, and I'll give as much information as is necessary to the story, and no more. (By the way, I don't believe that's a recipe for getting embarrassingly coy about sex either. If a sexual scene happens, describe as much of it matter-of-factly as necessary. Without titillation, but without silly coyness also. That's just a variation on pretending sex doesn't exist. Just as there is no commandment that says, "Thou shalt pretend sex doesn't ecxist," there is also no command that says, "Thou shalt not talk about sex.") This is what I mean when I say I'll show anything I want. Too often, people interpret that as meaning I have no moral limits at all, that I'm recommending the same carte blanche attitude about sex as Hollywood. Wrong wrong wrong. I'm recommending telling the story as effectively as possible. You should include as much information about the sex as you need, and no more. But that's true of any part of writing. Include the necessary stuff and leave out the superfluous stuff. "Kill your darlings," as one author put it. It's a universal principle of writing that applie sto sex as much as anything else. No blanket rule fits all literature. I think it's silly to make a Pharisaical rule like "Never follow the couple into the bedroom--close the door behind them." Instead we should follow principles and adapt them to the situations of each story: "Treat sex with respect and don't get gratuitous." > Agree or disagree with the imposition of these limitations. I tend to > think they were overboard, but that's not really the point. The point > is that often impositions of these sorts aid a work. It requires > creativity and imagination. Often lacking those restrictions mean that > artists follow the "simple way" - at their own peril. Free verse is so > much harder to do well than those following more restrictive forms of > poetry for that very reason. Often this lack of skill and imagination > gets manifest by using "shock" to replace style. I think I've given myself the best of both worlds. I have self-imposed limits (much better than other-imposed), but my limits are fluid principles that can adapt to individual circumstances, not arbitrary rules that can only please one person, because everybody's lines are drawn differently. And I don't replace anything with shock: I use effective storytelling techniques throughout, unhindered by arbitrary rules. > I'll fully admit that I was very > uncomfortable with Orson Scott Card's quotations in the first Alvin > Maker series. I think he could have had the same effect without doing > what he did. Me too. I just quietly ignore it. He made his choice, and I wouldn't have made the same choice. But I won't condemn him for it either. > | I've just started working on another book that opens with a > | scene in the temple. There's some detail about the interior > | of the temple, but nothing you can't learn in a visitors > | center. > ___ > > I'd be very shocked if anyone were to be offended at that. Indeed I > think one could turn to the Ensign for examples of this. I don't see any reason to be shocked either. Yet I'm certain some people will be. And it doesn't matter if the Ensign does it. It's the Ensign. I'm just making up silly stories. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Date: 16 Apr 2003 13:49:12 -0700 [MOD: And thus we return to a discussion of artists' personal lives...] In response to Richard Dutcher's recent quip, I must state very clearly and public and in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT FOR ANY REASON LOAN OUT MY FISHNET STOCKINGS TO ANYONE! So there. Jongiorgi ----- Original Message ----- > CHICAGO reveals our nation's true values even more than it reveals the > dancers' bodies. After seeing the film I am convinced there is far more > corruption beneath our fancy business suits than beneath our fishnet > stockings. Actually, I don't own any fishnet stockings. Honest. > > Whenever I need some, I borrow Jongiorgi's. > > Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 17 Apr 2003 03:46:31 -0600 I want to respond to Jongiorgi because I think he's misunderstood my statements and that misunderstanding leads to a too-easy dismissal of = what I'm trying to convey. I don't attribute that misunderstanding to = malice, politics, or argumentativeness and I want that understood up front. I really do want to discuss this point out in depth and at length because = I believe that this is vitally important to Mormon Letters. And to be perfectly clear, the point that I believe is so important is this: what role, if any, does objective reality play in our art and what role do universal truths play in our philosophy? It's very easy to play fast = and loose with the backdrop due to lack of care, perception, or desire (not = that this is what Jongiorgi has done--this pseudo-list of mine is hardly comprehensive or even a correct analysis of events). However, I think = that depicting "true" details is a rewarding and vital point of art and I = hope to back that up. In fact, it is my belief that art portrayed honestly does the best job = of communicating the full chaotic context and realities of our lives. But = to do so requires some amount of pain and effort (as most artists will = attest when producing something that their ideology wanted to go one way and = their honesty and sense of perspective demanded be shown another). I hope = that LDS artists have this discomfort often because it leads to complex, compelling stories that are relevant on more than just surface levels. ---Original Message From: Jongiorgi Enos >=20 > Jacob says about my comment "...Where Europe suffers shooting=20 > deaths with guns by only handfuls annually, we suffer them by=20 > the THOUSANDS annually," > that: "...Even if it is true, the statement is a lie." >=20 > Of course, I don't think his argument goes on to show that=20 > the statment is a lie, in fact, he agrees with the statement,=20 > but goes on to make a new statement which he feels is more=20 > important, that gun-related violence and non-gun realted=20 > violence are two different categories, and that Europe (and=20 > he pulls out a wad of statistics to prove his point) sufferes=20 > as much if not MORE general violence and crime than the U.S.=20 > does, therefore negating the importance of my original=20 > statement about the disparity of U.S. gun-related violence. Okay, you're saying that I changed the topic? Pulled a bait and switch? And of course, I did. I broadened the statement to include a wider = context and expounded on why the initial statement is fundamentally changed by = that wider context. And I would accept your criticism about doing so if you didn't do the same thing: > Europeans PERCEIVE THEMSELVES (you may argue that they do so=20 > wrongly, and you may be right, but that was not my point) as=20 > living in a culture that is less violent than what they=20 > imagine the U.S. culture is. You see, people who talk about gun violence *always* move on to make generalizations about *all* violence. That is an iron-clad, never fails progression noted through years of close observation. You can see for yourself that *every* *time* someone talks about gun violence, they're *really* talking about violence in general. You see that in their assumptions (that violence will go down if we can just get rid of those pesky guns), and in their advocacy (let's ban all guns). It is exceptionally easy to go from discussion and comparison of gun violence = to broadening your points to include all violence. It's natural. It is = also false. Bringing gun violence down *always* results in increases in = other aspects of violence--often harsher on the victims. Which brings me to your statement about perception. You see, I agree = with you entirely about Europeans' perceptions of violence. But I still = disagree with your actual point. While I agree that perceptions matter, I = contend that we can't afford to stop there--not if we want to produce art that resonates. In order to write accurately about Europeans, you need to understand not just their perceptions but the reality as well. If you = write a story set in Europe and validate those assumptions in that story, you = will write a story that is, at heart, untrue. If you simply assume that = Europe is less violent than the United States because Europeans think it is, = then your story will suffer. Well, insofar as those assumptions are = important to your story at any rate. Since it's your example, I posit that we are discussing a story where this is an important aspect... > But first, let's deal with so-called empirical truth. Jacob=20 > puts a lot of importance in facts and figures, but my father=20 > used to tell a joke which goes something like: "Ask a person=20 > what's two plus two? They will tell you: four. Ask a=20 > programmer what's two plus two, and they will ask you: what=20 > base do you want it in? Ask a statistician what's two plus=20 > two, and they will > say: what do you want it to be?" Ah yes, I've heard a lot about this--the whole "there's lies, damn lies, = and statistics" meme. Too often, this is used to dismiss statistics someone dislikes. It's been my experience that people who will discount = statistics that contradict their opinions are more than happy to believe in = statistics that reinforce them. You can't just discard statistical analysis when = you are talking about important background realities any more than you can discount inconvenient distances, elevations, or weights. If you claim, = as one Eastern periodical claimed, that women jumped from the Salt Lake = Temple windows to the Great Salt Lake below in order to escape their evil = Mormon captors then your story is going to suffer with anyone who actually = knows the geography and architecture of Salt Lake City. Likewise, if you = claim state, national, or even regional characteristics then you would do well = to understand the reality behind those attributes. Or at least as close an approximation as you can. Not that I believe in statistics as a substitute for other forms of observation. But when I disagree with them, I usually have a = reason--i.e. I make an attempt to understand what was measured and how. For example, = your statement here is incorrect: > Jacob admits that the statistics he quotes have been=20 > mathamatically altered to try and correct for the drop in=20 > police reporting of crimes in Europe. No. I didn't. I said that crime reports were mathematically jiggered. = But my statements were based on something called "Victim Interviews" (which = I indicated) that *are* comparable across jurisdictions and are, in fact, = how we are able to detect the reporting differences in police departments. That's one important aspect of what you have to do if you are going to = make cultural comparisons--you have to make sure you are comparing comparable objects. It's important that if you are going to believe a statistic = that you understand what was measured and it probably doesn't hurt to = understand how it was derived. It doesn't take a statistician so much as it takes logical analysis of pertinent details. How important are statistics to writers? Well, not terribly. It's = pretty rare that you are going to create some gestalt character to reflect a cultural norm. The reason I bring it up at all is that statistics are = one way to perform a fact-check--in this case, fact-check a European = consensus. And that's what I want more of. I'm tired of lazy assumptions and uncritical reliance on perception. Yes, your characters will have perceptions and assumptions. But you aren't writing about a single *character*. Included in your work are important details that depict = the world around your characters and your depiction of that world needs to = be as accurate and "real" as you can make it--even if distorted through the perception of your characters. The author has god-like powers over = his/her characters. Not so much over the world around them. > So, by his own=20 > admission, nobody really knows WHAT the crime statistics in=20 > Europe are. Is Jacob right? Is someone elses mathimatical=20 > correction more correct? What is the empirical truth? I hope I've dispelled that illusion adequately above. My overall point hinges on it. You see, there *is* such a thing as empirical truth and = my contention is that we should at least *strive* to approximate it. If = your story deals with violence and perception and cultural comparison then if = you get this wrong, your story will suffer for it. Too often in modern literature I get the feeling that the author is throwing up as much = chaff as they can hoping to obscure reality enough to get away with whatever = point they're trying to make. Such efforts invariably fall flat. It's an = easy cop-out and one I want us to avoid where possible. Yes, life is = complex, and I like to throw the word "chaos" into discussions every chance I = get. But. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to in the stories = that we create and still have any hope of producing relevant and powerful works. > My statement was not a lie, and it was not a fantasy. It=20 > precicely conveyed both the empirical truth (there are more=20 > gun deaths in the U.S., despite the fact that there may be a=20 > lot more robbers in France) and it also conveyed the percived=20 > truth, that Euoropeans THINK we are more violent (whether or=20 > not they are right). The FACT is that they THINK something.=20 > You may belive that what they think is a fantasy, it does not=20 > make them think it any less. And I am not entering into a=20 > political debate about crime statistics; I am talking about=20 > people. I am trying to understand human beings. For a=20 > literary purpose. But your human beings do not exist in a vacuum. They stand a higher = chance to be killed in France than in the U.S.--though it's more likely to be = by stabbing. They're less likely to die violently in the U.K, but much = more likely to be raped. They exist in a world that when pushed, pushes = back. If your heroine detests guns and eschews the very appearance of them, = she is, verifiably, realistically, less safe than her friend that packs a revolver and hits the gun range every Saturday morning. When confronted = by violence, she is more vulnerable. When confronted by an attacker, the number one safest response statistically (by a large margin), is to pull = out a gun. The second safest is to run. And if she is robbed, the chances = are that in the U.K., she'll be home (nearly 50%) whereas in the U.S. she = won't (13%). Now, your story can do what you want to with your heroine, but = the reality will manifest in victim support groups, police assumptions, and other reactions from surrounding characters. In the U.K., she's more = likely to have friends that have been robbed than if she's in the U.S. In the = U.K. if she had a weapon (any weapon, even a knitting needle) and used it in = a confrontation, even in defense, then she will be arrested--no = exceptions. In the U.S. she'd merely be questioned and possibly congratulated. If your character ignores all of that, then you have to show why. And = what happened. And you cannot afford to muff it due to not knowing the way things work out statistically. Police will know the statistics. So = will social workers. Characters dealing with violence are going to run into those harsh realities and those characters and their (relatively = informed) attitudes. > For example, Jacob heard the German comment about percieved=20 > U.S. gun violence as ironic, becuase the statement was made=20 > in a neighborhood surrounded by graffiti and after having=20 > heard second-hand stories about violent encounters. Firstly,=20 > graffiti was instantly perceived as a symbol of violence,=20 > hence the irony, and that is very interesting in and of=20 > itself. Someone else might percieve graffitit as the=20 > outcryings of an oppressed and economically disenfranchised=20 > social element desperate for some form of artistic and social=20 > expression. (I'm not saying that's how I percieve it, but it=20 > could certainly be perceived as such.) Jacob's instinct to=20 > equate graffiti with vilence may be correct, but it may also=20 > be a completely American notion. The fact that U.S. graffiti=20 > is usually gang-related may account for it, but what about=20 > the German's worry about U.S. gangs, even while feeling safe=20 > in a German neighborhood rife with graffiti? Might it be that=20 > German kids draw on walls, but are not in gangs? I don't know. Ah. My failure to communicate. I actually know that German graffiti = isn't necessarily indicative of gangs. I even mentioned as much to Melissa at = the time. My sense of irony was at the cultural differences inherent in the discussion. And you can actually compare our neighborhoods. Mostly to their favor. They're a relatively well-off German couple. They live in = a single-family dwelling for one, and their neighborhood is quiet and well-spread-out (by German standards). And yet they had this really = unreal perception of the U.S. and still believed themselves better informed = than Melissa or myself. > But this=20 > could not be further from the truth, and the comment reveals=20 > a completly geocentric bias.=20 Careful. You're close to some unfortunate assumptions here. Some = relevant history: I've lived in San Diego, Central Phoenix (gang-ridden and definitely not Mesa--went to Central High School where I was an ethnic minority), Paradise Valley (an upscale area of Phoenix), Mesa (not = Phoenix), Vancouver (WA, not BC, just across the river from Portland, OR), Salt = Lake City, Provo, and various cities in Germany. Melissa has lived in New = York, Denver, Richland (Eastern WA), Salt Lake City, Provo, Mesa (not = Phoenix), Vancouver (Western WA), and Cleburne (TX). I'm probably forgetting some--probably even some of my own. We're kind of unlikely to carry unfortunate geocentric biases. Not that we don't carry some, I'm sure, = but we're unusually aware of them and unlikely to bow to any Urban-centric analysis of U.S. make-up and/or attitudes. We've done urban, we've done suburban, and we've done rural. And we know that an overly urban vision = of the U.S. is at least as inaccurate as an overly rural one. > For example, even though I have=20 > now moved my family to a semi-rural setting, my family lives=20 > in LA, New York and Houston, the first, second and=20 > fourth-largest cities in the U.S. Actually, statistically,=20 > the vast majority of young people in the United States (if=20 > you are just going for a per-capita > comparison) do live in urban settings. These neighborhoods,=20 > arguably the statistically majority of the American=20 > experience, compreise settings which are the exact opposit of=20 > the Proffitt's experience where they live. Every dense, urban=20 > setting where I have lived (Los Angeles, Houston, etc.)=20 > contains graffitti, violence, crime, and frequent contact=20 > with guns. Even in my beautiful semi-rural home, two years=20 > ago, a guy walked into the local Lyons diner and shot three people. And two years ago, a neighbor (five houses down) killed his wife and = then himself. It was awful, even if (maybe because) we didn't know them very well. I'd still say, based on my observation as well as statistical analysis, that the U.S. is less violent than Europe. I don't have to be = as street aware here as I do there. And that goes for our big cities as = well our suburban areas. You have to keep your head up in certain areas = here, but they're smaller and much better delineated--by graffiti come to = think of it (I wonder if you could make a case for graffiti being a social = register we actually subtly *encourage* in order to mark dangerous territory). Geocentric bias? Maybe. But fact-checked by careful statistical = research. > Jacob argues that an understanding of context is important,=20 > and I fully and completley agree with him, and found his=20 > paragraph on this subject very well stated. His own biases=20 > must be placed in to his context, just as his German friend's=20 > biases must be placed into their context. By doing so, we=20 > come up with, as Eric suggested is good the other day, with a=20 > both/and scenario. Where statistical analysis would seem to=20 > demand an either/or, a human contextual analysis shows that=20 > both may be right, in thier context. Jacob and his German's=20 > views seem to be opposed, but both may have merit, given=20 > context. A paradox. Which makes for wonderful literature. Paradox is great and all, but not when it's contrived. It is too easy = to simply say that one person has a bias and another has another and that = is that. Because that *isn't* that. Some biases are invalid. Others are valid. Others are a justifiable paradox and relatively even. Some are benign, others not so much. If you insist on treating every bias as = equal, you're going to have trouble with an LDS audience that *knows* that not = all biases are equal. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a certain amount of ambiguity and I'm *not* calling for clearly delineated texts with every sentence vetted against = some standard of accepted dogma. What I *am* calling for is a degree of = care, an acknowledgement that absolutes *do* exist, and that sometimes your story will have to go in a direction you don't want it to in order to account = for the push of those realities. You might want, for example, for your antagonist to be a complete capitalist bastard with demonic mien and cynically selfish motivations. But then you couldn't write "Gadianton" = in such a way as to actually touch a conservative free-market capitalist = with a valid critique of greed in corporate culture (Is Eric regretting letting = me read that play, yet? Probably. Wish I could see it performed). > Bact to erring and a sense of caution towards "empirical=20 > rightness" when Jabob states that" In reaching out to others,=20 > it is important that we not loose our grip on those things=20 > that are deeply important and relatively absolute," my=20 > suggestion (misguided as it may be) is that I believe there=20 > are much fewer "relative absolutes" in the univers than we=20 > might sometimes think. And my contention is that they aren't as few as some would have us = believe and in our efforts to be accommodating, we run a real risk of actually alienating. Oh, I don't want to make a claim to *all* truth and I don't want people to think that we're always right and all that. That'd be = icky. But I would sure like it if we could produce art that remembers that = some values are, well, valuable. I think we can do that if we're willing to = do the work, to question assumptions (our own and others'), to dig a bit deeper. And I'll reiterate my belief that we do this better than most others in = the world today. I read the latest Irreantum with delight. Bravo Louise Plummer and Lael Littke for stories that were deeper than their surface = and touched on real truths and delivered criticism with love and heart. = Woohoo! Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] BYU Writing for Young Readers Workshop Date: 17 Apr 2003 09:44:38 -0600 WRITING FOR YOUNG READERS On July 7 through 11, 2003, BYU will sponsor its fourth annual Writing for Young Readers Workshop. During the five-day workshop, participants will work with successful editors and authors on writing books and stories for readers ranging from pre-school through high school. The conference includes morning workshop classes and afternoon lectures on the craft of writing. New this year are an afternoon-only option, for those who want to focus on the business of writing, and an illustrators' workshop, which will involve development and criticism of visual art for children. The workshop teachers have published a total of more than 200 books; they have also won multiple awards, including the Governor General's Award for Children's Literature (the equivalent of our Newbery award), the American Library Association's list of Best 100 Books published in the last 20 years, Publishers Weekly's list of Best Books, Library of Congress list of Best Children's Books of the Year, and many others. The authors are A. E. Cannon, Candace Fleming, Tim Wynne-Jones, Lael Littke, Claudia Mills, Rick Walton, Sally Warner, and Lisa Wheeler. Richard Hull, illustrator of several children's books (notably a pair of books by Judith Viort) will conduct the workshop for illustrators. In addition, the conference faculty includes two editors--Nancy Hinkel, Editor at Knopf Crown Books for Young Readers, a division of Random House Children's Books; and Judy O' Malley, Editorial Director for Houghton Mifflin Children's Books. Participants will also be instructed by a literary agent, Tracey Adams, of the McIntosh & Otis Literary Agency. For more information, call BYU Conferences and Workshops at (801) 378-2568 or check out the Workshop website at http://ce.byu.edu/cw/writing/. Participants can earn BYU credit by enrolling in this workshop. Register soon; enrollment is limited to the first 100 applicants. Contact Information: Dr. Chris Crowe English Department 422-3429 chris_crowe@byu.edu Carol Lynch Williams 489-0570 carolthewriter@yahoo.com John Bennion English Department 422-3419 john_ bennion@byu.edu Please forward to any potentially interested parties. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Advertise in Irreantum Date: 17 Apr 2003 10:10:43 -0600 I thought there might be some people on the list who might like to consider advertising in the AML's printed Irreantum magazine: At present, Irreantum accepts only full-page ads for placement on the inside front cover, inside back cover, or outside back cover (advertiser may indicate preference). The rate is $50 for one issue or $180 for four issues prepaid, representing a 10% discount. Irreantum's paid circulation averages 500 copies per issue. Irreantum's trim size is approximately 8.5x7". Therefore the optimal ad size is 8x6.5" (no bleeds). Ads can be submitted by e-mail or disk, at a minimum of 300 DPI in Quark, JPEG, or other common formats (we will let you know if we can't use the file). Submit to irreantum2@cs.com or AML, PO Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605. Ads provided on paper will be scanned to the best of our ability. Deadlines for both space reservation and artwork: Spring 03 = April 15, 2003 [still accepting late ads] Summer 03 = July 15, 2003 Autumn 03 = Oct. 15, 2003 Winter 03-04 = January 15, 2004 COPYWRITING SERVICE: For an additional $20, we will craft your raw text into ad copy. DESIGN SERVICE: For an additional $20, we will design your text and any images you provide into a display ad. Any questions or concerns, contact Chris Bigelow at irreantum2@cs.com or 801-714-1326. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 17 Apr 2003 10:19:38 -0600 Jongiorgi hits on why I am amazed at Dutcher's BRIGHAM CITY, and why I am so engrossed focusing on Terry Woodruff's addiction in my writing. (Yes, Richard, there ARE these frightening addictions, and the true story about BYU student Paul Tanner, who was addicted to porn and tried to poison his wife and child three times, is one proof of it! And CLOSE to your story! It CAN HAPPEN!) I enjoy all of these discussions about this "exploration" of evil although I am also tenderly aware of Diana Graham's need to stay away from these dark pathways! From Dante to Shakespeare to the present, human beings have chosen to explore this understanding of others through literature. Through the Bible and the Book of Mormon also. Jongiorgi said the writer might have: "The experience . . .of slapping a mosquito, viciously killing it . . . sufficient experience to be able to create a readable and believable fictional illusion of a murder." I (M&M? . . . I ran into Eric Samuelson the other day and he wasn't sure what to call me!) feel definitely qualified to write a story about a murderer. I've SQUASHED a lot of bugs. And yes, there are differing feelings relative to how big the bug, and whether or not I feel the chitin in my fingers. (Remember our discussion about how terrible it is?) Jongiorgi wrote: "Understand its pleasures and pains; its consequences, and the justifications that allowed the sinner to indulge in it despite the consequences." ADDICTIONS! This is about addictions! And yes, it IS the BRIGHAM CITY story! And I'm definitely qualified because I'm addicted to chocolate. Jongiorgi also said: "We must be like the Three Nephites, deeply in love with humanity: warts and orgasms and all." And I loved that statement best. The key is "deeply in love with humanity." That means we have to be DEEPLY in love with ourselves. Cheers! (I'm indulgently joining these conversations right now, because I will be going out of town soon and I'll miss you all then!) Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 17 Apr 2003 11:50:36 -0600 Re: D. Michael Martindale's Brother Brigham > Sheila dealt with frustrated sexual arousal by > masturbating. They claimed that women do not masturbate very much, > contrary to popular belief, and found it hard to believe that Sheila > would. > > I won't go into what I think of their belief on masturbating women. For > the moment I'll accept it at face value. I didn't tell them, but I was > undetered in my conviction that Sheila most certainly would masturbate > under those circumstances. Unlike Richard, you just decreased my interest in reading the book. Here's why: If several readers didn't buy your character's actions, then it's a good chance the characterization in your writing needs work, regardless of how well you personally know Sheila. Plenty of characters in literature do things "most" people don't do--but they are so well drawn that readers DO believe it--they know as well as the author does that that's exactly what the character would do. You can't expect the reader to say, "Well, I'm sure the *author* knows this character would act that way. I'll take his word for it." Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Time Heals Artistic Wounds Date: 17 Apr 2003 21:19:20 -0400 D. Michael wrote: >But when it comes to rap and hip-hop, there I draw the line. I can't >believe that it's a mere subjective, generational thing that these forms >of alleged music actually have artistic merit. My father called my music >"noise," but I truly can't accept these new manifestations of pop >"music" as anything but. Dude, how old *are* you? ;-) I think what might apply is that aphorism (or is it an adage? an aporia? an a priori?)--anyway, that observation that 90% of everything is crap. Most rap and most hip-hop (as different generically as punk and disco) is crap, just like most rock is crap--even from the "golden age," what-/whenever that may be. You can quibble over the exact percentage if you like, but there are artists--and yes, I use the word in its full sense--in both rap and hip-hop who are making good music in every sense of the words. Rap at its best is a demanding form of poetic expression, often with social commentary as valid as any sixties pre-hair-band hair band or folk artist. Hip-hop's greatest strength, as I see it, lies in its ability (maybe even it's need, its raison d'etre) to assimilate across genres and time periods, and in that assimilation to both contest the past and generate new styles, new combinations--in a process something like, dare I, T.S. Eliot's as he sought to, "sampling" from tradition, rejuvenate tired metaphors. I really don't know why it seems easier for younger generations to accept earlier styles than for us to connect with what comes after. I count among my favorites artists from nearly every genre and time period you could name, given that it's older than I am. But I'm sure that I will hate whatever my daughter ends up listening to. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division Date: 17 Apr 2003 18:20:58 -0700 And you allude to one of the problems -- if Deseret Book becomes the main "distributor" of LDS products, will this even further marginalize products that don't fit their description of "faithful" literature? I'm not sure I like this. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 17 Apr 2003 21:24:51 -0400 >>And what's fun about Chicago is that it's set in The Past. It's saying, not only do we celebrate evil, we've done so for a very long time. Which is also true. >> Sorry, but I can't buy that. We may be fascinated by it, but we don't celebrate it. If it were true, people who thought he was guilty would still love OJ Simpson right now. I don't think the satire in Chicago was handled well at all. I never even recognized it as satire! There was nothing witty or amusing about it; I never had the sense that they were poking fun at anything. Susan M ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at platformcreative.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Duane Crowther Date: 17 Apr 2003 18:23:23 -0700 Whew! Quite a story! I'm a bit surprised by this. I thought he was a bit off, but never thought he was dishonest. I'm saddened by this account. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 17 Apr 2003 22:34:06 EDT In a message dated 4/17/2003 6:40:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time, susanpc@platformcreative.com writes: > I don't know how we missed the satire, but we did. I usually find satire > funny. This > I found appalling. Nothing funny about it anywhere. I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were supposed to be appalled. > > I have a thing about movies that potray murderers like they're something > wonderful. It's a pet peeve of mine. Here's where we saw different movies. I didn't think Roxy or Velma or any of the other murderesses came across as wonderful. They came across, to me, as shallow, short-sighted, white trash. With a few black trash, Latino trash, and Asian trash thrown in for variety. I defend CHICAGO as a very well-made film with valuable things to say to a society that hosted the O.J. Simpson Show. Or was it the Johnny Cochran Show? I forget. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:33:32 -0600 Peter Chamberlain wrote: > Is suffering only the side of the spectrum that can create "art"? Can > great joy, happiness etc be the spawn of great art? Is it less > suffering in specific or intense emotion that causes people to create? D. Michael Martindale responds: That's exactly what I want to know--exactly why I brought the topic up. So I'm asking you to answer your own questions. Even if you're not sure of the answers, give us your best guess. Kim Madsen (me) guesses: People who are suffused with great joy usually have great peace of mind. Peace to me means an absence of conflict. No conflict, no story. Peaceful folk generally don't have a need to express, explore, question. Instead, they putter in their gardens, revel in their grandchildren, and let sleeping dogs lie. However, anyone I've ever known who has reached that Nirvana hiked through a lot of doo-doo to get there. Great happiness, great joy can only be quantified as "great" in opposition to something else. If you don't know the sorrow, how can you know the joy? Seems to me someone detailed this quite clearly for us. Which explains why the stories which move me most show the movement of someone from sorrow to joy: Les Miseables; What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day; Cry, the Beloved Country; these and others like them are the stories that caught a piece of the human condition, held it to the light and expanded my understanding of humanity. The themes? Bigotry, adultery, murder, war, child abuse, racism. Love, forgiveness, acceptance, loyalty, honor. The words only mean something in comparison. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Escaping Faith? Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:21:28 -0700 The Scriptures *do*, if I recall correctly, indicate that our knowledge will one day be so complete that faith will no longer be necessary. I remember stumbling over that upon first reading (can't recall right off where it was), but that's what it says. I'm of mixed feelings on the life-after-death stuff. Yes, the experience is sacred, but I don't condemn those who choose to share it. And sharing is difficult without marketing. The "I Saw Heaven" book from Crowther's publishing house was just excessive. And Betty Eadie? I steer clear of most of her stuff. (I'm particularly irritated with the marketing of her book. I can well recall the controversy when evangelical Christian bookstores were given the book to market, with them never being told that Eadie is LDS. When they found out -- and it didn't take long -- they were furious, and, of course, it did nothing to improve relations between the churches. I do find some of Crowther's work interesting and helpful. "Thus Saith the Lord" is a collection of cites concerning leadership and members' relations to leaders. I think it's quite good; I admire his willingness to step out and speak clearly on certain issues that are not always widely promoted in the Church. I fear, however, that he will continue to be on the fringe of mainstream Mormonism. Of course, that's fine with me! ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:45:45 -0700 The reviews were partly from customers, and then it was just first name and city, if I remember correctly. But there were in-house reviews, including one from Sheri Dew! It just seemed a bit self-serving. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 18 Apr 2003 00:07:18 -0700 Oh, we have agreed on more than that( parts of posts) but this was agreement with EVERY word. Wow.. And I did love Max. He was such a good friend and colleague. (He didn't act much when he was working on his doctorate at SIU, but like all of us under the gun (graduate stipends or assistantships) he acted a few roles and he was a pretty good actor as well. When I left, he had left the program, at least for awhile, without the PhD. (Not academic problems, but he was having a problem being away from his family so long). Did he ever complete it? Chris Moe (our mutual Playwriting teacher) always thought he was tops. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > We have agreed on other points, but maybe you don't remember. I seem to > recall we share a mutual love and admiration for the late Max Golightly. > > Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Duane Crowther Date: 18 Apr 2003 00:33:22 EDT [MOD: This is not a post that I would normally allow out. It comes very close to being condescending, insulting, and personally judgmental of what Linda has said. However, I feel the need to let it go out, in part because it comes in response to some very serious allegations. Linda is invited to reply.] Linda, One of the things I did l learn, again, from Horizon Publishing's books about life after death, including Duane Crowther's Life Everlasting, is that happy people in this and the next life are not as critical as some seen to be on this AML site and that angels, at least the ones in paridise in the spirit world are full of gratitude, the mother virtue. At the end of your very long paragraph attacking Duane Crowther, one of our spirit brothers, one of our neighbors, one with potential to become a god like you and I, you mention the obvious, "But I am NOT happy." Sorry to hear that. But as President Abraham Lincoln wisely noted, "Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." and, "There is no duty that we so much under-rate as the duty of being happy." There may be another side you do not understand in this crime that you say Brother Crowther committed against you. Or not. Or it may have been committed by the party that did not pay for Horizon Publishing while Duane and his wife were on a mission with his company "sold". I don't know and really don't have much interest in knowing. I care for both of you and are saddened by the anger, resentment, and bitterness I see in your post. I also don't understand why you are angry at his having, selling, and selling for too much your book. What's with this? Most authors love to have their books sold by anyone who will sell them at a fair profit for the author. As to your last question. How is it possible for such an unworthy person as Duane to write or do anything of artistic value? That is an interesting question. Maybe some of you here on this site might want to discuss that one. Maybe it is idolatry to make any sort of golden calf with our own hands and buy and sell them. I understand that this is one of the things that Abraham did not agree with his parents and other family members on and that was one of the issues that led to his need to find new residence. Another was his stand on morality, another problem common to our day. Maybe we all have too large of egos. Maybe the whole of artistic expression is vanity. Or more possibly, in my opinion, we are too narrow in our views, too critical of one another, and lack the gratitude and acceptance that obtains in paradise beyond the veil that hides us from a greater reality, where ecstasy through gratitude is the dominant emotion. I'm not sure if I"ll stay around this site anymore to see a discussion of this issue, if you have one or a response to my suggestion that we all look less with a jaundice eye and more with a greatful heart at others works. I've better things to do, I've decided again, than to read negitive, critical reviews by unhappy people. Most books I've read, maybe all, have been written as best the author could with the intention of passing on some information to better others lives in some way and out of a burning desire to do the required to share. I do not understand the need most feel to be critics and often miss the great joy of simply reading to learn and feel ecstasy. I mentioned to a business associate of mine yesterday, when qestioned by him about how I learned to enjoy reading so much, that I was not always as I am. But for many years now, since gaining controll of my wandering mind, reading, talking with anyone, answering the phone (even sales calls), brushing my teeth, etc... and life each moment has become a meditation and ecstasy producing exercise in feeling holy presence in the present moment. Even reading the nickle want adds is fun for me, for as I read I ponder and learn about what other brothers and sisters are buying and selling, what is of value and what is not in thieir live. Maybe I'm abnormal, but I sincerely believe that we are here to experience joy and to learn to feel the ecstasy that Father and Mother feel. This position was strengthened very much by reading the thousands of interviews collected in the "angel books" published by Horizon Publishing. For his and thousands of other authors works I am greatful though I certainly am not "bothered" by any conflict you or any other person may have with any other author. I'm hear to "earn, teach, and grow a garden" not whine about fellow future gods creative works or lives, whom at frequent times, when I am seeing more clearly, I am "tempted to worship." How indeed can we talk and write of becoming as God is without learning to feel what He feels. And speaking of "being a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief" and yet living every moment with passion and joy. Take a look in your Ensign Magizine for this month at the free CD about Christ. It delightfully shows a Christ who lived with joy. Probably not much of a critiqe but oh the joy he must have had most of the time. Those few days of atonement were the longest days, for Him, in the history of the cosmos. But He lived with joy and passion. His ecstasy shows in this awesome art produced by the Church that appropriately bears His name. One last thing. Even, or especially Christ, was often not accepted. He "had no apparent beauty that man should Him desire." Most of the self appointed experts on things beautiful, lovely, and of good report, found in Him no lovliness, and on His feet only sandels and dust of the day. Maybe there is a lesson for us in this. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Mormon Lit and Civil Rights (was: Value of _Chicago_) Date: 17 Apr 2003 23:55:52 -0700 On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:33:54 Kim Madsen gives an interesting account of _Chicago_ as part of a genre of corruption musicals that include _Cabaret_ (and _Sweeney Todd_, certainly). Perhaps the granddaddy of corruption musicals is Kurt Weil and Bertolt Brecht's _The Threepenny Opera_, and of course, _The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagony_, one set in 17th or 18th century London the other in the American wild west, but both about the moral corruption of 1930's Berlin. > However, there is a subtle underlying message that none of > these people are happy, especially not our heroine, Roxy > Hart. She pushes away a solid, decent man who loves her to > pursue the fleeting honors of the world. Very much like Polly Peachum in The Threepenny Opera, describing how any time she met a good or wealthy man who knew how to treat a woman she'd say "Nein." (I love the way Lotte Lenya sings that.) But when she met Macheath, an evil man who didn't know how to treat a woman, "zu ihm sagte ich nicht 'Nein.'" This always puzzled me. I could understand the lyrics just fine, but I couldn't get to the meaning. Why would not say no to an abusive, evil man? I thought maybe there was some nuance to the German that I wasn't getting. (I'm really dense at times.) My freshman semester at BYU I took a German class from Alan Keele (while we were in the midst of reading some long excerpts from Manifest des Kommunistischen Partei ETB visited campus and said Marx and Engels were inspired by the devil, though I prefer Gunter Grass's rendering of I Korinther 13.1 "Wenn ich mit Marx-Engels zung redete and haette die liebe nicht so waere ich wie ein toenend erz oder ein klingende schell") and he talked about the Threepenny Opera one day and why Weil and Brecht had to flee for their lives. He said Polly's song was their way of telling their country, "You could have had decent leaders, but you pushed them away and chose Hitler instead." So I was supposed to be mystified by why Polly would push away good men. > That was a powerful, poignant moment in the show > and handled very nicely with the cutting between her high dive act, > dressed as a ballerina, and the reality of going to the gallows. > The film seems to say truly guilty go free, the innocent pay. Reminds me of that poignant moment in _The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagony_ where the residents of Mahagony kill Jakob Schmidt because he can't pay his bar bill. Back before my mission my cousin gave me his copy of The Lotte Lenya Album, which he had gotten as a thank you for a donation to KWHO AM, a commercial classical music station in Salt Lake in the 70s (maybe 60s too--I don't think it survived into the 80s as a classical station, though). He didn't appreciate the album much, but I love it. (It's one of my favorites, along with _Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris_, _Side By Side By Sondheim_, _Chorus Line_, _Pacific Overtures_, _Company_, Bernstein's _Mass_, and some others including the album for the late 70's(?) New York revival of _The Threepenny Opera_, set in the 19th century British Empire--"and when they came face to face with a fellow of a different race whose skin was black or yellow, they'd cut him up and make him into beefsteak tartare"--I prefer those lyrics to Eric Bentley's 1949 lyrics in the Grove Press translation) I listened to it over and over, but was always puzzled by the song from Mahagony where Lenya sings, "Ach bendenken sie, Herr Jakob Schmidt was dreissig dollar kaufen kann," (he's just said, "Dreissig dollar, dreck!") She's asking him to consider what thirty dollars can buy, only this and nothing else, but why? $30 is a lot of money, and why is he calling $30 dreck? Shortly after my mission I saw a production on PBS and finally understood that the character is a prostitute trying to convince Jakob Schmidt that her $30 price is nothing in a time of hyperinflation. Towards the end of the play the townspeople arrest, try and execute Jakob for not being able to pay a very small bar tab. Quite a moving and poignant moment, and rather unexpected. I think Brecht and Weil wanted to emphasize that for all its energy and all the great songs it produced, Mahagony really is an evil and corrupt city. > There are these subtle messages the author has woven into > the fabric of a musical about the "haves"--those with money, > power and the right lawyer--getting away with it while the > "have-nots" pay for things they didn't even do. Which deeply offends our American optimism, our sense that we're good people and that right and justice triumph. Alan Keele wrote a paper called "The Terrible Toys," about the sports motif in post-war German fiction. He said that that generation, which includes Gunter Grass and Heinrich Bolle had to confront the evil their country had done, and try and figure out how a country and culture that had given the world Mozart, Schiller, Beethoven, Goethe, Kant, Hegel, and so much else had been able to systematically plan and carry out genocide against 6 million Jews (and six million assorted others, including Gypsies and homosexuals (Tim Slover told me once about a play he saw in London called _Bent_, a very rough play about homosexuals in an extermination camp. I would like to see it.)) Americans have never had to do that kind of soul-searching about our genocide. We won. That may be why I'm trying to read a lot of Native American Lit just now. (Justin Halverson noted how little international lit is on the bedside reading lists, but Native American groups are sovereign nations--(in my fashion, Cynara) does that count?) Of course we've never had to do much soul-searching about our treatment of the Mormons either. We won that, too. That forced exodus across the plains, that was just frontier America being itself. And for that 40 year struggle they put up trying to maintain their twin relic of barbarism, after the battle was clearly lost, those barbarians deserved everything the government did to them. OK, sorry for the heavy hand there. There _has_ been a fair amount of grappling with our nation's actions toward the First Nations. And it's fairly easy to get ahold of, though a good deal of the grappling has been done by the American Indians themselves (with some work by Anglos like Hal Borland, Michael Fillerup, A. E. Cannon and Sharlee Mullins Glenn). We still haven't really grappled as a nation with what we did to the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons have long made a case that their civil rights were violated--deeply violated, but you don't see that claim much in books published by national publishers. I had a pleasant surprise this afternoon. I'm reading a novel by a fellow who grew up in Arizona, not LDS but knew some LDS kids. The narrator is a 16 year old boy whose father fled to Arizona to escape the racism of the Mississippi delta--Got a PhD at Ole Miss after the War then got as far away as he could. Anyway, the narrator goes back because his grandfather has a stroke, and there's a scene where he watches the town bully torture a black kid, and he's so scared he doesn't do anything except yell at the bully to leave the black kid alone. Later he starts to think about his inaction, "Back in Arizona, I'd heard about how the Mormons had been chased out of most places they had lived until they'd finally settled in Utah, a desert nobody wanted. It was hard to believe that Americans could be that cruel to other people just because of religion, or race, or anything" (p. 96). Now that's the first New York published novel I've read since _The Giant Joshua_ that talks about Mormon history in terms of civil rights. The difference is that _Mississippi Trial, 1955_ is not an explicitly Mormon novel, so it feels like the link is coming from outside the culture, and that's probably something we need. (Chris Crowe doesn't do anything to hide his religion. Bio-note says he teaches at BYU and lives in Utah, and there's a wonderful passage where Hiram tells us the names of his brothers and sisters, Joseph, Emma, Eliza and Brigham. The part about growing up non-Mormon is Arizona I learned tonight from the bio-note for Two Roads, which I haven't read yet because Bookcraft's cover makes it sound horribly didactic.) I would like to see another novel that links the struggle to practice polygamy with the struggle for civil rights. It will be called _Seedtime and Harvest_, after Annie Elizabeth Waldron Clark's repeated (and according to her grandson increasingly bitter) comment that as a second, hidden, wife she only saw her husband at seedtime and harvest. (Assuming I can get enough of a grasp of how to write and create characters that I can actually write a novel. (I feel like that Gilbert & Sullivan character, "the very model of a modern major general," who can "tell you every detail of Caracticus's uniform and write you up a laundry list in Babylonic cuneiform," but is flustered to admit that "when I have a grasp of elemental strategy I'll be the greatest major general that ever [gropes around for a rhyme] sategy.") I think we could make some interesting fiction connecting Mormon history with the struggle for civil right. I think Sharlee Glenn could probably do it in the companion piece I hope she writes to Circle Dance, to expand on that wonderful passage where Britta asks Grandpa what happened to make Red Ant Colorow a drunk. "Let me tell you somethin', Britta-girl. One of the most basic rights of any livin' being is the right to be who they are. That's what our Mormon pioneers left everything for back in 1847, left everything and trekked clear across the plains to the Salt Lake Valley. They did it for the right to be Mormon" (113). Grandpa pauses, then says something that makes his comment more than a little sermon on tolerance. "And it does powerful strange things to people when that basic right isn't respected" (114). However, anyone who wants to write about the polygamy persecutions as a civil rights issue has a problem because the culture has renounced polygamy, and even though we're 60 years removed from Joshua The Giant polygamy is still a touchy subject for someone to take up. Of course, there's always humor. I love hearing Johanne Perry's voice inviting, "Folks won't you come to Salt Lake City," and reassuring them, "Don't believe them when they warn you you could lose your life. At most you'd lose your wife." (And it just occurred to me that I'm listening to Julie De Azevedo ( _Dive Deep_ ) rather than _Polly_ as I write this.) Oh, well, it's late. Good night. Harlow S. Clark (still long-winded) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Apologies Date: 18 Apr 2003 00:59:45 -0700 I've been looking through my drafts folder and found a message from a month ago, that I started replying to, but didn't finish. I guess the tone of the original message is humorous, but it raises an interesting question, and I want to pursue it a bit. On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:01:04 -0700 Alan Rex Mitchell writes: > And I sense deep-down that I should be offended by Harlow, > but I'm not sure what he is saying, so I let it ride. Why do you sense you should be offended, Alan? Do you sense that I'm writing in bad faith, or that I intend for you to be offended, or that I write from a viewpoint that personally disparages your own? One of the consequences of my cognitive gift (Hyper-Attention Gift, or HAG--though DSM III-R calls my gift a disorder and my hyper-attention--my ability to attend to many things at once--a deficit of attention. Go figure. No, I should say go pun, since wordplay is the feature of language that allows us to bear hyper-attention on a word or phrase from several viewpoints at once, and to understand all of the viewpoints simultaneously) is that I often don't know how my words will affect people. So if you think you have a moral obligation (which is what should means as a modal of shall) to be offended at me please let me know so I can repent of the offense. Harlow S. Clark (recovering mattress police) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 18 Apr 2003 08:09:37 -0600 On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 05:31 AM, Kent S. Larsen II wrote: > At 7:50 PM -0700 4/10/03, you wrote: > Does anyone know if they are charging the publishers for listings, > like the "books and things" catalog? Yes, they charge. Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Escaping Faith? Date: 18 Apr 2003 09:32:05 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Margaret Young >never read a Duane Crowther book, and I don't know the >controversy that surrounded _Prophecy_ (but I'd like to). One of the biggest controversies was his use of something called "The White Horse Procphecy" (I believe that is its name) purportedly received by Joseph Smith. Its provenance, however, could not be proven, and appeared to have been written post the events it apparently specfically prophesied. The document was considered a fake by the ruling intelligentsia at the time. BTW, if you want to really be entertained, get your hands on an original copy of _Prophecy, Key to the Future_. Some claims for which Brother Crowther even gives dates have come and gone and nothing even remotely similar to what he mentions occurred. >I'll further confess that the whole premise of "life after >life" stories makes me nervous. The study group Bruce and I >belong to read a book describing in detail a "life after life" >experience. The group's response was pretty unanimous: "Why >would this guy not only share but MARKET something so personal >and sacred?" Though I personally think Betty Eadie's book to be a crock of bull, I find this attitude to be overly obsequious. My feeling has always been, that, unless told otherwise, one's own personal revelations ought to be told to anyone under as many circumstances as possible. You find the default all the scripture: tell the people unless God says otherwise. And the idea of marketing sacred things. Let's not forget that early copies of the Book of Mormon were marketed, and the proceeds used by early missionaries as living expenses. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Date: 18 Apr 2003 11:27:20 -0600 Thank you William Morris for introducing a great resource. I'm excited about this website after only a few minute visit. It's already bookmarked on my favorites list. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? Date: 18 Apr 2003 16:11:50 -0500 (CDT) Does anybody know of a good, critical review of "The Mormon Murders..." by Naifeh? I mean one that examines factual problems, etc? It's being recommended to some friends of mine for its accurate portrayal of mormonism. I looked in the AML archives, but it's not there. rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net To announce that there must be no \ criticism of the President, or that we are to / stand by the President, right or wrong, is not \ only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally / treasonable to the American public. \ -T Roosevelt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Date: 18 Apr 2003 17:08:43 -0600 William Morris wrote: > But I came across this Web site through an > unrelated google search: > > http://www.mapletreepublishing.com/ > > The company claims to be an LDS publishing > company that is not an "LDS publishing company." > The company is located in Iowa, but intends to > reach both national markets and LDS bookstores. Looks interesting, but I have a couple concerns. First of all, I would definitely negotiate on the contract. There are a few things I'd need changed. (Is it now customary for all publishers to pay royalties on the wholesale price? I could have sworn it was retail.) I'm glad to see they ask for first right of refusal only on the next book you write. That's reasonable. Second of all, I still see that nasty word "uplifting" to describe what they'll print. They seem to be trying to do something about the limited LDS market and removing the stranglehold the existing companies have on helpless authors businesswise, but are they still only going to publish Deseret-Book-worthy stuff? I'm glad it'll ostensibly be of higher quality, but I want more variety too. Just how Deseret-Bookish does my manuscript have to be? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 18 Apr 2003 19:27:37 EDT It seems to me that art, even great art, can come from either emotional extreme or from a more middle ground. Although it is often stronger emotion that motivates one to create at all. Maybe that is why God would have us be "hot or cold". Lukewarm water is neither fun to drink or bath in, at least for me. Give me hot or cold anyday. Don't artists create out of a desire to share and make the world a better place to live, even if only their own world? I know writing, speaking, playing my trumpet, or other artistic expressions at least help me to understand my self and give me joy. It seems as one begins a writting project of any size or type, even a personal journal for example, that thoughts and feelings one was often only vagely aware of become stronger and more focused. The ideal, for personal growth and joy, it would seem would be to write or do other art in a way that sanctifies self and shares light and truth with others who experience it. "A testimony", we've been taught, "is to be found in the bearing of it". Isn't art, any art, even the art of living, an exercise or discipline of finding greater fulfillment in everyday things. Everyone I've met in my 57 years seems to have sufficient positive and negative experiences to create from, regardless of the medium they choose to become skilled at, or not. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog Date: 18 Apr 2003 17:17:07 EDT In a message dated 4/17/03 06:35:56 PM, klarsen@mormonstoday.com writes: << Does anyone know if they are charging the publishers for listings, like the "books and things" catalog? >> Yes, they are....I don't have the most recent charge list, but you pay for the size of the ad. They send out emails with the rates occasionally. John Perry Provo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: [AML] Hip-Hop (was: Time Heals Artistic Wounds) Date: 18 Apr 2003 22:57:35 -0600 dmichael@wwno.com wrote: "But when it comes to rap and hip-hop, there I draw the line. I can't believe that it's a mere subjective, generational thing that these forms of alleged music actually have artistic merit. My father called my music "noise," but I truly can't accept these new manifestations of pop "music" as anything but. (snip...) "So I have hope that my aversion to such music is an absolute aesthetic, not mere old-fogyism." I have this conversation about once a week with my husband when he walks = into my office and hears Outkast or Missy Elliott on my computer speakers. = I am (in conversation with him, anyway) a staunch defender of hip-hop as = an intensely powerful form of artistic expression, one that has forever = changed the face of popular music the way jazz and rock did for previous = generations. It has captured the poetry, the energy, the charisma and = yes, the anger of an entire subculture and made them relevant to the = mainstream (doesn't that sound like a worthy goal for LDS artists?). And = along the way it captured the imaginations of a lot of people around the = world. (You haven't really lived until you've heard Indian or S. Korean = rappers rhyming - there are some that are actually pretty good without = being derivative).=20 I will gladly concede that a lot of rap is hedonistic, violent or = bordering on pornographic. But so is a good chunk of rock and roll. And = I know my grandparents didn't have kind thoughts about jazz musicians back = in their day either. And so an understanding/education of the genre and = of the artists is necessary (as in any genre) to sort the wheat from the = chaff. (At the risk of opening myself to attack) I would challenge anyone = seriously interested in music to listen to Lauryn Hill's "The Miseducation = of Lauryn Hill" and not find that album a powerful artistic experience. = Erykah Badu, Jill Scott, the Beastie Boys, even more hard-core artists = like Naz, Ice-T, Notorious B.I.G. and even Eminem can bring work with = outstanding artistic merit to the table. I would welcome the day that an LDS poet with guts and talent could bring = a beat to their experiences and share them with the rest of us. Here's = one hip-hop fan that would be thrilled--as long as the beats were fresh = and the messages honest. Because that's really what I believe any = artistic expression is all about. Mary Jane Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 19 Apr 2003 01:23:10 EDT Our recent conversations regarding the film version of CHICAGO reminded me o= f=20 a post I have been intending to write for several months. Here it is. It may= =20 turn out to be rather lengthy, but I think it will be worth the time. A little over a year ago I was in New York City auditioning actors for "The=20 Prophet." I decided to take in a couple of shows. I've never been much of a=20 fan of musical theater, but I really wanted to see LES MISERABLES and CHICAG= O=20 on Broadway. I saw LES MISERABLES first. It was fine. I was expecting more. It felt prett= y=20 limp. No passion or joy in the performances. I left the theater glad that I=20 had seen it, but a little disappointed. Then, on my last night in the city, I saw CHICAGO. From the front row. Wow. The music was wonderful. The dancers were phenomenal. The Bob=20 Fosse-inspired choreography was riveting. The actors/singers were world=20 class. The loud, biting script was sharp and mean and often funny. I loved=20 it. I mean, I absolutely LOVED IT. I had never had such a powerful theatrica= l=20 experience. It knocked me out. I walked away from the show in something of a daze. I honestly don't think I= =20 have ever seen such a powerful display of talent. Everyone in the cast=20 appeared to be performing at the very edge of their abilities, pushing their= =20 talents to their limits. Not just the singers and dancers, but the musicians= ,=20 the writers, the director, the choreographer. That was over a year ago. And I still haven't been able to shake the experie= n ce. I bought the soundtrack and I listen to it fairly often. And the music=20 brings back the experience. I often find myself meditating on my experience=20 with CHICAGO. It had a profound effect on me. (By the way, although I enjoye= d=20 the movie version, it is a pale imitation of the live Broadway show.) So how do I put what I have felt/learned/decided into words so that I can=20 share it with you? First of all, let's put aside the "morality" of the show. I could easily=20 argue that it is one of the most immoral works of theatrical art. I could=20 just as easily turn around and argue that it is one of the most moral. But i= t=20 is an argument that doesn't interest me. Here's what I was most impressed with: artists pushing themselves to the=20 breaking point. At the end of that show, I truly felt that the performers ha= d=20 spent themselves, that they would need pharmaceutical assistance if they wer= e=20 required to sing one more song or dance one more number. I felt that I=20 experienced the composer and writers and choreographers working at the top o= f=20 their game. It was exhilarating. I would have paid a thousand dollars during= =20 my threadbare college days to experience it. Why? Because=E2=80=A6I don't th= ink I had=20 ever witnessed it before. At least not from the front row.=20 I saw the straining effort in the muscles of their legs, in the muscles of=20 their throats, in the constant streams of sweat pouring off their bodies. It= =20 was amazing. Their talent combined with their passion. That's what it is!=20 That's what I'm getting at! Talent and passion. Pushed to the limit. I know I can't speak for the rest of you. I can only speak for myself, so I=20 examine my own work over the past few years and I find myself wanting. True,= =20 I've exceeded my limits in some areas. Some who are close to me think that I= =20 have pushed myself too far, that I have exhausted myself and broken myself=20 financially, emotionally, spiritually. And, I admit, they have a point.=20 Trying to get "The Prophet" off the ground has just about destroyed me, my=20 health, my faith, my family's security.=20 But all of that is incidental to the subject at hand, to the creativity.=20 After all, I still haven't shot the film! I may have pushed myself to the=20 limit in other ways, but have I pushed myself to the limit CREATIVELY? That'= s=20 the question. Have I poured everything I know and feel into my filmmaking?=20 I've made four films, but have I ever performed cinematically with the=20 passion that I saw on the CHICAGO stage? No, I haven't. Not in a movie. But=20= I=20 know the experience because I've done it as an actor on stage. I know what i= t=20 feels like to perform at the edge. To walk off the stage and collapse in=20 physical and emotional exhaustion. I look at my work lately and I see so clearly the restraints I have placed o= n=20 myself. Where is anything that I have done where you can see my bare soul=20 exploding on the movie screen? Have you ever seen me cut loose with a camera= =20 and show you what I can really do? No, you haven't. Why not? Because I=20 haven't done it! Because I've held back! I've been polite and modest and=20 restrained, all good and well behind the podium in sacrament meeting, but=20 death behind a movie camera. For whatever reason, I haven't been fulfilling the measure of my creation. I= =20 haven't taken the talents the Lord has given me and magnified them to their=20 potential. Why not? That's the question that CHICAGO put into my brain. And=20= I=20 can only answer with my work. I know that, for me, it's time to cut loose. The passion and (I hope) the=20 talent are there. It's time to live passionately and create passionately. To= =20 work at the frayed edge of my energies and abilities. I want to find the wal= l=20 and break through and see what's on the other side. I want to show my God that he is right in entrusting me with some measure of= =20 creativity. That, with the few colors and stubby brushes that he allows me,=20= I=20 paint some beautiful, powerful, original pictures. That I do the absolute be= st I can. Then maybe he'll open up the store and give me unlimited, eternal=20 resources. I think that's basically what I have to say. But as I read over the past=20 several paragraphs, I feel that I've done a fairly poor job of communicating= =20 my thoughts and feelings, which is truly unfortunate. Because I'd love to be= =20 able the share this euphoric, passionate frustration with all of you. I have= =20 a painful dissatisfaction with what I have produced in the past, and a=20 ferocious optimism for what I will do in the future. Both feel right and=20 good. I am growing tired of timid art. I wish I could take the entire AML group to New York and share the CHICAGO=20 experience. I'd like to see if anyone else gets the jolt I got.=20 Do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to foot the bill?=20 Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 19 Apr 2003 01:31:02 EDT In a message dated 4/18/2003 11:16:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time, kcmadsen@utah-inter.net writes: > Bigotry, > adultery, murder, war, child abuse, racism. Love, forgiveness, > acceptance, loyalty, honor. The words only mean something in comparison. > Beautifully put, Kim. I think I'll print that out and put it up on my bulletin board. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 19 Apr 2003 01:42:23 EDT In a message dated 4/18/2003 11:13:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, annette@lyfe.com writes: > Re: D. Michael Martindale's Brother Brigham > > If several readers didn't buy your character's actions, then it's a good > chance the characterization in your writing needs work, regardless of how > well you personally know Sheila. Plenty of characters in literature do > things "most" people don't do--but they are so well drawn that readers DO > believe it--they know as well as the author does that that's exactly what > the character would do. > Gotta stand up for D. I've read BROTHER BRIGHAM and Sheila is a sharply-drawn, believable and consistent character. In my opinion, the comments from the readers reveal more about themselves and their attitudes toward auto-genital-manipulation than about D's writing skill or the character of Sheila. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 21 Apr 2003 16:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Here is an article from "The New York Times" to keep in mind when thinking about the possibility of constructing a "conservative literary theory." (Or indeed, the utility of any literary theory.) Free registration is required to read it: The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter April 19, 2003 By EMILY EAKIN These are uncertain times for literary scholars. The era of big theory is over. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/arts/19CRIT.html?ex=1051968136&ei=1&en=f8c329a1815900ee ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Advertise in Irreantum Date: 19 Apr 2003 08:51:09 -0400 I'm happy to report that the ad Mormon Arts and Letters placed in the recent issue of Irreantum has led to sales! So, I believe its worth doing. Kent Larsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? Date: 19 Apr 2003 07:55:51 -0600 Rich Hammett wrote: >Does anybody know of a good, critical review of "The Mormon >Murders..." by Naifeh? I mean one that examines factual >problems, etc? It's being recommended to some friends of >mine for its accurate portrayal of mormonism. Try David Whittaker's review in _BYU Studies_ 29, no. 1. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Apologies Date: 19 Apr 2003 08:15:10 -0600 Harlow Clark aka Hollow Cluck wrote: "So if you think you have a moral obligation (which is what should means as a modal of shall) to be offended at me please let me know so I can repent of the offense." I swear this boy is ee cummings incarnate. "because, because and so because..." Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division Date: 19 Apr 2003 10:24:04 -0400 At 10:16 PM -0700 4/15/03, you wrote: >What this means is that Deseret is going to get into the business of >distributing works they do not publish. This is what Publishers >Distribution, Origin, and Evans Book used to do and it is still the >principal business of Granite Publishing, and to a large extent CFI. Brigham >Book Distributing (I think that's the name) up in Brigham City is trying to >enter this market. They will probably be edged out by Deseret now. Are you saying that Brigham will be edged out? Or that all these distributors will be edged out? You are right, of course, that this is a volume business, but I'm not convinced that Deseret Book will be able to edge out these other distributors unless they "cheat" i.e., refuse to buy from them for their stores. This is exactly the problem with this move, of course -- it is potentially anti-competitive. Distribution businesses win new clients by price (i.e., the proportion of the sale that they give to the publisher) and by reach (i.e., how well they can sell titles - which stores purchase books from them and how many they purchase). At least Granite and CFI have their reach pretty well set already. Brigham is working hard at it. And somehow I doubt that Deseret Book will set its price lower (i.e., give the publishers more) than the other distributors. On the other hand, if Deseret Book doesn't either set its price lower or refuse to buy from the other three distributors, how will it get clients? > >This is a smart move if done correctly. It could allow Deseret to >essentially take over the distribution end of the LDS market, leaving the >small publishers to do nothing but publish, then pass their products over to >Deseret to distribute. It is not a terribly profitable venture unless it's >done on a large scale, and I think Deseret has the best shot in the LDS >market to achieve that scale. (In the trade market, Ingram and Baker & >Taylor are the big national distributors.) This will essentially >consolidate the LDS market in the hands of Deseret, but that may not be a >bad thing, depending on how open they are to different kinds of product. Sorry, Richard, but I can't see how this is anything but a bad thing. Competition generally leads to lower prices and greater distribution. I don't see how consolidating the LDS market in the hands of Deseret Book will do anything but make it harder for anything that doesn't win Deseret's seal of approval to be sold. And it may simply lead to higher prices for what does get sold. Where is the upside that you see and I'm missing? >It >may take some big internal changes, though. Deseret's wholesale arm has been >notorious for creating ill-will amongst their (non-Deseret) customers. >Perhaps Sherri Dew will correct that problem and with her correction add >this powerful new twist. Verrrry interesting. > >Richard Hopkins > I hope you are correct that Sheri Dew will fix this problem. Kent -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Time Heals Artistic Wounds Date: 19 Apr 2003 08:31:25 -0600 > D. Michael wrote: > >But when it comes to rap and hip-hop, there I draw the line. I can't > >believe that it's a mere subjective, generational thing that these forms > >of alleged music actually have artistic merit. My father called my music > >"noise," but I truly can't accept these new manifestations of pop > >"music" as anything but. The funniest thing happened. I'm too young for these bands, about 5 years, but I loved Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, Steppenwolf, Procol Harum, Grand Funk, Black Sabbath, Jethro Tull, Jimi Hendrix, Traffic and The Doors. They were so powerful and dangerous. I bathed in their music, was comforted and fortified by it. They gave words to my feeling: "Hey, you, keep your head down. Don't you look around. Please, don't make a sound. If they should find you now, the Man will shoot you down" (Steppenwolf--Renegade). And: "Can you give me sanctuary? I must find a place to hide . . . a place for me to hide" (The Doors--Sanctuary). That music was intense, so dangerous. And threatening. It was one of the few things I could count on when things were tough. Well, my wife went and bought a greatest hits album of The Doors--talk about dangerous people. Jim Morrisson, forget about it. Heavy and intense to the max. We played it--now thirty years since I depended on that music--and it was kind of fun. Kind of jaunty, and kind of innocent. And I said, "Whoa! My memory has been betrayed!" It's one of those things that make you wonder if anything is real. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: [AML] RE: Hip-Hop Date: 19 Apr 2003 08:43:57 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: "Hip-hop's greatest strength, as I see it, lies in its ability (maybe even it's need, its raison d'etre) to assimilate across genres and time periods, and in that assimilation to both contest the past and generate new styles, new combinations--in a process something like, dare I, T.S. Eliot's as he sought to, "sampling" from tradition, rejuvenate tired metaphors." Yeah, and it's easy to dance to. Kim Madsen, shallow and moved by the beat -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 19 Apr 2003 09:33:46 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >I never had the sense that they were poking >fun at anything. The puppet scene didn't just reek of satire for you? One of the key features of satire is to take a real situation and exaggerate in an extreme way. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Max Golightly Playwriting Contest Date: 19 Apr 2003 09:49:22 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard B.Johnson >family so long). Did he ever complete it? I don't believe that Max Golightly ever completed his PhD. I seem to recall it was a sore spot with him. Max accepted the first play I ever wrote as a major production of the BYU 1972 season. It was called "A Sceptre, A Sword, A Scented Rose," a dramatization of the story of Lamon and Ammon. I had only written the first act and he had cast and was rehearsing while I was up in his office finishing off the play on his IBM Selectric typewriter. =20 He also gave me my second favoritist acting job. The play was "I Never Sang For My Father." I had tried for the lead, didn't get it, but he came to me afterwards and asked me if I wanted to play three minor roles spread throughout the play. And these were minor roles - a waiter coming on and putting things on a table. A porter from a train station. The largest of the three roles was a doctor who said maybe three lines. Max encouraged me to make each character as different as I could. It was great fun. I played the first character as a black man. For the waiter, I sprayed my hair red and adopted a swishy gait. The final character was a gray-haired doctore with a Bostonian accent. By the way, while we're on the subject, let me share the following with all you LDS writer-folk: The 2003 Max C. Golightly Memorial Playwrighting Competition -------- Named in honor of Max Chatterton Golightly, BYU professor, director, actor, author, lyricist. His positive influence over his students and the people who saw his plays and musicals is incalculable. His productions were always First Class. He encouraged so many authors to do great things.=20 He was my mentor, my writing collaborator and my friend. -- C. Michael Perry, President -- ENCORE Performance Publishing We are searching for the best plays by Latter-day Saint authors. The prizes awarded will be a publication contract and entrance into Encore's catalog of plays, and a write up on Encore's website. In addition, there will be a small advance on the royalties. First Prize will include a production at BYU-Idaho, directed by Hyrum Conrad. Other scripts may receive readings , even staged readings, by the Nauvoo Historical Society at the Center Street Theatre in Orem, Utah under the Artistic Direction of J. Scott Bronson.=20 What is eligible: 1. Plays, short plays, and musicals based on LDS themes, historical events with LDS characters or with LDS viewpoints and/or LDS World view with non-LDS characters. 2. All plays, short plays, and musicals must have been produced prior to their submission to the contest. If the entry is unproduced, see below. 3. Plays should be uplifting as well as instructive and reflective of the LDS Doctrine. 4. Submissions are open to ALL authors, whether currently published by Encore or not. Of course, current titles published by Encore are NOT eligible. How to Submit: 1. All plays must be submitted in printed and bound form. No E-mail submissions. All manuscripts should be 8.5x11, three hole punched and bound in some sort of report cover. Please, no cerlox, spiral or velo-bind submissions. A video of the production may be included. 2. If musicals are submitted please submit, in addition to the manuscript of the play, a video of a production or a complete music demo tape of the score. Please do not send printed musical scores. 3. A production history of the entry listing producing organization(s), year(s) produced and director(s). Unproduced entries will need 2 letters of recommend: one from a Bishop or Stake President who has read the play and one from a professor of Theatre on the University level. 4. Resum=E9s or Vita sheets for each author. 5. Manuscripts should be submitted to: Golightly Memorial Playwrighting Competition Encore Performance Publishing PO Box 692, Orem Utah 84059. Unless an SASE large enough to accommodate the return of your materials is included with your submission all materials will be destroyed at the end of the contest. Encore reserves the right to make no awards or to make multiple awards. Deadline for submissions: All entries must be postmarked by December 31, 2003. All awards, if any, will be made by February 28, 2004 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 19 Apr 2003 10:50:10 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >By the way, I don't understand why Eugene set up >a dichotomy between empathy and observation. I wasn't setting up a dichotomy between empathy and observation; rather I was stating that empathy should not trump (be prized above) observation. In other words, as I'm lying on the gurney in the back of the ambulance, I care much less about whether you, the EMT, can "feel my pain" than what you can do about it. The moral point of the movie "The Doctor," is that William Hurt, by himself being stricken with cancer, comes to empathize with his patients and the people around him in a way that he had not before. Yet, at the heart of this empathy is his rediscovered ability to observe, to see what he had refused to see before. Hence the expression that an experience "opens your eyes." Glen Sudbury wrote: >Everyone I've met in my 57 years seems to have sufficient >positive and negative experiences to create from, regardless >of the medium they choose to become skilled at, or not. I completely agree with Glen that even the most "normal" of human lives is replete with enough personal suffering to fuel the creation of "great art." While I'm not sure that swatting a mosquito will give you any insights into murder (though it seems that an awful lot of serial killers started out killing small mammals), it's amazing what you can learn from a short ride to the emergency room--and for a not-life-threatening malady. (Most of the suffering in my case came from the consequential dealings with the insurance company.) The problem is that for too many "artists," the grass is always browner on the other side of the fence. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben and Jessie Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 19 Apr 2003 20:50:35 -0600 > And, he didn't turn into a jerk, he always was one. At least one > underlying issue in the book is who we as a culture look at as being > *good*. He looked good to her, and she ignored signs that maybe he > was not all she was looking for--with all the emotionally issues with > her family thrown in for good measure. I think you bring up one of the reasons why I liked the book--the jerky guy who rapes people came from a "normal" seeming family with very respectable parents. He also dressed well, had a nice car, did well in school, and for all general appearances was a "good" person. Hannah even hung around with his family and they welcomed her into their home, until she got pregnant. I thought that was a contrast to far too many Mormon books, especially YA ones, where the guy who is the wrong choice is obviously so by his bad appearance and general juvenile delinquent manner. I was thinking about this recently because of a movie review the other day talking about a new movie about high school students (Better Luck Tomorrow), which is all about well-off honors students in Southern California. The reviewer thought it interesting that everyone in the movie partied hard, even the "high-achievers"; he specifically cited a scene where the entire debate team gets drunk while celebrating a victory. This made me realize that there still seems to be a dichotomy in many adult's minds that there are "good kids" and "bad kids", and only losers drink, smoke and sleep around. Unfortunately, the kids in both high schools I went to managed to drink themselves sick on the weekends and still become valedictorians and get into Harvard. I guess my point is that the stereotypes (which I think are fading, luckily) of the "bad crowd" and the "losers" that we get warned about in Young Womens are unfortunately outdated. As one reveiwer mentioned, most teens lead R-rated lives, but are barred from seeing movies that accurately depict their lives. I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing, but I hope our literature for young adults will begin to represent more accurately the complex realities of high school today. "Everybody's doing it" will always be a terrible excuse, but telling kids that drinking and sleeping around will ruin their future doesn't cut it anymore either. Jessie Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Lancaster" Subject: Re: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? Date: 20 Apr 2003 15:06:05 -0500 You will find a good review containing critical comments of Naifeh's book in the New York Times Book Review, Oct. 9, 1988, p. 28. You can find it in Lexis Nexus. The review compares "A Gathering of Saints" with the Naifeh book. The critical portions mention "...the failure to provide the religious context and history that so dominated the case. The authors' prose seems rushed and relies often on cliche.... Their treatment of the Mormon Church hierarchy is often snide and sarcastic. While some of the actions of church leaders may be deserving of ridicule, the tone that Mr. Naifeh and Mr. Smith occasionally use detracts from their portrayals.... Frequently, sensitive information is presented without attribution." No one else that I can find has cared enough to do more than a perfunctory and brief review of the book. An article about several psychopathic murderer books in New Leader, Sept. 5, 1988 by Barry Gewen entitled "The Appeal of the Psychopath". He notes on page 19 that it is a trait of such "true crime" books to direct anger and blame not at the psychopath, but elsewhere. He uses Naifeh's anger at the Church rather than at Hoffmann as an example. I suppose there could be material in Sunstone or other such publications that aren't in my index databases. Scott Lancaster Gee Library Texas A&M-Commerce -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 19 Apr 2003 21:27:02 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > Unlike Richard, you just decreased my interest in reading the book. Here's > why: > If several readers didn't buy your character's actions, then it's a good > chance the characterization in your writing needs work, regardless of how > well you personally know Sheila. Plenty of characters in literature do > things "most" people don't do--but they are so well drawn that readers DO > believe it--they know as well as the author does that that's exactly what > the character would do. > > You can't expect the reader to say, "Well, I'm sure the *author* knows this > character would act that way. I'll take his word for it." Good point, but this reading group seems to be the only ones, as far as I recall, who objected to the characterization. Some objected to my presenting the scene, but not the characterization itself. (If someone did, and I forgot, let me know.) I don't want to get to deeply into criticizing a group who's not here to defend themselves, but they seem to have a shared affinity for Oprah's Dr. Phil, and what he says is given great weight in that group. Their disbelief in Sheila's masturbation, as they explicitly stated, was directly related to things he said on his program. I'm sorry, but I simply can't get too upset over a criticism of my characterization that is based on "Dr. Phil said it doesn't happen." -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors (was: Gene WOLFE, _Book of the New Sun_) Date: 19 Apr 2003 23:26:24 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > What Makes These Books So Hard > ========================= > Several things here: > > * Density of detail. > * Confusing plot lines. > * Vocabulary. > * Digressions on philosophy. > * General style. Now this is something I truly don't get. In the past, some people on this list have seemed to argue in favor of prose that's difficult to get into. It was in conjunction with the thread about beginnings. Gene Wolf looks like a different manifestation of that discussion. My question is, why on earth make your writing hard to read? Is it necessary for Gene Wolf to write dense detail, confusing plots, vocabulary no one's ever heard of, digress into philosophy, or have a generally tedious writing style, for his stories to offer the good things that Jonathan listed? Please, someone, explain it to me! One of the most consistent praises I've received about my book is that it's easy to read. This is music to my ears. What good does it do me to write some of the most profound, inspiring, soul-magnifying prose imagined by mortal man if it's too hard for people to read? Why shouldn't Gene Wolfe or anyone else write in a style that maximizes the audience who can appreciate him, if there's so much of value in what he writes? Why is clarity not considered one of the most essential virtues for a writer? To me, the message is the important thing. The medium is there only to convey the message. If the medium gets in the way, that's a bad thing. (This is no doubt why I detest poetry. By definition, the medium IS the art in poetry.) Be as artistic as you want with your words--as long as it doesn't interfere with the message. If people have to force themselves to continue reading Gene Wolfe, this is a clear indication that the medium is interfering. It's a clear indication (in my opinion) that Gene Wolfe needs a good editor. Unless of course, Gene Wolfe doesn't care if anybody reads his stuff. I care if someone reads my stuff. I want the whole world to read my stuff. You won't find difficult writing in my work. Difficult concepts, you bet, but difficult writing? No way! The only thinking I want my readers to do is to wrestle with the challenging ideas I present them. I don't want them wasting brain power trying to figure out what some arcane word means. One of my favorite stories is Victor Hugo's _Les Miserables_. But it is _not_ one of my favorite books. Hugo wrote in a style accessible to his generation, but it's a challenge for us modern people to get through. I think the story is one of the most powerful illustrations of the teachings of Jesus I've ever encountered. But I'd love the story to be rewritten into something accessible to the modern reader (and I may do it someday). In the "beginnings" thread, there were a number of people who defended authors who wrote difficult openings to their books. I still don't see it. I want to know what the author has to say. I don't want to wade through a self-indulgent blockade to their story. In fact, I won't. Nor do I think anyone else should. That goes for beginnings, middles, endings--any part of the book. If Gene Wolfe is that hard to read, I won't be reading him, I don't care how many gems are inside his books. Too many other authors have enough respect for me to set those gems out where I can access them without unnecessary struggle. Standard rebuttal: "If you don't work for it, you won't appreciate it as much." True, but there is such a thing as necessary and unnecessary work. Wrestling with challenging ideas is plenty enough work for me to appreciate the results. I don't need self-indulgent yahoos throwing up artificial barriers just to get to the ideas. Especially after Eric quantified for us how few works we'll be able to consume in one lifetime. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] TWAIN & NELSON, _Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer_ (Daily Herald) Date: 21 Apr 2003 02:36:06 +0000 [Nelson is publishing this book through Cedar Fort. There is a description of the book at http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176801.html ] The Daily Herald on Thursday, April 17 Lee Nelson, co-author of "Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians," will present portions of his book at 7:30 tonight in the Tree Room Library at Sundance Village. In 1885, Twain began this book with Huck and Tom attempting a daring rescue of a girl kidnapped by American Indians. For reasons unknown, Twain suddenly stopped writing in the middle of a sentence, and the unfinished manuscript collected dust for more than a hundred years. Then in a landmark literary event, the University of California Press and the Mark Twain Foundation authorized Utah author Lee Nelson to finish the book. Nelson finished the story through the eyes of a lovesick Huck on a journey across a continent to rescue the woman he loves. The reading is free. Patrons may enjoy dinner in the Foundry Grill or the Tree Room prior to the reading. Call 223-4220 for dinner reservations. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ROGERS, "Heubener" (Deseret News) Date: 21 Apr 2003 02:44:16 +0000 Sunday, April 20, 2003 Auditions THE BOUNTIFUL PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, 745 S. Main, has started rehearsals for the World War II drama "Heubener," directed by the playwright, Thomas Rogers, but several male performers are still needed for two of the double-cast principal roles and some small parts. Performances are May 14-June 11. Those interested in auditioning should call 294-7469 or send an e-mail to assistant director Elizabeth Hatch at elizabeth@bpac.cc. Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] JONES, _Messengers of Truth_ Date: 21 Apr 2003 02:41:59 +0000 Sunday, April 20, 2003 A really bad film By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic "MESSENGERS OF TRUTH" is a comedy about some rather gung-ho LDS missionaries. And it's executed so poorly and is so completely unfunny that you might think it's just a joke. There were times I wondered if it was purposely produced and released by the Halestorm Entertainment guys to make their amateurish "road-show" comedies "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M." look better by comparison. Also, some of the humor is a bit . . . off-color, shall we say? Consequently, while the film is not rated, it would probably earn a PG-13. For those who just can't resist, "Messengers of Truth," which played Friday and Saturday, will continue over the next two weekends at Brewvies Cinema Pub, 677 S. 200 West. (You do have to be 21 or older to patronize Brewvies, by the way.) For show times and ticket prices, call 355-5500. There's also a Web site, www.messengersoftruth.com. [The writer/director is Brent Jones.] Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Apologies Date: 21 Apr 2003 05:52:56 -0600 Harlow, Rest assured that you have done nothing to offend. I was trying to get the point across that some people can be offended by anything. Even puns. I am not. I am only offended if people think they are smarter than me, which is probably a good assumption on which to build a relationship. Alan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 21 Apr 2003 09:30:28 -0400 Susan Malmrose: > >Sorry, but I can't buy that. We may be fascinated by it, but we don't >celebrate it. If it were true, people who thought he was guilty would still >love OJ Simpson right now. Me: If we don't celebrate evil, at the very least, we delight in shuddering at it. If we didn't, than the media would find better things to report that which celebrity is cheating on their spouse, in rehab for drugs, dating Brittney Spears, ect. People like that stuff. And I do know people who full-out celebrate it. Their positively gleeful over the prospect of a weekend spent retching in a toilet. "A damn good way to kill brain cells," one of them said. It's amazing. And I'm totally facinated by them. I sat for fifteen minutes in my sister's dorm listening to her mod-mates brag about their level of drunkeness last weekend. So, some of us celebrate evil, and the rest of us like hearing about it. Maybe it makes us feel good about ourselves. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Date: 19 Apr 2003 20:43:18 -0500 At 06:08 PM 4/18/03, you wrote: > I would definitely negotiate on the contract. There are a >few things I'd need changed. (Is it now customary for all publishers to >pay royalties on the wholesale price? I could have sworn it was retail.) Either way is acceptable and it depends on the company's policy. Personally, in the future, I would rather only accept a contract based on the retail price listed on the cover, rather than a variable. Some companies also offer contracts not only based on the variable wholesale price received, but add the double variable of deducting whatever advertising and other costs they'd like to include before calculating your royalties. Read carefully before you sign any legal document. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Ruth Hale, Co-Founder of Hale Theatre, Dies Date: 21 Apr 2003 10:16:05 -0600 (from the Deseret News) Ruth Hale, playwright and theater founder, dies Ruth Hudson Hale, 94, matriarch of one of the country's longest-running family theater operations, died Sunday at Highland Care Center of complications of a stroke. Hale, who wrote more than 75 plays and acted in most of them, leaves a legacy that includes a 54-year-old venue in Glendale, Calif.; the Hale Centre Theatre in West Valley City, Hale Center Theater Orem and the rustic Hale Summer Theater on the family's ranch in southern Utah. Her plays are filled with homespun humor, and she exhibited boundless energy on stage. She won numerous awards, including a PBS Peabody Award, a presidential citation from Brigham Young University and a Utah Governor's Mansion Artist Award. In recent years she enjoyed a spin-off career acting in TV ads and doing voice-overs. She was among local celebrities driving animated vehicles in a TV commercial announcing the opening of the first major leg of the I-15 project. She and her husband, James Nathan Hale (who died on Jan. 30, 1994), left Utah during World War II and moved to California. But acting jobs were scarce, and a producer suggested that perhaps they should start their own theater. "You could star in your own shows, and no one could fire you," he said. The comment sparked a dream that resulted in the Glendale Centre Theatre, now celebrating its 54th season in Southern California. The theater quickly gained a loyal following. The couple were parents of seven, and the extended family numbers 160. The Hales attempted to retire about 15 years ago, turning the reins of their Glendale operation to younger family members, and moved to Utah. But retirement didn't last long. "A person could die from watching television and tatting doilies," Ruth Hale said. Instead, she, Nathan and other family members opened a theater in South Salt Lake. Eventually it was replaced by a theater in West Valley City. Today, that venue, the Hale Centre Theater, attracts more than 208,000 patrons annually. Ruth and Nathan Hale served a mission for the LDS Church in Nauvoo, where one of the historic buildings was a vacant theater. They felt that a play geared to missionary work would fill the seats. They wrote "Are the Meadowlarks Still Singing?" about a returned LDS missionary who falls in love with a minister's daughter. The play is frequently performed, free, on Sunday evenings at Hale Centre Theatre as part of an ongoing "fireside" program. McDougal Funeral Home is handling funeral arrangements, which are not yet finalized. ----- Allow me to append a personal note. The Center Street Theatre exists today because of Ruth and Nathan Hale. As a teenager in Southern California, I knew the Hales and was inspired by their success in operating their theatre on California street in Glendale. If you were LDS and you loved theatre, the Hale Center Theater was the place to go. My ex and I enjoyed our first date on December 11, 1967 at the Hale's. It was, naturally, Christmas Carol. I had the privilege of being in their first production here in Utah, at the Hale Center Theatre, on 400 North in Orem. I've known the family for nigh onto twenty years. The star of the Single's Ward, Cody Hale (and a grandson to Ruth) played my son in a Hale play I performed in the mid-80's. I've shared the stage with both Hales on numerous occasions. When the idea started forming in my head that maybe, just maybe, the world was ready for an all-LDS all-the-time theatre (as J. Scott likes to call it), I was greatly heartened by the fact that Hales had already done a version of it. They are true pioneers in the field of LDS theatre. Nathan and Ruth will be greatly missed but, as with all great pioneers, their legacy will live on after them. ---- Thom Duncan Nauvoo Theatrical Society in residence at the Center Street Theatre "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "clark" Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 21 Apr 2003 13:24:07 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | I'm talking about those Mormons who think reverencing sex=20 | _is_ pretending it doesn't exist. This pretending can take=20 | more than one form. It's not only an insistence that we=20 | never mention sex. It's also the notion that we can=20 | acknowledge the existence of sex, but we never follow the=20 | couple into the bedroom--we must close the door and stay=20 | outside. ___ I guess my point was disputing this. That's why I brought up the = classic noir films. In effect they were very sexual but they did ascribe to the = "we must close the door and stay outside." Yet, as _The Maltese Falcon_ = shows, that doesn't equate to pretending sex doesn't exist. ___ Michael ___ | I'll follow my characters everywhere they go and witness=20 | everything they do. It's what fiction is for. | [...] | I'm recommending telling the story as effectively as possible.=20 | You should include as much information about the sex as you=20 | need, and no more. ___ That's fine. I think you are in the minority on that - unless the = details of personal hygiene really do interest you that much. =20 The fact is that some stories are more appropriate than others. You = might be interested in the story of a person's intestinal track but I don't = think most are. Further that notion of "appropriateness" is key. You suggest that you *don't* think anything goes and instead tie "what goes" to some authenticity relative to a "story." But that merely avoids the question = by pushing it down a level. What makes a story appropriate or = inappropriate? Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling stories = that are inappropriate? Without an other descent to the pornography realm, consider a book that give the *real* *full* look into a killer's mind. Would you *really* be interested in a story that focused in on say = Sadaam's sons and their rape and torture in all its glorious Technicolor? =20 Perhaps you would. And that's fine to me if you are. But surely you'd recognize and understand why most aren't and why they feel it = inappropriate. The key difference is whether this "harmony to the story" is really a sufficient ground so as to justify some writing. =20 Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] Ruth Hales Dies Date: 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0600 Begin forwarded message: > THEATER LEGEND, RUTH HALE, DEAD AT 94 > See http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/5679187.htm > href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/ > 5679187.htm">Link > > Ruth Hudson Hale, co-founder of the Hale Centre Theatre, died Sunday > at the > age of 94. She and her husband, Nathan Hale, who died in 1994, founded > four > theaters, beginning with the Glendale Centre Theatre in California in > 1947. > They enjoyed acting in community theater and in films for The Church of > Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They wrote more than 80 plays. At > the > opening of one of her theaters, Ruth Hale said: "I wouldn't care if I > died > onstage. The cast might have a problem, but they could ad-lib around > it." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] JONES, _Messengers of Truth_ Date: 21 Apr 2003 20:15:06 -0700 I think this is the same film shown at Sunstone in Pasadena last year or so. I watched most of it -- way too long, way too repetitive. And yes, off color at some points. Very amateur job, if this is the same film. The man who made the film introduced it in person, and admitted it wasn't a polished work. And, sadly, it wasn't a gentle spoof. Folks ought to be able to laugh at themselves; this film was just a mockery. I left before it was over. Later, at dinner, I spoke with Mike Quinn, who was also at the viewing. He agreed with this assessment. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 21 Apr 2003 20:46:55 -0600 At 04:35 PM 4/21/03 -0700, you wrote: >Here is an article from "The New York Times" to keep in mind when thinking >about the possibility of constructing a "conservative literary theory." >(Or indeed, the utility of any literary theory.) A gentleman on another mailing list I'm on mentioned a book by someone named Vickers, called _Appropriating Shakespeare_. The book is purported to demolish the ludicrous isms that plague the field of literary criticism these days. Anyone have any experience with that book? Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 21 Apr 2003 21:26:27 -0600 At 10:50 AM 4/19/03 -0600, you wrote: >The problem is that for too many "artists," the grass is always >browner on the other side of the fence. I love this twist on an old cliche! LOL! Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Hip-Hop Date: 21 Apr 2003 20:42:43 -0700 I liked Mary Jane Jones' article on hip-hop, and I have to throw in my agreement. I don't remember who it is on this list who is frequently saying that 90% of everything is crap in any genre, but he is probably right. The flip side being that in the 10% of anything that isn't crap, some of it might even be very good, within the confines of its medium of expression. Few things are more personal than musical tastes. But like many earthly experiences, taste for some things has to be cultivated. Music has always had a powerful effect on me, so much so, that I have used music for years as an integral aspect of both my acting and my writing, constantly seeking out sounds that will create a desired feeling in me to reach a certain performance or create a thematic mood within which to create. In that journey, I have often forced myself to take second, third and fourth looks at musical forms that were initially alienating. No two forms of musical expression have been more initially alienating to my pleasure than Country/Western and Rap/Hip-Hop. That's ironic, considering that half of my lineage, the American half, are all pure-blood Texans. My father didn't know there was any other KIND of music besides Country until he was 12. And when it comes to Hip-Hop, through some strange twist of fate, friends of friends, I wound up being closely associated with several people in the LA Rap world, developing movie scripts for them (most of these guys what to get on the screen so bad they'll sell body parts to do it). And so I found myself immersed inside worlds I would not have otherwise sought out. And the experienced produced appreciation, in both cases. Reserved appreciation; qualified appreciation; intermittent appreciation: sure. But I found, as MJJ espouses, some works of art in the mix -- or at least, expressions that moved me. And isn't that one definition of art (framed or not!)? To double the irony, I actually ended up writing a number of rap songs in connection to several (as yet unproduced) projects. And I had a lot of fun doing it. I felt a freedom in the form of poetry the genre demands that I hadn't found in any other outlet. And, quite frankly, to pat myself on the back: I like my rap songs! The buyers didn't bite, and I thought that excursion of my life was over... But them, last year some time, instead of having each ward produce a Roadshow, the stake decided that they were going to have everyone do a video. We had to help the kids write, produce, shoot and edit a 90-second spot (a la "Mormonads") on a certain theme. Well, since I had just recently been involved with the world of rap, and since the idea of doing a "video" screamed to me "music video" (yes, I was a teenager on the very first night MTV broadcast its nonsense into the world, and yes, I did stay up all night to watch it). So I proposed to the kids that we produce our own rap music video. Of course, they loved the idea. They were kids, after all. So I helped them write a rap song along the theme of choice, agency and consequences of our actions. We came up with 90-seconds of blistering rap. A local musician and recording artist helped us lay the tracks. Once the song was on CD, one of the gals choreographed the dancing, everybody gathered costumes and we shot miles of footage. Then we hunkered down into the editing bay and after about 12 hours, came up with a 90-second MMTV spot (Mormon Music Television!) that we could call our own. We were very worried about how the song would be received by the local authorities. Rap not being considered a standard medium in most LDS youth activities! Our real worry was about our lyrics. I mean, one of our verses included such dicey subject matter as: Hey, babe, you know that I'm free! I'm the master of me! But when my choice involves you -- one and one make three! Yes it feels good! You knew that it would! But one thing you didn't ask was is it right that you should! Amazingly, our bishop approved it (he actually appeared in the video), and then our stake leaders passed off on it, so we did it. The whole project was a romp. Kids who where never involved in activities participated and had a good time, and in the end the clip won an award for Best Music of the whole festival. My pleasure was that the local leadership were open-minded enough to let us try something out that the kids could relate to, and when it was done, the adults had a good time, too. And so we fused rap music video and traditional Mormon roadshow to come up with a whole new form. C.T.R. Baby! Jongiorgi ("Ice") Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 21 Apr 2003 20:49:19 -0700 Richard Dutcher says, "I wish I could take the entire AML group to New York and share the CHICAGO experience. I'd like to see if anyone else gets the jolt I got. Do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to foot the bill?" My question is: do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to finance R.D.'s next three films? Jon (out of work actor) Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 21 Apr 2003 23:49:57 -0400 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >What good does it do me to >write some of the most profound, inspiring, soul-magnifying prose >imagined by mortal man if it's too hard for people to read? Why >shouldn't Gene Wolfe or anyone else write in a style that maximizes the >audience who can appreciate him, if there's so much of value in what he >writes? > >Why is clarity not considered one of the most essential virtues for a >writer? > >To me, the message is the important thing. The medium is there only to >convey the message. If the medium gets in the way, that's a bad thing. >(This is no doubt why I detest poetry. By definition, the medium IS the >art in poetry.) You answer your own question. Some writers--even of novels--see language (what you call the medium) as equal to any "message" that their writing might convey. Poetry (ie, short lines surrounded by lots of white space) is not the only mode of literary expression in which language matters, and not all novelists see their task as the conveying of a specific and easily interpretable message. Clarity isn't always considered one of the most essential virtues for a writer because literature didn't start with Hemingway. Some would even argue that placing more emphasis on the poetry of the writing, and less on the specific message, would maximize one's audience more effectively. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 21 Apr 2003 21:08:17 -0700 Jessie Christensen point out that: "Everybody's doing it" will always be a terrible excuse, but telling kids that drinking and sleeping around will ruin their future doesn't cut it anymore either." One of my favorite people in the world is a guy named Mel. This guy lived an intensely wild life before he joined the church. And like many men of an indomitable constitution, he got away with most of it, repented, and is a pretty happy temple-endowed guy now-a-days. One of the things he does from time to time is to present an amazing fireside for youth. He spends about an hour regaling the crowd with a plethora of mostly hilarious stories of experiences he had while stoned, drunk or worse. The effect of the laughter is dangerous and liberating to the crowd of kids. They've never been talked to like this before, at least not a church-going adult. Mel tells them up front, "Hey, I'm not going to tell you that drinking and sleeping around will ruin your future. I had a great time." The kids don't know how to take it. They are howling with laughter, but they know that they are being told "bad boy" stories and they keep looking around uncomfortably between the snickers. Then, of course, Mel drops a bomb on them, turns the tables and tells of the shattering experience he had when his autistic daughter drowned in the tub while he was supposed to be watching her. When he brings it all to a head with his return to the church, the clarity the gospel gave him, and his being sealed to his kid in the temple, etc., the emotional effect is thunderous. He sets up an honest comparison. There is this (the party life) and there is that (the spiritual life). The one can be good or bad, but will ultimately let you down. The other can be good or bad, but will ultimately bring you up. Choose for yourself, he says. Kids get it. They know he's not being condescending to them, and they listen. Its a powerful presentation, and I got as much out of it as an adult as my group of kids did. Now... to translate that kind of evening into an easily transmittable art form such as film or novel... Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] Mormon History Narratives from a Non-US Perspective Date: 22 Apr 2003 15:17:10 +1000 Folks, There have been some comments suggesting an undercurrent of interest in this topic - writings and stories from non-US Mormons - and with my usual alacrity (esprit de l'escalier, anyone?) I thought I'd throw a few musings into the pot. And then give it a little stir. OK then. You know, I'm a history buff, and when I think about the history of the Church in the 19th century, I'm struck by the sheer numbers of European (largely English) Saints making up the total membership of the Church. I don't have any of the sources right on me, but I know the membership was heavily tilted towards Britain for a certain number of years. Out of all the implications of this, I can't help wonder about the numbers of stories about the English Saints that still have not been told widely - or at least, which are not known by me. And I have to say, most of the stories of these people, when they _are_ told, are done so from a decidedly American perspective. Please don't misunderstand me. This is not a rip on Americans or US Mormons generally. It's just that the way stories (especially national narratives) are told differ _very_ significantly between the Anglo-Saxon nations. Speaking from an Australian perspective (which also brings some cultural proximity to English traditions), I am acutely aware of these differences. Particularly in comparison to Australian and English narratives, there many American narratives which bring out a unique whiff of... triumphalism? manifest destiny? an allegiance to underlying American myths and types? I'm searching for the right phrase or shade of meaning without wanting to demean or disparage. I particularly don't want to engage in debate with anyone who feels I am attacking the United States. I'm not. I'm just trying to talk about differences, not better or worse. Let me get to the point: I want to read and watch Mormon history told from an English perspective (yes, Australian too, but I'll come to that). I want to see Ken Loach, or his Mormon equivalent, do an historical drama about the working class and middle class converts in 19th century Britain. I want to see this done from an _English_ perspective. Everyone knows how well the English do period drama - and that's everything from the tasteful Jane Austen pieces to the sordid, harrowing recreations of life in the coal mines or dark satanic mills of the industrial revolution. I want to see that. Whether sentimental or not (there's plenty of room for both), I want to see how it was for the converts themselves. Because what happened to them is a window into a major, major part of English history. I mean, a handful of these Mormon "apostles" and wild-eyed preachers came over to Lancashire and other parts and converted whole parishes, had thousands of people under their spell, hoodwinked them into buying a patch of blue sky in the unknown American West and abandoning everything they had to do so? What a story! There's class warfare, religious fanatics, sex, the scent of revolution... what's not to like? I'm tantalised by the snippets from Dickens, Ruskin, Disraeli and all the other commentators on the English scene who observed this phenomenon and had their say. This was Dickens' "pick and flour of England". Yet most failed to comprehend what was really taking place. And with all the best will in the world, I don't think American story-tellers can quite do the tale justice, either. Americans, born into American soil, nourished with American heroism and history, have never quite been able to tell the stories of the English the way the English themselves can. I could go on a lot longer, pulling out ideas that promise to unravel marvellously... but I'd love to hear what others think. Oh yes. A side note. When I talk about America, and American myths, I'm talking about this from a personal perspective as well, as an outsider. I've only been to the States once in my life, stayed for a month, 3 weeks in Utah and one in LA. Out of all that I saw and felt, I came away with one very powerful impression, which I partly communicated to my hosts at the time. How I felt was like a citizen of the Roman Empire from a far-flung province of that sprawling imperium, seeing Rome for the very first time. Everywhere I went, it was in the air. Empire. Power. This, kiddo, is the centre of it all. It was in the water, the soil, in the faces of ordinary people, in the sound of their voices. In all my years of consuming and being nearly submerged in American popular culture, I had never before felt anything like it, and never would have, unless I had come myself. So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you folks drink in a pretty intoxicating brew on a regular basis. And another side note. I can't let myself pontificate on Americans without allowing myself a little navel-gazing as well. I really want to tell Australian stories, especially about the early days of the Church, although for now I'm mostly wanting detail or substance to make a real go at it. I made an effort to bolster (or gauge) interest in Australian Mormon history when I produced the ward newsletter a while back and wrote a series of little articles covering the Church in Australia between 1840 and 1900. From the comments I got, precisely noone in the ward even read them. So that didn't bode especially well. More generally, though, I've often tried to explain what I see as the essential differences between the US and Australia. A few Americans I've spoken to assume that we're a lot like them because, well, we're both vast countries with big sweeping plains settled by English-speaking pioneers (who both did fairly brutal things to the local inhabitants, too). But that's where the similarities end. I like to generalise (vice that it is) and enjoy making the point that, America was settled by Puritans while Australia was settled by people getting _away_ from Puritans. Hence the widespread irreligiosity of Australians and irreverence towards authority. Well, that's the generalisation, for all it's worth. But there is in the Australian character a love for a certain kind of myth which differs greatly from the American versions: the comedian and satirist Barry Humphries (better known as Dame Edna Everidge) once made the little barb that the only true rhyme for "Australia" is "failure". And it is quite true that a love of stories about failure is a part of the national psyche. We eat up tales about explorers who never made it, who died, who went mad. Settlers who were conquered by the bush, not the other way around. Battles lost, hopes dashed. Tall men brought low. I had one telling experience when I stayed in Utah, with a bishop's family who had a number of kids in their teens and early twenties. We talked about the Peter Weir film _Gallipoli_, which is an amazing film - certainly a landmark in Australian film-making. The two older daughters of the family had seen it and really liked it. Or really liked Mel Gibson in it. Anyway. The one thing they just hated was the ending - after spending the whole film getting to know these lovable Australian lads who get thrown into World War I, the final scene throws it all away by having them mowed down by Turkish machine gun fire. As an Australian, the ending made perfect sense; not just because the Gallipoli story is still the most potent national myth, but because it is consonant with all the others. But to an American, you just don't do that. The hero has to be triumphant. That's the only way it can go, right? Anyway, I'd love to hear what others think. And to the Mormon Ken Loach (or whoever else you are), get to work! Jason Covell A/Ministerial Liaison Officer Sydney Catchment Authority Ph: 4725 2174 E-mail: jason.covell@sca.nsw.gov.au ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? Date: 21 Apr 2003 22:27:46 -0700 > Does anybody know of a good, critical review of "The Mormon > Murders..." by Naifeh? I mean one that examines factual > problems, etc? It's being recommended to some friends of > mine for its accurate portrayal of mormonism. OK. I was very interested in the whole Hofmann case, happening as it did so soon after I joined the church. So over the next few years, I bought all four books* that covered the case: _Salamander,. Linda Sillitoe _Victims_, Richard E. Turley _A Gathering Of Saints_, Robert Lindsey _The Mormon Murders_, Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith First, a confession. The first two books are certainly the most sympathetic to the Church. But I never finished them. They were terribly dry and fairly boring to read. _Victims_ is a great, detailed chronicle of what happened when; footnotes (or was it endnotes?) out the wazoo. _Salamander_ is less footnotey, but I recall it as being almost equally dry. I should really give each of them another shot, as they are the only ones written by Church members (Sillitoe is/was a reporter for Deseret News, and Turley is/was Managing Director for the Church's Family History Department or some such). _A Gathering Of Saints_ was my favourite of the four. Reasonably well-written, well-paced, and a very good (IMHO) attempt at being objective and fair to all parties concerned. The three GA principals in the story --President Hinckley, Elder Oaks, and the late Elder Hugh Pinnock -- come off as basically-honest people who were, at worst, too naive to see through Hofmann's evil. There are a few times where what appeared to me to be cautious media handling on the part of Hinckley and Oaks was interpreted in the book more as cautious dissembling, but you can't really blame the non-member author for crossing that line just a tad. Notwithstanding, this book would be my first recommendation to anyone wanting to read about the story. However, _The Mormon Murders_ was entirely a different kettle of fish. While also written by non-members, it's obvious that the authors have absolutely no sympathy for the Church whatsoever. The GA's are made to look as stupid and idiotic as possible, in a way that clangs harshly with what most of us members think of them.** The entire tone of the book was sneering, cynical, and negative. While it may be purported as 'objective', there's no way I can agree given the obvious bias of the authors (which may be genuine, or which may have merely been 'fabricated' to provide more controversy and better sales). It would be last on my list. Anyhow, I close with two things. (1) Your friends wouldn't be the same kind of 'friends' that pass on pamphlets from "Ex-Mormons for Jesus," going on about horses in the Book of Mormon and the like, would they? And (2), please read *at*least* one of the others before reading _The Mormon Murders_. If any of y'all are interested in full-tilt-bozo reviews of the four, let me know and then give me a month to re-read them (and, in the case of _Salamander_ and _Victims_, to actually finish the darn things). ObFootnotes: * I think these are the only four. No, wait, a bit of googling finds Simon Worrall's _The Poet and the Murderer_, written recently after another Hofmann forgery was discovered a few years ago (an Emily Dickinson poem). But that came out in 1998 or so, whereas all these others were out by 1990 or so, while interest in the case was still at least lukewarm. ** I must confess, though, after reading these books, I would *never* have allowed Elder Pinnock near my money. His actions as a director of First Interstate Bank in approving a loan for Hofmann were at best, terribly misguided. I've seen him at a stake conference, and I had a solid testimony of him as a leader of Christ's church. But I didn't have the same testimony of him as a banker. (Sorta like Joseph Smith, I guess...or like how I have a solid testimony that President Benson was a prophet of God, but I wouldn't touch his politics with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole.) Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Hockey fathers are frequently depraved, or worse. - Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, 2002-01-11 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 2003/04/10 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 22 Apr 2003 00:20:32 -0600 On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:26:24 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Now this is something I truly don't get. In the past, some people on >this list have seemed to argue in favor of prose that's difficult to get >into. It was in conjunction with the thread about beginnings. > >Gene Wolf looks like a different manifestation of that discussion. My >question is, why on earth make your writing hard to read? > >Is it necessary for Gene Wolf to write dense detail, confusing plots, >vocabulary no one's ever heard of, digress into philosophy, or have a >generally tedious writing style, for his stories to offer the good >things that Jonathan listed? Please, someone, explain it to me! I don't know that I have any universal answers on this topic. In fact, I don't think there's any kind of absolute when it comes to what kind of literature people ought to read, or that there's some kind of reading hierarchy that one ascends through life. What I *do* believe is that all the different varieties of literature, = all the many styles and genres (sorry, Kathleen, *marketing categories*) of books, exist because no two readers gain knowledge in exactly the same = ways. And we ought to take joy in that fact! Gene Wolfe's complexity is just = one of the many ways that literature can be beautiful. So is simple = literature. One of the books I'm anxiously awaiting right now is the eighth Sammy = Keyes mystery--a juvenile mystery series that is told beautifully in a twelve-year-old girl's voice. It's beyond easy to read, and I feel so refreshed when I'm done with one. And I don't feel as though this makes = me less of an intellectual just because it's "easy." (The last person who tried that line of reasoning on me...let's just say they're still looking for his left shoe. In Duluth.) Gene Wolfe is a different matter. There, it feels like my brain is being put through a meat grinder. In a good way. I like the complexity of his language because in a sense it extends the plot outside the book. I'm = not an observer, I'm a participant, and I love the feeling. Yes, it's obtuse and complicated and sometimes very frustrating, but frustrating like building a puzzle; if I can't find the piece I'm looking for, I have absolute faith that Wolfe did put it into the box somewhere. The point of all of this is that just because Wolfe does this and creates good writing, it doesn't mean that his is the ONLY kind of good writing. It's just different. And it's written for a different audience. Calling= it "self-indulgent" only makes it sound like you want to throw up a = different barrier: the one that legitimizes only the kind of fiction *you* like. = Read (and write) what makes you happy; stick to the kinds of books that you admire most. Just keep in mind that others' tastes must needs be met as well, and their preferences for something else aren't a denigration of yours. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 21 Apr 2003 23:26:20 -0700 [sni] > > I am growing tired of timid art. On the one hand, Richard, bravo! Too much art in the world -- and *far* too much art produced by Latter-day Saints, IMHO -- is far too timid. Especially with Mormons*, it's "Will this offend anyone?" or "Does this go too far?" or "Will Deseret Book carry it?" Much Mormon art has passion, but the talent is wobbly. And many talented Mormons choose the easy road, rather than challenging themselves and their audience. I'm glad to see that you're not falling into either of those ruts. BUT... > First of all, let's put aside the "morality" of the show. I could easily > argue that it is one of the most immoral works of theatrical art. I could > just as easily turn around and argue that it is one of the most moral. But it > is an argument that doesn't interest me. But Richard, consider: If there were an incredibly well-made porno movie out there that demonstrated an amazing amount of talent and passion, would you watch it? Would you applaud its making? If you haven't, I encourage you to get a volume of essays by George Orwell and read 'Benefit of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali'. I think it's mandatory reading material for anyone who wants to produce art that isn't just cotton candy. I have no idea what Chicago's moral stance is (other than that many Hollywood types were cheesed that it was filmed in my birthplace, Toronto ON [pronounced 'Tronna' if you don't work for the CBC]), but is talent and passion enough for me to watch it? I used to think so. As a youth, I watched films and tried to appreciate them critically, not just equating Good with Funny as so many of my 'less-sophisticated' peers would. Once I joined the church, I tried to keep that up, despite warnings and finger-wagging from other Mormons. But now I'm (more of) an adult, and I realise that I *can* be susceptible to what is portrayed in this or that piece of art. I have some weak spots w.r.t. certain forms of temptation that mean I can't watch many network dramas (or comedies, for that matter) any more without one of my 'triggers' being set off. I find that my spiritual well-being is precarious enough that I must avoid certain works of art, even if they're well-crafted with all the talent and passion their creators could muster. I suspect you're in the position where you know you've got a solid testimony, you have no intentions of producing work that would 'lead people astray', and that therefore focussing on increasing your talent and passion is what is critical to your artistic development right now. And that's A Good Thing. But please don't put aside the issue of a work's morality.** From a strictly artistic perspective, yes, it can be (perhaps should be) safely ignored. But we're not just artistic beings; we're divine beings in embryo. And the morality of a work is critical to our development. And as Mormons, whether artists or merely 'consumers' of art, I think we ignore the issue of a work's morality at our peril. > > I wish I could take the entire AML group to New York and share the CHICAGO=20 > experience. I'd like to see if anyone else gets the jolt I got.=20 > > Do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to foot the bill?=20 > In my dreams.... Robert ObFootnotes: * Not to be confused with 'Especially for Mormons,' which I believe deserves an eye-level placing on the Bookshelf Of Hell. Between the insipid sayings, the useless tear-jerking stories, and the out-and-out false doctrine contained therein (ask me my opinion of 'The Bridge' sometime, or that story about the kid trying so hard to do a job on an old lady's lawn that's worth the maximum $5 she's offered him), I'd rather suffer bastinado followed by a 30-mile forced march than to have to read that, that, ... THING again. And woe betide anyone who delivers a sacrament meeting talk using that as their text in my presence.... ** Not to say that a work shouldn't display any immoral behaviour at all, a common mistake made by many of the Mormon sheeple. I refer you to Orson Scott Card's "The Problem of Evil in Fiction" (in _A Storyteller in Zion_) for more details. -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too And now for something completely different. A man with three buttocks. - Monty Python's Flying Circus --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 2003/04/10 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 22 Apr 2003 12:18:46 -0600 ___ R. W. ___ | Here is an article from "The New York Times" to keep in mind | when Thinking about the possibility of constructing a | "conservative literary theory." (Or indeed, the utility of any | literary theory.) ___ I'd be careful with that last comment. I think it denies utility in a certain sense - the idea that somehow literary criticism will open up a vista of the "true." The idea that literary criticism allows one to see something within literature that is transformative. The idea that we have within literature some structure that can be unpacked, the way a psycho-analyst thinks they can unlock and transform the human psyche. Recognizing this as a lost cause does *not* suggest there is not utility in literary criticism. However it does transform the value of literary criticism to be on the same basis as the literature they critique. Put an other way, literary criticism is an other form of literature. (And a form of literature I personally enjoy reading) To say that literary criticism has no "utility" is as big a mistake as saying a work of Shakespeare has no "utility." Perhaps the utility isn't quite the same as engineering. And as such all the "intellectuals" hoping to use literature as a form of social engineering are finding their hopes doomed. Being rather scared of social engineers though I don't see this as a bad thing. An other way to look at all this is the distinction between religion and doctrine. Traditional literary criticism was the attempt to find doctrines in literature. Yet, as I think most realize, focusing purely on doctrine misses out on a lot of what we consider religious. (It really can't deal with the notion of "faith" in a coherent way, for instance, beyond acknowledging that there is such a thing) In Pauline terms it is the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 20 Apr 2003 07:22:57 -0600 clark wrote: > I think you are in the minority on that - unless the details > of personal hygiene really do interest you that much. > > The fact is that some stories are more appropriate than others. You > might be interested in the story of a person's intestinal track but > I don't think most are. If personal hygiene or a journey through an intestinal tract is relevant to the story, then yes, I'd go there. So far, I haven't thoght up a story where it's relevant. > Further that notion of "appropriateness" is key. You suggest > that you *don't* think anything goes and instead tie "what goes" > to some authenticity relative to a "story." Not authenticity, but relevance. If it's relevant, then I want it presented with authenticity, but authenticity isn't the primary motive for including it. > But that merely avoids the question by pushing it down a level. > What makes a story appropriate or inappropriate? When I'm writing it, my personal judgment, no more, no less. > Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling stories > that are inappropriate? There are well written, compelling stories where the author makes different decisions than I do on the relevance of certain details. I disagree wih them, and I[m sure they disagree on my assessment. So what are we going to do? I explain my reasons for believing as I do, he explains his reasons for believing as he does, maybe one of us is influenced to change our judment, maybe not. What I don't do is expect everyone to agree with my judgment as if it came directly from God. > consider a book that give the *real* *full* look into a killer's mind. > Would you *really* be interested in a story that focused in on say > Sadaam's sons and their rape and torture in all its glorious Technicolor? "Glorious Technicolor" sounds to me like a lot of gratuitious, unnecessary detail. So you should be able to answer the question of my interest in that story yourself. > Perhaps you would. And that's fine to me if you are. But surely you'd > recognize and understand why most aren't and why they feel it > inappropriate. Can't respond to this because you "perhaps'd" the wrong answer. > The key difference is whether this "harmony to the story" is really a > sufficient ground so as to justify some writing. Clark, you appear to me to be doing the same thing that so many people do when I express my thought in this subject. I object to the extremes that many Mormons go to in defining "appropriate" in art, and you assume I mean the other extreme. Terms like "glorious technicolor" or examples like intestinal tracts tell me that you are attributing the other extreme to me. What do I have to say to discourage this interpretation? (Heavy sigh) I suppose, though, that for someone who thinks ever going behind a closed door _is_ inappropriate, I do seem to be at an extreme. A foothill can look pretty tall when you stand next to it at the bottom of the valley and it's hiding the towering peak behind it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] The New List Date: 20 Apr 2003 07:28:02 -0600 The new unruly Mormon arts list has had eight people express interest (including me), one away from the nine I established as the catalyst membership. Anyone else want to cast the infamous vote that will bring this list into existence? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 22 Apr 2003 19:30:58 GMT Sharlee asked if anyone reads Irreantum. I read every word of every issue--I stretch it out and savor the experience. Right now I save the latest issue to read while I'm nursing this baby of mine. It's my reward for the agony of these first few weeks. Oh, by the way, I had a baby last week. Unexpectedly. In Salt Lake (NOT my hometown of Pocatello). After just fifteen minutes in the hospital. We are all well. This makes my fourth son. Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Is it just exhaustion, or is it true that our creative juices are flowing elsewhere (ewww, not such an appetizing metaphor) when we are producing babies? I can't bring myself to even want to write, and I'm worried the desire won't ever come back! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] TWAIN & NELSON, _Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer_ (Daily Heral Date: 22 Apr 2003 14:25:01 -0600 Seems strange that a nat'l publisher wouldn't have wanted to pick this up, if it really is so closely connected to a real Twain ms. Or why not the UC Press itself? Is CFI really the biggest player they could find to do this? There must be a story here; maybe no one else liked the way it turned out? Anyone know anything more? Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 22 Apr 2003 15:07:37 -0600 Richard Dutcher writes: Here's what I was most impressed with: artists pushing themselves to the breaking point. Last week we saw a performance on the U of U campus, Urban Tap by Tamango and his group. It was dance and music, almost all improv. It was the same kind of experience that Richard describes here. Of course this doesn't always mean sweat and sore muscles, but artistically and spiritually I felt Tamango and his group found the essence and core of their expression and gave 100% in the moment. It was astonishing. I feel that that sort of performance changes the world; the world can never be the same when an artist gives that way. Once in a while I may draw a line or move, dancing, that way. Once in a while I may write that way. Most of the time I am very aware that I don't. It has to do with taking risks, being true in the moment, and also with honesty, and most of the time, I see the dishonesty in my artistic effort. I often feel it's a curse with us LDS. To be truly honest and to give 100% can be very scary; I think most of us temper our deepest responses so we'll come across more palatable and benign and non-threatening and cleancut. Ah well, once in a while we get a performance that helps us see/feel past these limits and it's there in our database, at least. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Hip-Hop Date: 22 Apr 2003 17:32:49 -0600 I almost replied to this thread the other day, but thought I might get myself into trouble. Oh well, what'snew? [sic] Mary Jane Jones (Ungrangsee) wrote: (At the risk of opening myself to attack) I would challenge anyone seriously interested in music to listen to Lauryn Hill's "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" and not find that album a powerful artistic experience. Erykah Badu, Jill Scott, the Beastie Boys, even more hard-core artists like Naz, Ice-T, Notorious B.I.G. and even Eminem can bring work with outstanding artistic merit to the table. I had much the same thoughts, about putting myself in harms way, as you Marry Jane. Rejection by peers hurts, doesn't it? I have never cared much for Rap (rip-rap I call it.). But then Eminem got nominated and won at the academy, so I thought what the heck, even with that questionable recognition, maybe I should give the genre a closer look. So the other night, at the risk of the video police busting me, I rented "8 Mile." Even though the plot was not right on, nor did it come to any discernable point, I found myself coming away with a greater respect for the art form, and the artists who write and perform this style of "music?" Just considering the adversity and jeopardy these artists have to overcome in order to rise above the isolation of the "Free World" is enough to elicit awe, from my point of view. Talk about Artist's personal lives; anyone who can take the ghetto experience and put it into a form of writing that expresses the urban folk-lore, violence and hopelessness of the life style, and do it in such a way as to make it a mega-marketable success and become famous for it, deserves the acclaim of other artists who don't have a clue, about what this type of lifestyle is all about. "8 Mile" wasn't the greatest movie, and the story line was a bit exaggerated, but the experience of watching it definitely opened my eyes a bit wider. Hmmm? Maybe I should write a story about what a shot in the arm the "Singles Ward' would get if a convert from the "Free World" should join their ranks. It will happen you know. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clifford Dubery" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 23 Apr 2003 13:59:49 +1000 Of course that title and the interpretation is a nonsense. We all apply a theory or many theories in our study of literature, all academics do is publish theirs and teach it to anyone that will listen. To say there is no verifiable theory of literature misses the point. Or are Literary Academics lazy? Clifford M Dubery Do you write articles? Click Below To Learn How You Can MASSIVELY BOOST Your Exposure for FREE! http://www.writers-viral-syndicator.com/Default.aspx?ID=1054 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. Date: 19 Apr 2003 22:43:42 -0600 Kim Madsen wrote: > People who are suffused with great joy usually have great peace of mind. > Peace to me means an absence of conflict. No conflict, no story. > > Peaceful folk generally don't have a need to express, explore, question. > Instead, they putter in their gardens, revel in their grandchildren, and > let sleeping dogs lie. However, anyone I've ever known who has reached > that Nirvana hiked through a lot of doo-doo to get there. Great > happiness, great joy can only be quantified as "great" in opposition to > something else. If you don't know the sorrow, how can you know the joy? > Which explains why the stories which move me most show the movement of > someone from sorrow to joy: Les Miseables; What Looks Like Crazy on an > Ordinary Day; Cry, the Beloved Country; these and others like them are > the stories that caught a piece of the human condition, held it to the > light and expanded my understanding of humanity. The themes? Bigotry, > adultery, murder, war, child abuse, racism. Love, forgiveness, > acceptance, loyalty, honor. The words only mean something in comparison. This opens up some intriguing thoughts for me. Look out, I feel a new categorization springing into existence: Spiritually, there are three types of people. Actually, there's a fourth type, those who have permanently lost their way spiritually, but for the moment I'm going to ingore them. The first category is the innocent. Perhaps we can call them Edenites, those who haven't ventured out of the safe cocoon of unquestioned acceptance of their faith. The second category are the seekers. We can label them Apple Biters. They've been tossed into the lone and dreary world where innocence no longer serves them. They've experienced too much to be innocent again. They have the knowledge of good and evil, usually forced upon them by life. The third category are the arrivers. Let's label them Paridisians (as opposed to Parisians, who only _think_ they've arrived). They have fought Paul's good fight and won. They have learned to live in the world but not of it with complete peace. For illustration, I'll bandy about a stereotype or two. Edenites are the ones who grow up in some small Utah town with a population 99.9% Mormon and have never thought an unorthodox thought. Apple Biters are those who live in Salt Lake City, or even worse, some major metropolitan area outside the Rocky Mountain corridor, and can't accept the innocent paradigm of life because the School of Hard Knocks has taught them otherwise. Paridisians are General Authorities, those who have been through life and found their peace, and don't want to go back. The interesting thing is, categories one and three seem to be satisfied by the same sort of art, that which is affirming rather than exploratory. Edenites don't want to explore because they're afraid their fragile innocent worldview will be shattered by what they discover (it will be). Paridisians don't want to explore because they already have ("been there, done that") and they've discovered what they need to discover to find peace. Puttering in the garden is all the exploration they need. Apple Biters need a different kind of art. They are exploring, trying to figure things out, trying to learn what it means to be hopeful in the midst of horror. They have lost their innocence and are trying to figure out how to regain it. Jesus taught that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. The operative word here is "become." What I find interesting is that to achieve the state of innocence that exalts us, we must first lose our innocence. The whole theme of the Garden of Eden story seems to be saying this. What two people were not already like little children if not Adam and Eve in Eden--the ultimate Edenites? Yet that was exactly the sort of existence God didn't want them to remain in. God in the form of Jesus taught us to become as little children, yet God wanted to oust the first two little children from paradise into a lone and dreary world that would rob them of their innocence. God seems to want us to lose our innocence, grow up, then choose innocence again. (Note the three-part structure of that formula.) Edenite innocence is not innocence by choice. It is not an informed innocence. The glory of God is intelligence, not innocent ignorance. It appears we cannot achieve exaltation using the innocence of Eden. We must crawl through the fire and experience all sorts of horrors that make us feel like we have every right to feel bitter, then deliberately, knowingly choose to become innocent as little children again in spite of it all. Only then can we be exalted. We don't even need to sin to accomplish this. No one experienced the horrors of life to the degree Jesus did. Yet he chose innocence, even in the midst of the horror. His, as all of ours need to be, was a deliberate, thoughtful choice, made by an aware agent fully capable of choosing for himself. It seems to me that the whole purpose of this life is to make us all Apple Biters and see where we will go. So much so that it's become a truism that great art is that which appeals to Apple Biters. Maybe Richard Paul Evans and Jack Weyland are great authors after all. They're great authors for Edenites and Paridisians. It's only in the eyes of Apple Biters that they seem lacking. But since most of us are Apple Biters and most of this life was intended to be experienced as an Apple Biter, it's tragic that LDS art seems only to cater to groups one and three. There's nothing wrong with being an Edenite. Everyone is at that level at some point. There's nothing wrong with being a Paridisian. On the contrary, isn't that our goal in life? But there is also nothing wrong with being an Apple Biter either. Apple Biting is the high adventure we were sent into mortal life to experience. There are, however, things wrong with each category if that old bugaboo, judgmentalism, rears its ugly head. There _is_ something wrong with remaining an Edenite indefinitely--otherwise Adam and Eve should still be frolicking away in the Garden. Edenites who remain there and criticize others for Biting Apples because it's too dangerous to explore--well, aren't they making the same choice one third of the hosts of heaven made? And look where it got them. There _is_ something wrong with Paridisians forgetting what it was like being an Apple Biter, and assuming what appeals to them ought to appeal to everyone or their moral character is in question. There _is_ something wrong with Paridisians thinking that what inspires themselves will inspire nonmember Apple Biters into exploring the Gospel, and creating works of art according to that belief (more on that in my article in the upcoming Irreantum). There _is_ something wrong with Apple Biters thinking it's their responsibility to decide when Edenites should Bite the Apple. Father waited for Adam and Eve to choose for themselves; so too ought Apple Biters to leave Edenites alone and let them enjoy their innocence until life tosses them out of the garden, which it certainly will at some point. (Elizabeth Smart must surely no longer be an Edenite.) We can place a tree of knowledge of good and evil before them to entice them, but after that it's up to them, not us, to grab for the apple. Meanwhile, let them eat of the fruit of the Garden. And there _is_ something wrong with Apple Biters complaining that Paridisians don't get it, like teenagers complaining that their parents don't get it. Those who explore learn things--that's the point of exploring--and once learned, they want to go learn other things, and not rehash what they've already done. "Been there, done that" is a real phenomenon. Nobody wants to chew the same food twice. What my three-part categorization teaches us is that no one is superior to another. All stages are necessary stages of development along the road to exaltation. And each stage requires a certain kind of art for nourishment. Let the Edenites have their feel-good faith affirming stories, their simple plots with black-and-white issues. Let the Paridisians have their peacefully uplifting, warm fuzzy, tear-to-the-eye art. They've fought the good fight and deserve a little peace. But let the Apple Biters, slugging it out in the trenches, also have their edgy art, the stuff that questions and explores, that teaches without having to personally experience the horrors. Let the ones who have lost their way and struggled to come back have the art that speaks to their circumstances and experiences, that helps them to make sense of what they've been through and find peace. Or that may even help them find their way back at all. Would you rob a struggling person of their road to peace simply because you don't need it? Some Mormons would. It appears that Deseret Book would. All three types of people are of value and worthy of respect. All three types of people are also guilty of pride, in believing they are better than the others. All three types of people need to adopt Christlike love toward the other two and follow that critical admonition of Jesus: "Judge not." -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Educated Terrorists? Date: 21 Apr 2003 23:55:03 -0700 On April 8 I posted the following letter to the Daily Herald from Cloyd Bird and asked how list members felt about being profiled as terrorists: >>>>> http://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=78032 Abduction part of class warfare The Daily Herald on Sunday, March 30 Example of class warfare When Emanuel, 49-year-old Brian David Mitchell, allegedly kidnapped at knifepoint a 14-year-old girl, hid her in the ground, and forced her to marry him, that was terrorism, plain and simple. Why did he do it? Who knows all the reasons, but it is certainly another classic example of class warfare, in my opinion. It was the self-proclaimed prophet to the poor and homeless kidnapping the daughter of the rich businessman. If you investigate the reasons behind the World Trade Center bombing, you will find an anti-American, anti-business element in both terrorists, Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Then, too, maybe that is why Saddam doesn't like the cowboy capitalist George W. Bush. Consider that Stalin murdered millions of businessmen farmers during the 1930s, and then ask why the French don't like us much, and maybe you'll find Rousseau's tirades against business at the root of the French Revolution. Similar arguments can be applied to the environmental movement. Maybe it is time our educators got out of their box and started looking for some common denominators. After all, education is one of our fastest rising costs, and also the profile of most terrorists. Cloyd Bird <<<<< On April 10 Eugene Woodbury replied: >>>>> As both Atta and bin Laden are/were the well-educated scions of (very upper in bin Laden's case) middle class families, and "poor and uneducated" are adjectives I've never seen used to describe any environmentalist, and Hussein was recently ranked as one of the world's wealthiest political leaders (over a billion dollars squirreled away from black market operations), I don't see any logical connection between them and Brian David Mitchell. There seems to be far more fuel for Freud here (children rebelling against the paternal rule of their families, and etc.) than Marx. Was the letter writer perhaps waxing ironic or satiric? <<<<< I suppose I can imagine someone with theatrical training, like both Eric Ss or Thom Duncan or Nan McCulloch or Marianne Hales Harding, reading this and making it a hilarious satire of people who hold the attitudes expressed. The tools would be their vocal inflections and body language. In print one of the equivalents to those tools would be exaggeration, but exaggeration can be difficult to spot. You'd think for example that if someone said, "Anyone who doesn't hold the same political or religious beliefs as I do ought to be hanged," is so outlandish an exaggeration that any reader would see it as satire. However, when Daniel DeFoe said that he had captured the feelings of a certain part of the English public so well that people who really did think dissenters (non-C of E protestants) should be hanged thought he was an ally. I was 3/4 through, as were others in Ed Hart's 18th century BritLit class, before I caught on that DeFoe wasn't serious. That's why Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is read in junior high English classes throughout the English-speaking world and "The Shortest Way With the Dissenters" isn't. It's fairly easy to demonstrate that Swift's purpose has nothing to do with a new kind of baby food. My teacher began by examing the facts and statistics Swift places at the beginning of the essay. It's harder to demonstrate DeFoe's satire. He's mimicking opinions he hears around him, while Swift is taking an opinion no one would dare voice and presenting it deadpan as if it were an utterly civilized proposal on the floor of Parliament. The opinions in Cloyd Bird's letter seem extreme to me, but I've heard some version of all of them. I've even heard it stated as fact that the deaths in the WTC are the fault of those nasty liberals who foisted OSHA on us, because if there had been asbestos on the girders they could have withstood the intense heat generated by jet fuel ignited by crashing airplanes. On Thu, 10 Apr Amelia Parkin also replied, trying to work through the letter's logic, which defines the kidnapping as "an act of terror against a businessman," and leaps to include it with the actions of Stalin, the French revolutionaries and environmentalists--defining all these as actions against business people. (BTW, I particularly like Bird's comment "maybe you'll find Rousseau's tirades against business at the root of the French Revolution." I was taught from grade school through high school that the writings of one Thos Jefferson and friends, particularly one that talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights for everyone but slaves, was at the root of the French Revolution. Of course Rousseau's ax may have been one striking at the root of the monarchy, but it wasn't the only ax.) > i'm not really certain of what the writer of the letter was really > getting at. did he actually intend to argue that somehow anyone > who is anti-business in any way is a terrorist of some sort? That seems to be a large part of his argument. I'm fairly certain the farmers Stalin killed would have defined themselves as farmers, not businessmen. They would likely have thought of business people as the merchants who bought their crops and sold them supplies, but it's important to Bird's rhetorical purpose to define them as business people. He seems to see business as the highest good and sees anyone who doesn't like business as a terrorist, but what fascinates me is his inclusion of educated people with the rest of the terrorists. Because, you see, if education is "the profile of most terrorists" it is also the profile of a great many of Stalin's victims, millions, including Leon Trotsky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and many many others. Indeed, to someone who is inclined to kill to protect their power it matters not if the person they kill more or less agrees with them as Trotsky did with Stalin (at least for a while). Education is much more dangerous than disagreement. To a despot of the right or left Eric Samuelsen and the Laird Jim are equally dangerous. This is easy to demonstrate. As Robert Slaven said in reply to my challenge to find the political content in the story about the traffic circle debate ("Politics and Literature," 4/8/03) "Well, aside from left-wing vs. right-wing kind of stuff, there's the obvious political undertone existing in the story that assumes that when a government makes a decision, the people have a right to intervene in support of or against the decision, and that their opinions are to be given equal weight in considering the decision. Painfully obvious to any modern American, of course, but it might throw off people in other countries or other times." I suspect almost everyone on AML-List shares the assumption Robert mentioned, that we have a right to be heard by those who govern us. That assumption makes us all dangerous to governments that don't believe government takes its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Which means that both liberalism and conservatism as practiced in the west, whatever those terms mean, are liberal movements. There are a great many highly educated people on this list--people with high school diplomas, Bachelors' or Masters' degrees or Doctorates. It's not a mistake or perversion of our language that the kind of education we received is called Liberal Education. It's called Liberal Education, because it is the kind of education befitting people who live in Liberty, people who are free, Liber. So it fascinates me that Bird should lump those who pose the greatest threat to someone like Stalin, and are probably most vulnerable to him (if you wear glasses you're as noticeable to a dictator as someone with black skin is to a klansman) right up there as cohorts with Stalin. Amelia ends her post with this comment: > Harlow, perhaps you can tell us what you have been thinking about > lately and wanting to write about. Perhaps it would help us discuss > some real issues. right now i feel like i am grasping at straws. and > i would very much like to hear your thoughts. OK, thanks for asking. I've already suggested part of what I've been thinking about. Another part is connected to an e-mail petition I got awhile back. So this post doesn't get too long (OK, too late for that already), and to give time for reaction if anyone wants to, I'll quote the petition, then talk about its rhetoric in a separate post. I'm not particularly interested in debating the issue the petition presents (Richard Johnson has already eloquently stated much of my concern with the issue when he talked about how his children were placed in a position of choosing between what their parents said or what their conservative born-again Christian high-school teachers said), but I am quite interested in how to interpret the petition rhetorically. >>>>> Please Do NOT let this petition stop and lose all these names. If you do not want to sign it, please forward it to everyone you know. Thank you!!! PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION BELOW TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND PASS THIS ON UNTIL THERE ARE 1000 NAMES, THEN SEND TO: President@whitehouse.gov To add your name to the bottom, click on "forward." You will be able to add your name to the list and then forward it to your friends. Or, if you prefer, you can copy and paste, and then add your name to the bottom of the list. Dear President Bush: Many of us were deeply touched to hear you recite a portion of Psalm 23 in your address to this great nation in the dark hours following the terrorists attacks. We were encouraged and comforted to know that we truly had a believer working with us and for us in our nation's highest office. We, the people of America, are requesting that you lift the prohibition of prayer in schools. As the pledge of our great country states, we are to be "One nation, under God." Please allow the prayers and petitions of our children in schools without the threat of punishment. Currently adults and children in the schools are prohibited from mentioning God unless of course His name is uttered as part of a curse or profanity. Madeline Murray O'Hare is dead. Let her legacy of atheism in our schools die with her! Sincerely, The People of America (Mark 10:13-14)"People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this He was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." PETITION TO REINSTATE PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: [at the end after a list of 852 names the petition repeats this comment:] PLEASE! DO NOT LET THIS PETITION STOP AND LOSE ALL OF THESE NAMES. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SIGN JUST PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE IN YOUR MAIL BOX WHO HAS NOT ALREADY RECEIVED IT. >>>>>> It's hard for me to take this seriously as a petition, partly for reasons I'll discuss in another post, partly because, if I were circulating a petition I certainly wouldn't include a statement at the end telling unsympathetic recipients how they could thwart the petition, and partly because there's no verification mechanism. If I wanted to I could sign all the 200 personas I've created for AML-List, from theric duncan to Thom-Marylin-Margaret-D. Michael Jingleheimer Schmidt, and noone could tell whether they were real people or not. Heck, since my theric persona challenged my personhood I'm not even sure _I'm_ a real person. (What kind of a name is Harlow, indeed.) But if I can't take it seriously as a petition, how do I respond to it rhetorically? More about that later. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 22 Apr 2003 00:59:20 -0700 On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:24:07 -0600 "clark" writes: > ___ Michael ___ > | I'll follow my characters everywhere they go and witness > | everything they do. It's what fiction is for. > | [...] > | I'm recommending telling the story as effectively as possible. > | You should include as much information about the sex as you > | need, and no more. > ___ > > That's fine. I think you are in the minority on that - unless the > details of personal hygiene really do interest you that much. I can't resist asking, how did we get from sex to hygiene? > The fact is that some stories are more appropriate than others. You > might be interested in the story of a person's intestinal track but I > don't think most are. I also can't resist adding that one of the classic episodes of The Magic Schoolbus involves a trip down Ralphie's (?) intestinal tract--with a due acknowledgement in the call-in sequence at the end that the intestine works in such a way as to prevent objects in the intestine, like yellow schoolbusses, from reversing course and going out through the stomach and mouth just because they don't want to ride to the end of the tract. > Further that notion of "appropriateness" is key. You suggest > that you *don't* think anything goes and instead tie "what goes" to > some authenticity relative to a "story." But that merely avoids the > question by pushing it down a level. What makes a story > appropriate or inappropriate? Well obviously, appropriateness is determined by whether Miss Frizzle wants to take the class and the bus somewhere or not. > Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling > stories that are inappropriate? Without an other descent to > the pornography realm, consider a book that give the *real* > *full* look into a killer's mind.Would you *really* be interested > in a story that focused in on say Sadaam's sons and their > rape and torture in all its glorious Technicolor? Surely, Clark, you're aware that there are people who devote their lives to collecting detailed stories of rape and torture in all its glorious Technicolor. One of the more memorable student research papers I got used some primary sources. The student had traveled with her family to Lithuania or Latvia to pick up her brother after his mission, and gone to a former KGB facility where the people who were tortured there spent their time as tour guides, bearing witness to what had been done in that building. She included some of their stories. Not easy reading, but a very good paper. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Date: 22 Apr 2003 07:58:21 -0700 What's complex about High School? There are no complexities at all. It's extremely simple. People are inherently and naturally carnal and sensual and when there is no religion, society, culture, or education to curb the natural passions then they indulge them. Drinking, smoking and sleeping around can certainly ruin your life, as much now as ever before. It's just that when your parent's whole goal for your life is to get into a good college, and they have no other plans for you, then you succeed as soon as you get into Harvard. Even graduating from Harvard doesn't make one a success, however. A success needs more than money, and when money is the whole purpose of existence, then it's really not that hard to accomplish. There is no change here except in the relaxing of standards--there are none. Ten abortions won't keep you off the board; a couple of drunk driving arrests won't either. So long as you pay child support it doesn't matter if there's five kids with five mommies who need it. There still is a class difference--a very slight one, between upper and lower middle class--and losers still drink, smoke, and sleep around. The difference is that they don't have parents who are driving them relentlessly towards "a good school." One would think that the accomplishment of happiness would be the goal of even an irreligious life, but happiness is immaterial. Just got to get into "a good school," everything else will work itself out. Except it doesn't. I know people who hit and run while drunk, and run because there's a lesser penalty for hit and run than for drunk driving, since nobody was hurt. I know a number of people in their thirties who think the most fun to be had in the world is to completely forget what happened the night before--too drunk to remember. Why that's fun I don't know, since they can't remember. I know a number of people who did hard-core drugs while in high school and are still functioning today. They hold down jobs, they pay their taxes, and they have no idea of the worthwhile things in life. Kids are a nuisance, God...who knows, who cares? Art is going to a concert; charity is paying taxes; love is the seven-year itch. These are the bulk of my friends. Some went to good schools and some didn't. Some have degrees and some don't. Some were stoners (we called them freaks in one of my high schools) and some were preppies. Equally miserable. Stereotypes are always false, at least in the small part. It may be harder to detect the smooth hypocrite but then it always will be. The fact is God doesn't reveal our sins to others, and piercing a plausible facade is no easy task, and harder for young women than for anybody else on the planet. The generic rule still stands, though. Drinking and smoking and sleeping around are things that failures do. Not all of them fail, but the numbers still bear out the generalization. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim On Saturday, Apr 19, 2003, at 19:50 America/Phoenix, Ben and Jessie Christensen wrote: >I was thinking > about this > recently because of a movie review the other day talking about a new > movie > about high school students (Better Luck Tomorrow), which is all about > well-off honors students in Southern California. The reviewer thought > it > interesting that everyone in the movie partied hard, even the > "high-achievers"; he specifically cited a scene where the entire > debate team > gets drunk while celebrating a victory. This made me realize that there > still seems to be a dichotomy in many adult's minds that there are > "good > kids" and "bad kids", and only losers drink, smoke and sleep around. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 22 Apr 2003 14:32:49 -0700 On April 11, I mentioned the movie director who thinks it ironic that we ask kids to do things in a film (like kissing) that we wouldn't want them to do in real life, and mentioned an episode of CSI or Law and Order centering around a kiddie porn photo. I want to expand just a bit on what I said. The photo was a profile shot of a young teenager, topless, leaning against a wall, most of her breast hidden by her arm. I suppose the studio used a double, but it bothers me that in a film about sexual exploitation of children the film makers felt they had to show us the photograph in question. Richard Dutcher faced a similar choice in _Brigham City_, and I think he handled it better. We know what's in the pornographic closet without having to see titles of the videos, or samples of them. Now, if the point of this CSI or Law and Order episode is that the suspect is a child-molesting pornographer all we need to know is that fact, we don't have to see a sample of his collection. But there was a different point to be made, and it bothers me that they chose to make it in the way they did. The film emphasizes that this is really a photo of a 13-year-old by having it slightly out of focus and the investigation technician scans it and works some magic to remove the blur and bring the face into sharp focus. (And I could hear the photo editor at the paper saying, "One thing I cannot do, despite what you see on TV, is bring a picture into focus that was shot out of focus.") By showing us the actress's face come into sharp focus in that scene, the movie is insisting on a certain kind of realism, asking us to suspend disbelief and agree that the model for the photograph and the young teen actress are the same person. But if I do suspend my disbelief and say, "OK it's really her in the photo," then I begin wondering about the morality of taking a pornographic picture of a young teen actress so you can tell a story about how destructive child porn is. And I wonder about that morality even if I can suppose rationally that they digitally put the actress's head on some other model's body, because when a film insists on the level of realism this film was insisting on the insistence itself invites me to wonder who really posed for the photo. What think ye? In the second part of that April 11 post I talked about finding Louis Owens' novels _The Sharpest Sight_ and _Bone Game_ in the UVSC library and said, "If both were movies they would likely be rated R for language and theme and violence. And I believe the Lord guided me to read them." And woke up the next morning thinking, "Does that last sentence sound arrogant, like I'm saying 'The Lord is my librarian, I shall not want for reading material, he leadeth me beside the still reading room' so don't question my reading choices?" And I started thinking about the rhetorical function of that phrase, "I believe the Lord guided me to read them." Why did I say that? Was I trying to forestall criticism? After thinking about it for awhile I remembered that the comment was a response to Dianna Graham's question (4/8/03), "Is the World's Film Library really so small that nothing else out there could teach us, move us, change us just as much without assaulting us at the same time?" It seemed to me a good, thoughtful and provocative question that asked for a good, thoughtful and provocative response, which I attempted by saying what I see Louis Owens doing in _Bone Game_ that I simply don't see elsewhere. And again, I feel grateful I found his books, but in thinking about how the phrase "Lord guided me to read them" works rhetorically I started thinking about the idea we hear in the culture occasionally that the people on the other side of the veil have a tremendous interest in us and want to help us. With _Heaven Knows Why_ Samuel W. Taylor started a genre of comic novels about angels that includes Kenny Kemp's _I Hated Heaven_, Dan Yates's novels, Levi Peterson's "The Third Nephite," and probably several others. The angel in _Heaven Knows Why_ is a worker in the Current History Division of Heaven who is concerned about his wayward grandson and takes steps to correct the situation, so I started thinking, do I have an ancestor who might be taking an interest in me, and guiding certain aspects of my reading? I prefer to think that person would be my great grandfather, Charles Rich Clark, who met my great grandmother, Annie Elizabeth Waldron, when she took a class from him. (Or Annie could be my guide, my Beatrice, if Heaven assigns guides across genders.) My father says Charley should have been one of the great teaching legends in the Church, right alongside Karl G. Maeser--who asked him to teach at the BY Academy, but Brigham Young called Charley's father, Ezra T., to do some colonizing around Georgetown Idaho, in the Bear Lake area, and he wanted Charley to go with him. Charley was a man of good taste, my father says, and travelled around to estate sales buying up old pioneer diaries and papers, so I like to think he would have an interest in my reading, and know what would help me. When he died his daughter didn't understand the value of his collection of historical documents and had a big bonfire out back. Maybe that's why there are so many teachers and writers in the Clark family--someone has to make up for all that loss. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report 18 Apr 03 Date: 23 Apr 2003 00:10:09 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of April 18, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 15 The Core 1,820,231 2,021 24 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 28,781,441 20 Piglet's Big Movie 959,580 1,373 31 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 20,685,800 53 Final Destination 2 52,182 69 80 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,628,334 62 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 31,953 10 801 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,467,692 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 65 The R.M. 27,415 27 80 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 869,526 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 86 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 5,784 3 1080 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,158,190 91 Handcart 2,569 3 192 Kels Goodman (director/DP) 98,666 David Greenslaw Sapp (producer) Mark von Bowers (screenwriter) Eric M. Hanson (composer) Actor: Jaelan Petrie, Stephanie Albach Chris Kendrick, Shannon Skinner, Gretchen Condie 93 Jack Weyland's Charly 2,446 3 206 Adam Anderegg (director) 807,938 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 106 China: The Panda Adventure 1,150 1 633 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,010,243 107 Galapagos 1,130 4 1270 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,992,472 RUTH HALE PASSES ON - Newspapers around the country, including California, Wyoming and Utah, are noting the passing of Ruth Hale. Sister Hale died of natural causes on 20 April 2003. She was 94. "Grandma Hale," as she was often called, was one of the great ladies of Utah theater and community theater in general. Editorials and obituaries in newspapers such as the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News and other forums praised her contributions to live theater. She founded the Hale Center Theaters in Glendale, California, Salt Lake City, Orem and Souther Utah. Another is being built in Gilbert, Arizona. She wrote more than 80 plays, many of which have been performed around the country. She appeared constantly in stage plays, and had roles in films, such as in the recent feature film "The Singles Ward," directed by her grandson Kurt Hale. Thom Duncan, founder of the Nauvoo Theatrical Society and the Center Street Theatre in Orem, Utah, wrote about Sister Hale's passing: "They [Ruth and her late husband Nathan Hale] are true pioneers in the field of LDS theatre. Nathan and Ruth will be greatly missed but, as with all great pioneers, their legacy will live on after them." The Deseret News wrote: "Her legacy is secure. Finding a fitting tribute may be a problem, however. Often, when guiding lights of the theater pass away, the community will put their names on a theater. The problem is Ruth Hale has already got a bunch of those." HANDCART ENDS ITS THEATRICAL RUN - If you still wanted to see "Handcart" in the theaters, you may have missed your chance. The film may play in a few dollar theaters, but other then that, it is done, having grossed a total of $98,666 in theaters. Right now, Kels Goodman and company are aiming for a DVD and VHS release by Pioneer Day. Thomson Video will be distributing. (Thomson also distributes "Out of Step.") "THE PROMETHEAN" RATED TOP OVERALL FILM AT THE FLICKER FILM FESTIVAL - From BYU's TMAccess newsletter, regarding BYU student/LDS filmmaker D. Kohl Glass and his critically acclaimed short film "The Promethean": "The Promethean" was chosen by a jury composed of Chicago film critics as the Top Overall Film at the Flicker Film Festival. This award is given to only one film, regardless of category, that the jury decides is simply the best film. Congratulations to Kohl Glass and all those who worked on this film! CARMEN MOVES ON - On last week's results episode of "American Idol" Carmen Rasmusen was revealed as one of the bottom 3 vote-getters from the previous night's show, and was probably one of the bottom 2. But the lowest vote-getter was the typically immodest Kimberly Caldwell. The announcement seemed to surprise Carmen and much of the crowd, as Carmen had turned in the most criticized performance the night before. Carmen is now in the final 6, with most commentators predicting she can't last long against the talented men (Clay Aiken, Ruben and Josh the marine), and the largely unattractive women (Trencye and Kimberly Locke). No doubt about it, Carmen is the best-looking competitor left, but will she be able avoid downturns in her singing while going up against the more consistent performers? "MESSENGERS OF TRUTH" HAS COMMERCIAL THEATRICAL DEBUT - Brent Jones' missionary-themed movie "Messengers of Truth" had its commercial theatrical debut on April 18. The movie was previously shown at two different Sunstone Symposia (in 2001 and 2002) under the title "Missionary Position." Reviewers for both a reputedly conservative newspaper (Deseret News) and a more free-wheeling, more "liberal" newspaper (Salt Lake City Weeky) weighed in with fairly similar opinions about the movie. SLWeekly gave the film 1.5 stars out of 4, and said of the film: Writer/director Brent Jones had an idea for a slightly more irreverent take on LDS missionary life than "God's Army," and every gag probably looked hysterical on paper. An earnest young elder who gets a raging hard-on right before a home meeting? Funny. A mission president running a scam operation selling his testimonial video? Funny... But eventually Jones had to commit those gags to video, and the result is yet another piece of earnest bargain-basement Mo-movie silliness full of amateur hour acting and a nonexistent sense of pacing... Aiming a digital video camera doesn't make you a director, people -- either step away, or keep it in the family." Jeff Vice, writing for the Deseret News, called the film "really bad. Worse than bad. Excruciating even... executed so poorly and is so completely unfunny that you might think it's just a joke." Brent Jones, the director, served a full-time mission in Florida and graduated from BYU. The movie's official website includes an interview in which he describes himself as "raised Mormon." * * * NEW LDS-THEMED FILM ENTERS PRE-PRODUCTION - From a press release from CTR Productions: We are anouncing the production of a new LDS-themed major motion picture: Trial by Faith, from CTR Productions LLC and Elevation Entertainment Inc. Alan Stoddard and Allen Dial, the two producers of film both from Salt Lake, are currently in pre-production while finishing fund-raising for the film. Trial by Faith is slated for theatrical release in August 2003. Synopsis of the film: In the tense southern regions of the Philippines, two Latter-day Saint missionaries find their courage -- and their faith -- being tested to their limits when they are captured and held hostage by terrorists. LDS missionary Elder John Kimball is a hotshot BMX Dirt Jumper with plenty of attitude but a somewhat tenuous testimony. Through his ordeal as a hostage, he discovers both the strength of his Gospel convictions, but also the courage to act upon his newfound faith to save himself and his fellow captive Americans. Trial By Faith traces Elder Kimball's journey through desperation and redemption while maneuvering a compelling mix of intense drama and thrilling action. The film explores the key LDS ideal of salvation through active faith, while extolling virtues of patriotism and courage, as our missionaries and their fellow hostages work together to overcome their central ordeal; making Trial By Faith, not only the most compelling, but also the most poignant LDS-themed motion picture to date. * * * "R.M." OPENED ON SEVEN MORE SCREENS THIS WEEKEND - Here's the list of new openings: Anchorage, AK; Idaho Falls, ID; Rexburg, ID; Eugene, OR; Ogden, UT; Spokane, WA; Evanston, WY. Other cities where "The R.M." played this weekend: Mesa, AZ; Gilbert, AZ; Bakersfield, CA; Clovis, CA; Roseville, CA; Honolulu, HI; Laie, HI; Boise, ID; Pocatello, ID; Henderson, NV; Las Vegas, NV; Hillsboro, OR; Portland, OR; Layton, UT; Logan, UT; Provo, UT; St. George, UT; West Jordan, UT; Puyallup, WA; Redmond, WA; Renton, WA. ELIZABETH HANSEN SCREENWRITING SEMINAR - [Hansen is the screenwriter of "Eliza & I", directed by Richard Dutcher, "He Took My Licking", directed by Michael Mills, and "Sisters of Bethany", which she directed herself, as well as award-winning network television specials.] From her press release: Dear Friends, colleagues and everyone I've ever met: Due to popular demand, and my need to warp young minds, (and old alike) I am going to be giving a Screenwriting Seminar. It will be geared to Beginning and Intermediate writers and will concentrate on the basic elements of good, solid, mainstream Hollywood screenwriting. It will be on Friday, May 9, 2003, from 7:00pm until 10:00pm, and on Saturday, May 10, 2003, from 9:30am until 6:00pm at 1226 south 1480 west in Orem, UT, with a break for lunch when we all get cranky. We will be covering all the basics of Screenwriting: Structure, Scene construction, Character, Dialogue, Theme and premise, Screen Directions... Pretty much everything. The seminar is VERY AFFORDABLE. Go to my website... Yes, I actually have a website... And take a look at the bang you'll get for your buck. If you have any questions... Feel free to email me (ELIZ4VAMP@aol.com). I hope you can make it. And please, tell everyone you know. Bring someone with you, and I'll give you a discount. Love you, mean it, Elizabeth. Website: http://www.screenrighter.com LEHI'S LAND OF FIRST INHERITANCE - "Lehi's Land of First Inheritance," is now available on DVD. This David C. Asay documentary was directed and hosted by Chris Heimerdinger. It is one of a series of planned documentaries to be produced by The Book of Mormon Archaeological Foundation. The next film in the series, "The Land of Nephi", which features Sharlene Wells Hawkes as host and music by LDSfilm.com co-webmaster Thomas C. Baggaley, is currently in post production. ARTICLE ABOUT KENNETH COPE - A new article about Latter-day Saint composer and songwriter Kenneth Copy was published this week in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Cope's film credits include music for "The Light of the World" (2002), the Church pageant which was released as a video and DVD, and "The Goodman Family: Fortress of Love" (2000; V), as well as songs for the Richard Rich animated feature film "The Swan Princess: Escape from Castle Mountain." See http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Apr-18-Fri-2003/weekly/21109538. html ARTICLE BY ALAN WILLIAMS - New article in Meridian Magazine written by composer Alan Williams. See: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030421music.html. Williams talks about music in our personal lives, in church, and other topics. Williams, one of the most successful Latter-day Saint film composers working today, lives in California. He currently serves in his stake's Young Men Presidency. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 22 Apr 2003 23:21:48 -0600 On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:30:58 GMT, daryoung@juno.com wrote: >Oh, by the way, I had a baby last week. Unexpectedly. In Salt Lake (NOT = my hometown of Pocatello). After just fifteen minutes in the hospital. We= are all well. This makes my fourth son. Hooray for you! Four boys. Wow. I can't imagine that many of one sex = in a row. >Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda = and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a = decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and = nursing. Is it just exhaustion, or is it true that our creative juices = are flowing elsewhere (ewww, not such an appetizing metaphor) when we are= producing babies? I can't bring myself to even want to write, and I'm = worried the desire won't ever come back! It comes back. Think of it as a safety device, a blessed release to keep you from killing yourself on two kinds of creation at once. Physically, = I think it's a lot of factors combined, and I also wonder if different = women rebound at different rates. It takes me about a year and a half to be capable of any sustained literary work and about four months to be = capable of reading very complex literature. But then, I'm not having any more = kids, so it's more or less a moot point. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? Date: 23 Apr 2003 01:31:01 -0700 When the book came out, I spent a ridiculous number of hours analyzing the book semantically, dealing with word meaning, context, structure, playing with the whole semantic differential thing, with a stated end of sending the result to- a publisher, scholarly journal, a newspaper, the AML list, somewhere. In the midst of those hours the silliness of what I was doing slapped me upside the head (If you're from Georgia, you know what that means). Doing serious scholarly work on a book that referred to the "eternal smile" of returned missionaries as if it were a facial expression rather than a clear underwear mark that labels said returned missionary as a "candidate" was one of the, if not THE greatest wastes of time in my short lifetime. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Robert Slaven > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:28 PM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? > > > From: Rich Hammett > > Does anybody know of a good, critical review of "The Mormon > > Murders..." by Naifeh? I mean one that examines factual > > problems, etc? It's being recommended to some friends of > > mine for its accurate portrayal of mormonism. > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon History Narratives from a Non-US Perspective Date: 22 Apr 2003 23:47:52 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jason Covell > And another side note. I can't let myself pontificate on=20 > Americans without allowing myself a little navel-gazing as=20 > well. I really want to tell Australian stories, especially=20 > about the early days of the Church, although for now I'm=20 > mostly wanting detail or substance to make a real go at it. =20 > I made an effort to bolster (or gauge) interest in Australian=20 > Mormon history when I produced the ward newsletter a while=20 > back and wrote a series of little articles covering the=20 > Church in Australia between 1840 and 1900. From the comments=20 > I got, precisely noone in the ward even read them. So that=20 > didn't bode especially well. I wouldn't let that stop you. For one, if you manage to write a truly Australian Mormon History, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you found a huge audience in the States. A couple reasons. First, those Mormons = who read have mostly read the usual stuff that so many others outside the = states seem to concentrate on (core doctrinal works that they feel obligated to read but don't think of much except to think that they wouldn't want to = read *other* LDS works before reading, say, Jesus the Christ). Second, they = have the disposable income. Third, they love church history. Fourth, we've = had a couple of years now of market bombardment stressing our world-wide membership and cultivating a taste for outside experiences. > I had one telling experience when I stayed in Utah, with a=20 > bishop's family who had a number of kids in their teens and=20 > early twenties. We talked about the Peter Weir film=20 > _Gallipoli_, which is an amazing film - certainly a landmark=20 > in Australian film-making. The two older daughters of the=20 > family had seen it and really liked it. Or really liked Mel=20 > Gibson in it. Anyway. The one thing they just hated was the=20 > ending - after spending the whole film getting to know these=20 > lovable Australian lads who get thrown into World War I, the=20 > final scene throws it all away by having them mowed down by=20 > Turkish machine gun fire. As an Australian, the ending made=20 > perfect sense; not just because the Gallipoli story is still=20 > the most potent national myth, but because it is consonant=20 > with all the others. But to an American, you just don't do=20 > that. The hero has to be triumphant. That's the only way it=20 > can go, right? I found _Gallipoli_ very powerful and moving. It did a better job of expounding the horror of war than anything I've seen before or since (haven't seen _Private Ryan_). I think it does a better job than more graphic movies would. It illustrated the true waste such killing = entails. It should be required viewing for anyone who imagines themselves to be pro-war. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: Passion in Art Date: 23 Apr 2003 00:07:53 -0700 [sni] > > I am growing tired of timid art. >From Robert Slaven: On the one hand, Richard, bravo! Too much art in the world -- and *far* too much art produced by Latter-day Saints, IMHO -- is far too timid. Especially with Mormons*, it's "Will this offend anyone?" or "Does this go too far?" or "Will Deseret Book carry it?" [snip] But now I'm (more of) an adult, and I realise that I *can* be susceptible to what is portrayed in this or that piece of art. I have some weak spots w.r.t. certain forms of temptation that mean I can't watch many network dramas (or comedies, for that matter) any more without one of my 'triggers' being set off. I find that my spiritual well-being is precarious enough that I must avoid certain works of art, even if they're well-crafted with all the talent and passion their creators could muster. ************************************************** I fall into the same category as Robert Slaven, above. I have an "artistic threshold" I guess you could say. This artistic threshold only allows me to watch/view certain kinds of art. I purposefully haven't gone into film studies in grad school, for example, because I knew I would have to view a wide variety of films, films I wasn't willing to view because of the violence, sex, language, innuendo, and so forth. I too have "triggers" that influence my emotions, which influence me, my soul and spirit. I tend to be an emotionally-motivated individual and once my emotions are titillated, for example, and depending upon my spiritual preparation for that day or week, I may or may not be negatively influenced. But sometimes the approach to *my* artistic threshold is a roll of the dice. For any person to presume they are unaffected by art is blowing smoke out their keister. That's why I believe that some "Mormon art" will never affect all Mormons in exactly the same way, or its intended "agenda". As humans, we emote differently, we learn differently, we have been raised differently, we have sinned or not sinned with various vices differently, our testimonies of Jesus Christ are all formed and stabilized at various "levels" (for lack of a better word). "Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should define timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? Richard Dutcher? What if each of these individuals see and define art differently? Is one person's vision of art more courageous? less? more timid? less? And if consumers of "Mormon art" are consuming different types of art, in varying degrees, in varying amounts, at various "levels" ("line upon line, precept on precept, here a little, there a little") are all of their artistic thresholds the same? Are all their perceptions of art valid, for them, individually? for others? It's something to think about. I think the Mormon culture requires a variety of artistic endeavors and representations to meet the needs of the various needs of Mormon art consumers. 2 Ne. 2:11: "There must needs be an opposition in all things..." Perhaps we have to have "bad" Mormon art in order to know the "good" and everything in between. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Irreantum and a Baby for me too Date: 23 Apr 2003 08:08:49 +0000 I read Irreantum too, I just finished the Fall 2002 issue (they are slow in getting to me), and especially liked Darlene's story. Both of your stories so far have been fascinating looks at the neuroses and pain that can creep into individual's assumptions about how to live as a good Mormon. Great stuff. Congratulations on your baby, Darlene! We received a baby last week, too. We had been approved to be foster parents by Fukuoka City a few months ago, apparently the first time a non-Japanese couple has applied. But now since we are leaving to go back to the US in September, we were afraid that we would not get a baby in time. But just in time, we were told there is one available. A one-year old girl, who has lived in the city's child welfare home for her whole life (why didn't they give her to us before? They said something about that they consider one-year to be the best time to place babies). It takes 6 monthes after placement to start finalizing the adoption. They said they would do it a little quicker for us. My wife has a job at the University of North Texas starting in August, but I need to stay here until September, so for a couple of months it will be me and the two kids. We are re-naming her Kienne, nickname Kiki. She is a very sweet thing. Now that she has warmed up to us, she is full of smiles. She is a bit behind developmentally, she seems like a 9-month-old, she crawls, but not too much. Our first son, now four, and also adopted, looks basically like us. This is our first venture in the inter-racial adoption arena. It makes me think a lot about identity formation. It is interesting that many Japanese, when they find out she is a foster child, say that they think she is half-Japanese. Something about seeing us with her. We actually don't know, we only know the mother had no interest in raising her. We have been raising our son bi-lingual, but since we'll be living in the US for now on, I don't know if we'll keep it up with her. It'd be funny if in the long run he is the one who can speak Japanese, not her. So, what with trying to finish my dissertation this spring/summer, I'll probably be checking into the list less often in the coming months. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] The New List Date: 23 Apr 2003 03:07:33 -0600 As one of the eight people who has already expressed interest, if we can't find another person willing to jump full-tilt into our world of frenzy, I promise to post twice as much as I normally would (I got a lot of pent-up agression ). Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Hygiene in Literature (was: Temple in Literature) Date: 23 Apr 2003 03:11:36 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >clark wrote: > >> I think you are in the minority on that - unless the details of >> personal hygiene really do interest you that much. >> >> The fact is that some stories are more appropriate than others. You >> might be interested in the story of a person's intestinal >track but I >> don't think most are. I just finished the novel _Aztec_ and was surprised to learn that, from the Aztec's POV, the conquering Spaniards had horrible personal hygiene practices. The Aztecs in the sixteenth century were taking hot baths and steam baths but the Europeans of that time (supposedly the civilized folk) were slobs. Details of the personal hygiene of the Aztecs was actually quite interesting (I mean, these folks even had water closets in the New World when the best that was being done in Spain was bed pans.) Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cedar Fort/ Tammy Daybell Subject: Re: [AML] TWAIN & NELSON, _Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Date: 23 Apr 2003 07:46:10 -0600 Lee Nelson is co-owner of Cedar Fort. Tammy Daybell > From: Christopher Bigelow > Seems strange that a nat'l publisher wouldn't have wanted to pick this up, > if it really is so closely connected to a real Twain ms. Or why not the UC > Press itself? Is CFI really the biggest player they could find to do this? > There must be a story here; maybe no one else liked the way it turned out? > Anyone know anything more? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 23 Apr 2003 08:54:53 -0500 (CDT) On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Jamie Laulusa wrote: [snip] > If we don't celebrate evil, at the very least, we delight in shuddering at > it. If we didn't, than the media would find better things to report that > which celebrity is cheating on their spouse, in rehab for drugs, dating > Brittney Spears, ect. People like that stuff. Is this tongue-in-cheek? Is dating Ms. Spears really in the same class of evil as drug addiction and adultery? Of course, I think that wasting time following the subject might be evil, but only in the same way as following the Social Circle in SLC, or watching who's climbing the General Authority ladder. rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net To announce that there must be no \ criticism of the President, or that we are to / stand by the President, right or wrong, is not \ only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally / treasonable to the American public. \ -T Roosevelt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 23 Apr 2003 08:53:38 -0600 Darlene, Congratulations on son #4! Now that's a new release to crow about. Are you still in Utah? Hope all is well. You wrote: "Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Is it just exhaustion, or is it true that our creative juices are flowing elsewhere (ewww, not such an appetizing metaphor) when we are producing babies? I can't bring myself to even want to write, and I'm worried the desire won't ever come back!" For the first three or four months of pregnancy, I just gritted my teeth and tried to survive, but by the second trimester I usually felt well enough to resume my normal writing schedule (which ranged from an hour or two a day down to nothing, depending on how many other little ones I was already caring for). For some reason, I always got an adrenalin kick during the third trimester and became way more productive than usual. I think I was propelled in part by the knowledge that once the baby arrived, that was it. For at least six months, I would be totally consumed by BABY. As those of us who have been there know, it takes intricate planning and impeccable timing just to get a SHOWER during this time. Who can worry about something so suddenly mundane and trivial as writing? :-) But, yes, the desire to write (like the desire for, er. . . other things) does return. I know you've heard this a million times before, but try to relax and just enjoy this baby. There will be many good years left for writing, and you'll be a better writer for having been truly present--fully aware and engaged--during all those little mother-baby moments. There is nothing, no publication, no review, no award, that can match the experience of holding your newborn. Nothing like the smell, the softness, the weight of that little body against yours. Pamper yourself, Darlene. I am so happy for you. And, yes, a little bit jealous too. Love, Sharlee glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 23 Apr 2003 10:20:42 -0600 At least in terms of "literary fiction," the subject has been tackled, wrestled to the ground, and beaten to a pulp by B. R. Myers in "A Reader's Manifesto: An attack on the growing pretentiousness of American literary prose." Myers expanded his original essay in book form, which contains additional follow-up material to the follow-up material below. The original essay: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/myers.htm A follow-up interview: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-10-02.htm Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] A Commentary on Mormons Date: 23 Apr 2003 10:49:59 -0600 http://www.unityspot.com/arthurs/index.html I found this site when I was trying to find the name of Daniel Defoe's novel before Robinson Crusoe--it was Moll Flanders. Anyhow, this site has a religious works section. The home page says it includes the Book of Mormon and "a commentary on the Mormons." Those who like seeing what other people say about us may want to check it out. >Barbara R. Hume >Provo, Utah > > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon History Narratives from a Non-US Perspective Date: 23 Apr 2003 11:19:02 -0600 At 03:17 PM 4/22/03 +1000, you wrote: >: I want to read and watch Mormon history told >from an English perspective (yes, Australian too, but I'll come to >that). I want to see Ken Loach, or his Mormon equivalent, do an >historical drama about the working class and middle class converts in >19th century Britain. I want to see this done from an _English_ >perspective. Everyone knows how well the English do period drama - and >that's everything from the tasteful Jane Austen pieces to the sordid, >harrowing recreations of life in the coal mines or dark satanic mills of >the industrial revolution. I want to see that. Whether sentimental or >not (there's plenty of room for both), I want to see how it was for the >converts themselves. Because what happened to them is a window into a >major, major part of English history. As a decided Anglophile, I love this concept. For example, I recently read a book titled something like The American Revolution through British Eyes. It was interesting and eye-opening. I was put into the midst of people who were seriously depressed rather than elated by Cornwallis' surrender. I saw the infighting among English generals more concerned with their own wealth and glory than with the needs of the English government. I saw great bravery on their side as well as ours, and I came to conclude that they lost the war more than we won it. And the whole Major Andre thing made me cry, it was so wrong. I also correspond with people who live in England, Australia, and South Africa. This is again eye-opening. And it makes me understand how much we are, as you say, steeped in our own mythology. For example, an Australian lad said to me, "Why are you determined to have things your own way? Why don't you just accept and go along with what your leaders tell you? After all, God gave them to you." A remnant of the divine right of kings notion, still extant? I told him that I refuse to blame God for foisting Bill Clinton on us, and he was shocked. But that and subsequent conversations pointed out to me that Americans talk about their rights, and Brits talk about their duties. Enlightening. I keep learning over and over again that my worldview is not universal. I love your idea. I'm not a big fan of pioneer stuff, or of the mid-nineteenth century in general. But the kinds of social history you're talking about are fascinating! My people came to America from England in the 1600s--for all I know, they could've been transported felons turned out of Newgate. Or they could have been an illegitimate branch of a noble house and therefore an embarassment. Or they could have wanted the opportunity to own land rather than work it for someone else. But whatever the circumstances were, I will always value my British heritage. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 23 Apr 2003 12:21:08 -0600 D. Michael, There might be nothing at all wrong with Sheila's characterization--Richard seems to agree with you. But I can't help but point out that like you, he's male. :) I'd be interested in seeing what other females say who have read it. (In defense of the Dr. Phil women--dropping his name and quoting his show might have been an attempt to help another man understand what they meant, not the crux of their argument.) Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 20 Apr 2003 14:07:53 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: > Some would even argue that placing more emphasis on the poetry of the > writing, and less on the specific message, would maximize one's audience > more effectively. That would be an interesting John-Henry type contest. Pit literary writing versus a good plot. I might even lay money on that one. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 23 Apr 2003 11:17:24 -0600 ___ Clifford ___ | Of course that title and the interpretation is a nonsense. We all=20 | apply a theory or many theories in our study of literature, all=20 | academics do is publish theirs and teach it to anyone that will=20 | listen. To say there is no verifiable theory of literature misses=20 | the point. Or are Literary Academics lazy? ____ It doesn't so much miss the point. What happens is that you hear people constantly saying that there is "truth" in literature, even literature like fiction or poetry. (As opposed to straight factual reporting like a physics textbook) The question thus is "what does that mean?" Further if literature is true (with truth conceived of in a traditional way) then surely there must be some way to get at this truth in a clear fashion. That's partially where literary criticism developed. (I don't want to pretend that was the only drive in its formation) It arose out of what is called hermeneutics which in turn largely developed as a way for Protestants to interpret the Bible. The Bible was literature but was also perceived to house the truth of God's word. Thus to determine the truth you had to have a way of determining this truth in a fairly "objective" way. There was then "cross-pollination" with the development of law and legal theory. As all this was going on a lot of the principles and practiced that were developed for both law and the Bible were applied to literature in general. The problem then became refining the methods of reading texts. The humanist tradition brought in far more texts than the Bible and by the 19th century focusing in on the Bible as "truth" was rather out of fashion in intellectual circles. Still this tradition of literature of truth remained and the basic protestant "task" remained and excelled in academia. What happened this last century were many different forms of literary criticism, all claiming to be the method of truth. However a funny thing happened. They found they couldn't arrive at a fixed method for truth. Then the so-called postmodern tradition (going back at least to Nietzsche but accentuated by Heidegger) then more or less argued persuasively that the whole task of literary criticism as "truth" was impossible. The problem was that people who largely spent their academic career in literature mistook this as a criticism on truth in general. Which never was implied by any of the postmodern philosophers or main literary critics. So this then led to relativism (although relativism never really came from philosophers but from anthropologists going back to Margaret Mead - so this main thrust really was anthropology and *not* postmodernism) =20 What the article in question really is about is the fact that the task of literature as traditionally viewed was dead. No one quite knows what to do about it. AS you say, it doesn't mean literature somehow stopped functioning as literature. People still used "theory" (interpretive stances) when reading literature. It unfortunately doesn't mean people will stop talking about the "truth" of literature. (Although I wish it did) It does mean that the (in my opinion) rather pretentious claims within literature departments have been shown as the fa=E7ade they always were. Of course I'm a physics major. So perhaps I'm biased. Long before I studied deconstruction, postmodernism, or the like I always thought claims of "truth" in literature was the attempt by humanity departments to pretend they were doing science. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Addictions and Art Date: 23 Apr 2003 13:40:43 -0500 There's a lot I think could be said on this topic. It touches a lot of my own hot buttons, and thoughts about how and why I interact with art. I'd like to start by both agreeing with and challenging part of Richard Dutcher's original comment: >Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, maybe >violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality >television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and >addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images >we see. I think this may very well be true. I don't know how much may be genetic, and how much may be environmental, but I do think there are varying levels of sensitivity to different types of stimuli. I'd extend this beyond simply images, however, to incorporate other types of artistic experience, in particular narrative. And I'd extend it beyond simply violence and sex to any kind of emotional effect. I know that for myself, I am--whether by genetics or experience--unusually sensitive to the kind of vicarious emotional experience that generally accompanies storytelling in all its media. I identify with characters I am reading about and am strongly affected by their stories. I can't watch programs where the characters do stupid and embarrassing things. I have to avoid horror because the effect on me is too strong. Okay, that's not the same thing as addiction. Still, if I understand the way that addiction operates, the first step is often a particular sensitivity. And I do read a lot, and reading is one of my coping mechanisms for dealing with life. Not entirely negative, at least not if I don't let it interfere with work and other responsibilities too much--though I can easily see how it could reach that point. But even so, such a sensitivity is not necessarily an entirely positive thing. It makes me, perhaps, vulnerable to art in a way that others are not. That can be good, but it can lead you to negative places as well. (I'm reminded of my reaction to music. Different types of music create specific moods for me, and I can change my mood by changing the music I listen to. I know I'm by no means unique in that. Self-medication with music?) And here's where my challenge to Richard Dutcher and others like Thom Duncan and Eric Samuelsen lies. I think that sometimes, our assumption is that as artists and scholars of art, we are more immune than most to the potential negative impacts of art--that our learning somehow shields us from the dark side of art by allowing us to be analytical and detached. But what if that's not the case? I think it's at least equally plausible that many of us who study or create art do so because we are particularly *susceptible* to it. And if, as I suggest (expanding on Richard's point), such a susceptibility is largely inherent, it's unclear to me that training will rid us of it. I'll illustrate again with my own case. Growing up, I read science fiction and fantasy almost compulsively. Between the ages of 10 and 20, I'm sure that I read Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_ at least 20 times. Now, don't get me wrong--I think I'm all the better for reading Tolkien's masterpiece and making it part of my emotional landscape. But in my case, it's clear to me that when I went to college and (eventually) decided to major in English (after a false start in political science--what a laugh that was, once I realized how utterly unsuited to it I was), a big part of my impetus was to try to discover what it was that fiction did for me. Understand it better. That's what my master's thesis was about, really. A bit like the proverbial psychology majors who go into the field to try to cure their own nuttiness... (I have to tell the story here of my mission, and how it affected my reactions to literature. My mother, though an English teacher, was, I think, concerned about how much reading I did, particularly of sf&f. So was I. But then my mission came, and I didn't read any fiction at all (except for things in church magazines and the like) for a year and a half. And I did my best to serve a worthy mission. And at the end of that time, when I came home, I found that literature was if anything more important to me than it had been--which I interpreted as meaning that this was something that was really, genuinely a worthwhile part of myself, not just a bad habit I had gotten into.) And so I'm actually pretty highly trained in the art of interpreting narrative, as such things go. No PhD (because I ran screaming once I decided that I like informative writing and editing better than either teaching or research), but I did get so far as to complete the coursework and pass my comprehensive exams. And I've done a little creative writing (not much), and done a lot of research into how artists work with narrative on a practical basis, and applied my knowledge in writing situations. And I'm still sensitive to narrative, in a sensitivity that seems to grow rather than decrease as I get older. Yes, my study has given me a number of analytical tools, some of which I can use to distance myself from texts--though for me, generally analysis of a text does not destroy but rather enhances my appreciation of it, and even my ability to sink myself into the vicarious experience it provides. I know that goes against a lot of the stereootypes, but still that's how it is for me. (I'm also not bothered by knowing the ending of the story beforehand--in fact, I often have to skip forward to read the end of the story just to calm myself down enough to continue with the narrative.) This, by the way, drives some of my less analytical book-reading acquaintances nuts from time to time. I'm capable of giving a devastating critical reading of a book on (say) thematic or political grounds, and then turning around and enjoying it. They find this very confusing. So what does my training in literature do? Two things. First, it provides me with tools to analyze what the effects may be of the literature that is affecting me so greatly. I can do a thematic analysis or a character analysis and think about what values I'm entertaining when I let myself be carried away into a story. Second, it provides me with a broader range of literature--increases the size of my pharmacopeia, so to speak, for my literary self-prescriptions. I believe in the value of both of these. I think it's good, if literature affects you, to know what those effects are. Doesn't neutralize those effects by any means, but gives you more choice in connection with them. Awareness of the variety of literary offerings can do the same thing. One of the reasons why I like this way of looking at things is that is provides what I think is a reasonable context for thematic analysis of literary work. Too much of the literary criticism I was exposed to in high school seemed to amount to trying to read stories as little more than delivery methods for a theme--something that seems to me to be a fundamental misreading of narrative, which at its deepest level seems to me to provide a vicarious emotional (as much or more than intellectual) experience. By contrast, this way of viewing thematic criticism sees such criticism as a way of analyzing the content and ideas we may be buying into--entertaining, at least--along with the emotional experience. I'm tempted to go on, talking about why I feel this implies that criticism is not only useful but individually and culturally necessary, and why we need to not canonize particular artistic productions or genres but expose ourselves to a variety of them, and what I finally decided was the value of reading fantasy literature for me, and so forth--but I've already waxed long. So I'll sign off, hoping I haven't bored everyone too much...or that if you are bored, you've stopped by now. Or something like that. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 23 Apr 2003 12:41:22 -0600 Barbara Hume asked about Brian Vickers' book, Appropriating Shakespeare. = It's not a new book, came out in '92 or '93. It's generally regarded = as a backlash book, in which he argues that feminist criticism (or = Marxist, or whatever) tells us more about feminists (or Marxists or = whatevers) than about Shakespeare. =20 Vickers writes with some passion and humor, and his book was = sufficiently controversial that it sold pretty well. I personally = couldn't get through it. Here's the feminist straw man (or womyn)! = Whack, Bash, Slam! Here's the Marxist straw man! Whee! It got pretty = tiresome. Now, he was picking on some Big Names, and he's good at pulling quotes = from them that make them look stupid. This is not all that hard to do. = What it did not do, for me, was offer any particularly compelling = alternative readings. If I'm going to read a book about Shakespeare, I = want to know more about the plays afterwards than I did going in. A = good feminist critic (or Marxist or whatever) does that for me; causes = me to consider issues I hadn't previously considered. So does a book = like Bloom's Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human. Bloom hates all = the same critics that Vickers hates, but with Bloom, you do get = interesting, careful, close readings of the plays. A lot of those = readings are pretty wack too, but that's okay; there is some wheat with = that thar chaff. A poor critic doesn't illuminate the text usefully. A good critic does. = So if you like to see someone take potshots at bad criticism, then fine, = read Vickers. It's not an exercise I find very helpful. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon History Narratives from a Non-US Perspective Date: 20 Apr 2003 14:29:11 -0600 Jason Covell wrote: > Let me get to the point: I want to read and watch Mormon history told > from an English perspective (yes, Australian too, but I'll come to > that). I want to see Ken Loach, or his Mormon equivalent, do an > historical drama about the working class and middle class converts in > 19th century Britain. Wish I could help you out, but I'm not qualified. I'm as intoxicated on the American brew as anybody. This is one thing that we LDS American cultural chauvenists can't do anything about. It's going to take someone from England (or Australia) to step forward and take the initiative. > There's class warfare, religious fanatics, sex, the scent of > revolution... what's not to like? Nothing. Wish someone would write it. > I've only been to the States once in my life, stayed for a > month, 3 weeks in Utah and one in LA. Out of all that I saw and felt, I > came away with one very powerful impression, which I partly communicated > to my hosts at the time. How I felt was like a citizen of the Roman > Empire from a far-flung province of that sprawling imperium, seeing Rome > for the very first time. Everywhere I went, it was in the air. Empire. > Power. This, kiddo, is the centre of it all. It was in the water, the > soil, in the faces of ordinary people, in the sound of their voices. In > all my years of consuming and being nearly submerged in American popular > culture, I had never before felt anything like it, and never would have, > unless I had come myself. So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you > folks drink in a pretty intoxicating brew on a regular basis. You just wrote a fine query letter for your first non-American LDS novel. If I were a publisher, I'd sign you up immediately. Why aren't you writing about this? Not only does it sound fascinating, but it sounds like a badly needed antidote to what ails American LDS culture. > I really want to > tell Australian stories, especially about the early days of the Church, > although for now I'm mostly wanting detail or substance to make a real > go at it. I made an effort to bolster (or gauge) interest in Australian > Mormon history when I produced the ward newsletter a while back and > wrote a series of little articles covering the Church in Australia > between 1840 and 1900. From the comments I got, precisely noone in the > ward even read them. So that didn't bode especially well. What about people outside of Australia, for whom the stories are not old hat? > More generally, though, I've often tried to explain what I see as the > essential differences between the US and Australia. A few Americans > I've spoken to assume that we're a lot like them > But there is in the Australian character a love for a certain kind of > myth which differs greatly from the American versions > We eat up tales about explorers who never made it, > who died, who went mad. Settlers who were conquered by the bush, not > the other way around. Battles lost, hopes dashed. Tall men brought > low. > But to an American, you just don't do > that. The hero has to be triumphant. That's the only way it can go, > right? Most of my education about Australia comes from Mick Dundee, the Coca Cola Kid, and a bizarre movie called _Walkabout_. Americans are fascinated by Australia, but I suspect most of them, like me, are clueless about the place. Why, we even think Australia and New Zealand are the same place, sort of like Canada is America Light. Do I smell a goldmine here for some enterprising Aussie? > Anyway, I'd love to hear what others think. And to the Mormon Ken Loach > (or whoever else you are), get to work! Why can't the Mormon Ken Loach be you, at least for Australia? I can't do it. You can. Quit lamenting and write. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 22 Apr 2003 12:01:14 EDT Richard, I enjoyed very much your "very long" post! I, like all people I would assume, can relate to your desire to have everyone experience what you did on seeing Chicago as a stage play. This desire to have others be of one mind and heart is a driving force born within all of us out of which comes artistic expession. It seems easier, though still difficult most of the time, to become of one mind with others. As church members generally more often agree in our minds on the doctrine of the kingdom and working to build Zion yet far less frequently and to a far lesser degree seem to come to a oneness in "matters of the heart". Why? As Book of Mormon writters observed along with the brilliantly articulate Elder Neal A. Maxwell, we all struggle to say "the smallest part of that which we feel". I'm glad for your attempt to do so. At least for me, this time, you and I were blessed to rejoice together in what you wrote and the way you wrote it. I share your hunger to have others know, and to know that they know, what I do in the secret places of my heart. (Sorry though I do not have the funds to take all my friends to see Chicago, buy them all the books I am currently reading or have read or will yet read or experience all that I would like them to experience that I being blessed with.) I am confident however that each of us in our own life, by learning from the past, preparing for the future, and living fully and with passion in the present can learn to be happy now and continue this beyond the veil. But, as Hugh Nibley points out, the pomp and pagentry of churches or plays, of movie, or book, of painting or music, can never compare to the personal experience of ecstasy as one becomes one with God, angels, the spirit, love, the present, the presence, or whatever weak word one tries to use to desribe personal breakthough to joy in the art of the Creator Himself. Reading, for me, and many other formerely often empty rituals, have become moment by moment visions into joy and on ever more frequent occassions even ecstasy. I'm grateful for prophets, poets, writers, painters, muscians, movie makers, and many other friends who yet struggle to find and communicate what they have felt of the divine in their lives. Art, in all of its forms, helps me to understand more clearly and remember that sometimes I am missing the joy. As strick Jews understand, to not enjoy life and all its juice is to sin. To miss the joy is to miss it all, and so many are missing it all. Thanks, Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 20 Apr 2003 15:00:55 -0600 Melissa Proffitt wrote: > The point of all of this is that just because Wolfe does this and creates > good writing, it doesn't mean that his is the ONLY kind of good writing. > It's just different. And it's written for a different audience. Calling it > "self-indulgent" only makes it sound like you want to throw up a different > barrier: the one that legitimizes only the kind of fiction *you* like. Read > (and write) what makes you happy; stick to the kinds of books that you > admire most. Just keep in mind that others' tastes must needs be met as > well, and their preferences for something else aren't a denigration of > yours. I'm sure I came across sounding like what you wrote here, but it's not readers' tastes that I was complaining about. What I truly don't get is why an author would make him/herself hard to read. You may enjoy putting your mind through a meat grinder (I don't--not a meat-grinder of difficult writing style), but I feel pretty confident that the majority of readers don't. And even though you enjoyed Wolfe's obtuseness, you also enjoyed the simplicity of the juvenile mystery series. Simplicity/directness/clarity in writing (whatever word you wish to choose to describe it) won't put off readers--even readers for whom Wolfeian styles appeal. What I don't get is why writers would choose the difficult approach. It _will_ decrease the size of the audience. We must remember that we are an elite crew here. We are literate. It's a heady ego booster to have literate people praise your writing, but my first and foremost desire for my authorial efforts is mass sales. I won't compromise my message to get sales, but I will certainly gear my writing style to ease people into my story as effortlessly as possible. The word "self-indulgent" isn't a carelessly tossed epithet. A writer who doesn't have the business end of writing in mind _is_ being self-indulgent: writing for himself rather than for a large audience. Now there's nothing wrong with that if they want to do that (and that's why I added that Gene Wolfe may not care if he maximizes his audience), but I don't get why an author would want to do that. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Traps need to entice their victims in effortlessly. Maybe that's why I am so big on writing in a way that slips the reader easily into my story. I tend to write things that are traps: forcing people against their will to think thoughts they wouldn't have chosen to think on their own. Maybe that's what I'm trying to say: easy thoughts can afford labyrinthine roads to them. Difficult thoughts need enticing, effortless paths. Difficult thoughts paired with difficult roads sounds like a recipe for failure. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Date: 22 Apr 2003 22:47:00 -0600 Nor can you copyright a title. I had what I thought was a *million dollar title* for a children's book. I wanted to protect the idea until I finished the book. Of course they wouldn't let me copyright the title until I had the *body of work* to attach to the title. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 23 Apr 2003 15:55:10 -0700 > >I never had the sense that they were poking > >fun at anything. > > The puppet scene didn't just reek of satire for you? One of the key > features of satire is to take a real situation and exaggerate in an > extreme way. Yeah I guess I did notice that. It was the only scene I remember liking--that, and the one with the husband singing. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 23 Apr 2003 15:57:12 -0700 > So, some of us celebrate evil, and the rest of us like hearing about it. > Maybe it makes us feel good about ourselves. Haha! I guess I was just completely proven wrong--check this out: "O.J. reality TV show in the works" http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/23/simpson/index.html Now *that* I find funny. I must just be weird? Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 23 Apr 2003 13:45:18 -0600 Robert Slaven wrote: > If there were an incredibly well-made porno movie out > there that demonstrated an amazing amount of talent and passion, would you > watch it? Would you applaud its making? Interesting question. And interesting illustration of a common rhetorical tactic used on this list--so common that surely it's earned the label of cliche by now. The tactic: "Would your argument hold up if it were applied to pornography?" I suppose this tactic is used because pornography is a convenient code word for evil: everybody except Larry Flint accepts pornography as an example of truly immoral art. Pornography is like Hitler, someone everyone but the Blues Brothers' Illinois Nazis can agree was an evil man. So I'm not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to the question and say, "Oh, of course not. I wouldn't if it were pornography." I'm going to spend a moment and think about it. If I heard there was a porno movie that was well made on the level of an Oscar-winning best movie of the year, with a fine plot, great acting, and superlative technical quality, I just might go see it out of curiosity. To my knowledge, such a beast has never existed. On the other hand, I might question whether it's possible to make a quality porno movie. Is it possible that raising a porno movie to a level of artistic quality automatically disqualified it as porno by definition? At least using my definition of a quality movie. My definition of quality requires a lack of gratuitious sex, violence, yada yada. By definition, isn't porno sexually gratuitous? The sex isn't there to serve the story. On the contrary, the story is there to serve the sex. So I'm not sure it's possible to make a porno film of artistic quality. Maybe that's why no one ever has. > If you haven't, I encourage you to > get a volume of essays by George Orwell and read 'Benefit of Clergy: Some > Notes on Salvador Dali'. I think it's mandatory reading material for anyone > who wants to produce art that isn't just cotton candy. I'm not likely to search out Orwell's essay in the immediate future. Can you give us a one or two line summary of its point? > But now I'm (more of) an adult, and I realise that I *can* be susceptible to > what is portrayed in this or that piece of art. I have some weak spots > w.r.t. certain forms of temptation that mean I can't watch many network > dramas (or comedies, for that matter) any more without one of my 'triggers' > being set off. I find that my spiritual well-being is precarious enough > that I must avoid certain works of art, even if they're well-crafted with > all the talent and passion their creators could muster. This is an issue every individual has to consider when making personal decisions on what kind of art to expose themselves to. But it's such an individual thing that it's untenable to use it as a basis for a general principle to apply to everyone. What this argument makes me wonder is, sure there are a lot of people in your position and they ought to be careful, but is this actually a good condition to be in? It seems like a whole lot of Mormons think it is. They think it's a wonderful thing to shield themselves (and everyone else they can impose their influence on) from all possible temptation. But I don't think that's so wonderful. I don't believe the ultimate spiritual state is to have one's morality constantly at the mercy of the environment. I believe the line "in the world but not of it" describes the exact opposite of that state. I wouldn't judge you or anyone else who is in that state of existence--indeed, we are probably all in that state over one temptation or another, and we ought to take that into account as we decide what art to consume. But it isn't a very strong state to be in. People ought to be in the process of strengthening themselves to the point where they don't need to use such a reactive, defensive approach to morality. True morality, in my opinion, is the power to ignore temptation, not hiding from it because I know I'm going to give in if I see it. It's an ideal state to achieve, and perhaps none of us will to perfection in this life. But it ought to be a goal we are striving for. The Deseret Book approach won't get us there. Which also means that perhaps we should be applauding those who are well on their way to achieving that state, not condemniong them for being "inappropriate." Isn't that condemnation the very same one that motivated Jesus' statement, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick"? ("Why are you hanging out with publicans and sinners?") -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 23 Apr 2003 15:57:10 -0700 > I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were > supposed to be appalled. So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Michael MCLEAN, _The Ark_ Date: 23 Apr 2003 16:33:39 -0700 My in-laws invited my husband and I to a small local theater that puts on about 4 musicals a year. The Village Theater is in a Seattle suburb called Issaquah, it seats 488. We had 3rd row center seats. I don't get out to plays very often and musicals even less often--my husband really doesn't enjoy seeing plays, and he enjoys musicals even less. (I love it.) His mother asked him what he thought after and he replied, "I figure I get big brownie points for that one." I didn't know going in that The Ark was written by Michael McLean or that he was LDS. I vaguely recognize the name but I couldn't tell you anything about him. I kind of thought, "What is there to tell about the ark story? This is going to be boring." But it wasn't. It was fun and interesting. Fun because the audience is supposed to be all the animals, and the actors sing directly to you and come out into the audience a couple times, focusing on a person here or there as if they were an animal. Interesting because it looks at what it would've been like to be cooped up on a boat with a bunch of animals and your family for 40 days--the monotony, the fighting, the hardship, the goofiness. The play has very little dialogue--the story is almost entirely told in song. The actors were all very good, but the mother and Egyptus (a black woman playing Ham's wife) really stood out as wonderful talents. Ham was played by a young man with the last name of McLean, but I didn't discover if he was related to the playwright or not. It wasn't horrendously cheesy, and there was even a scene that made me tear up a little. The music was good, and some numbers were really good. It was also interesting to see how the author wove in little bits of Mormon doctrine (Noah and his wife singing about marriage in a number called "It Takes Two") and terminology (generic things like "the spirit" and "revelation.") I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It wasn't spectacular, but I liked it more than the production of West Side Story I saw there last year. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 23 Apr 2003 20:04:43 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Now that I am a believer, and have studied LDS >theology, I think the implications of it are very interesting >and deep, especially when aspects of physics are >introduced. Multiplicity of gods and multiplicity of >universes is now conceivable to some physicists. So, if I >were a non-LDS intellectual or scientist, I might be >interested in chatting it up with Mormons, >except...ooops! Most Mormons would have no clue >what I'm talking about. I believe your last statement might be a bit of a quantum leap. If I remember the statistics correctly, I believe there are more scientists, and engineers, per capita, coming from Utah than from any other state. The prophet Brigham Young had this to say about education and knowledge back in the mid to late 19th century. "Every art and science known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the Gospel. Where did the knowledge come from which has enabled man to accomplish such great achievements in science and mechanism within the last few years? We know that knowledge is from God, but why do they not acknowledge him? Because they are blind to their own interests, they do not see and understand things as they are. Who taught men to chain the lightning? Did man unaided of himself discover that? No. he received the knowledge from the Supreme Being. From him, too, has every art and science proceeded, although the credit is given to this individual, and that individual. But where did they get the knowledge from, have they it in and of themselves? No; they must acknowledge that, if they cannot make one spear of grass grow, nor one hair white or black without artificial aid, they are dependent upon the Supreme Being just the same as the poor and the ignorant. Where have we received the knowledge to construct the labor-saving machinery for which the present age is remarkable? From Heaven. Where have we received our knowledge of astronomy, or the power to make glasses to penetrate the immensity of space? We received it from the same Being that Moses, and those who were before him, received their knowledge from; the same Being who told Noah that the world should be drowned and its people destroyed. From him has every astronomer, artist and mechanician that ever lived on the earth obtained his knowledge. By him, too, has the power to receive from one another been bestowed, and to search into the deep things pertaining to this earth and every principle connected with it. 12:257." ( Discourses of Brigham Young - 1851-1877) I started reading a book* written by a physicist a few years back, but I had to stop, because it got way too deep for my cognitive resources to comprehend. This book's purpose was to prove, by means of pure physics, the existence of God The author began by examining the "Chaos Theory" and speculating on the odds of one cell forming under the parameters accepted by this theory. Then he extrapolated on the odds of it happening twice, or repeating itself in order to sustain the first one.After that it got way too complicated for me, but I could see where he might be headed, and I think he had a good point. I think this is the kind of knowledge that comes from God that brother Brigham was talking about. Perhaps God is opening the eyes of scientists to help them to understand, that without God, humans are truly insignificant scraps of matter floating in the immensity of the cosmos on an even larger but no less insignificant speck of matter. *"The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler; 1995 This writer was not to my knowledge a member of the church, but then he could be by now. Who knows? http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html Here is an interesting website of Dr. Tipler's in which he concludes: "So our mind children at the end of time will be omniscient (they will know everything that can be known); they will be omnipotent (they will have infinite energy, controlling all the energy resources in the universe), and they are omnipresent (they are ubiquitous throughout the universe). It is interesting that God's Name, as given in Exodus 3:14, is in the original Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which translates into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. " I think the topic of Mormon scientists would be an excellent contribution from someone on this list who is qualified to research and write it. "The History of LDS Men of Mathematics and Science." But perhaps it has been done??? hmmm..... Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 24 Apr 2003 01:49:20 -0400 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Traps need to entice their >victims in effortlessly. Maybe that's why I am so big on writing in a >way that slips the reader easily into my story. I tend to write things >that are traps: forcing people against their will to think thoughts they >wouldn't have chosen to think on their own. > >Maybe that's what I'm trying to say: easy thoughts can afford >labyrinthine roads to them. Difficult thoughts need enticing, effortless >paths. Difficult thoughts paired with difficult roads sounds like a >recipe for failure. Failure, yes, if you want to limit the literary experience to . If you want to trap your reader into a single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work, that's great. I won't deny that I really like and need those sorts of novels from time to time--for the same reason that I enjoy watching "Law and Order" or summer action movies. But I will never come back to them. I will never read a book that easy twice, much less think of it again. And not out of some pretentious literati-type snobbery. I won't because it's no fun, and there's nothing to be gained from a second "viewing". A novel that challenges me, though, that I could read for the sound of its words alone, I'll come back to time and time again. Especially if I'm not sure what it means. Poetic language tends to explode the possibilities of meaning, that is, make multiple layers of meaning apparent. I want books (and movies and art) that force me to make decisions, not stuff that just lays it all out for me. Or rather, I want and need both for different reasons. Of course, if you don't like poetry, which has its roots in the archaic (read: originary) idea that sound and meaning were at some point unified, you probably won't like authors who refuse to deny the musical and multiple quality of language. It's that quality that I would argue might make a "poetic" novel more accessible to a wider audience--since the possibilities of the poetic text are more open (though not infinitely) to specific, particular individual readings. Sales of effortless prose are higher because they have to be--a person could buy one Gene Wolff (whom I haven't read) or novel and never need to buy another, but no one is going to read Tom Clancy's latest seventeen times. Tom Clancy sells more because his stuff is designed to be easily consumed, digested, and well, the hygiene discussion is part of another thread... To use your analogy, the machine--anonymous and reproducible--might dig twenty thousand (good and solid) tunnels to John Henry's one, but people know his name and resurrect him every time they sing his song. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Addictions and Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 06:19:32 EDT Medical science has decided that alcoholism and other similar addictions can definitely run in families--even when individuals are raised in different environments. I don't know whether they've studied porn addictions particularly, but it's likely that it runs similar to the various chemical addictions. They know there are several mental illnesses that are also familial. Whether they've actually identified the gene like they have with certain types of breast & colon cancer yet or not, I haven't heard. So--because if there's a gene, do people use that gene as a cop-out and say "there's nothing I can do?" Or do they use the knowledge as a tool to help avoid the problem. Most of the folks I know that discover a genetic link to various cancers use that as a reason to modify diet and lifestyle, including getting more frequent check ups by the doctor. But perhaps links to those less physically deadly familial inheritances don't carry the same urgency for lifestyle adjustment for folks until they get caught in the addiction trap. Then one could begin to argue about the compulsion to create--whether written word, or music, or painting, sculpture or other. Obsessive compulsion is one of the things that get classified as a mental illness, particularly when the compulsions get in the way of a "normal" lifestyle. So are the creative artists in the world "crazy" and does that excuse those who participate in deviant lifestyles because those who are mentally ill can't help themselves & their behavior? Some would argue that it does. I am less sure. But there is certainly a wealth of stories that could be told about even the creative slice of society based on this concept. Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jen Wahlquist" Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 24 Apr 2003 06:56:57 -0600 Hi, Melissa: Congratulations! I also have four sons, and one daughter. Boys are so much fun -- but then, my daughter turned out to be the clan leader. Best wishes, -Jen Wahlquist PS. Your interest in writing will undoubtedly return when, once again, you are able to focus in that direction. If it were me, I'd just enjoy the baby for now; they are young for such a short time. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S. Bezas" Subject: RE: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:53:06 -0400 Great analogy. I also believe that there are two subsets of Apple Biters: those who choose to wade in that which brings them sorrow and those who have it thrust upon them, which also (in my opinion) highlights the difference between sin and transgression. As writers, then, we choose which of those subsets to explore and in which manner. Layer that with the additional knowledge of gospel truths, and our accountability as artists becomes quite pressing. Cindy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 24 Apr 2003 07:59:43 -0600 ailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Eric Samuelsen Se Barbara Hume asked about Brian Vickers' book, Appropriating Shakespeare. It's not a new book, came out in '92 or '93. It's generally regarded as a backlash book, in which he argues that feminist criticism (or Marxist, or whatever) tells us more about feminists (or Marxists or whatevers) than about Shakespeare. Eric's points about Vickers make sense to me. But I also want to argue that Vicker's point--that it is a bad thing for critics to appropriate Shakespeare--misses all kinds of important things about criticism. Criticism isn't just about illuminating the text it is about illuminating the world. Appropriating any text is in my mind a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Why shouldn't a critic who wants to change the world or point out the problems in the world use any text she can to do so? Why does the literary text "matter" more than the critical text? Gae Lyn Henderson Vi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 24 Apr 2003 09:58:45 -0400 >Clark Goble and D. Michael Martindale wrote: >> > But that merely avoids the question by pushing it down a level. >> > What makes a story appropriate or inappropriate? >> >>When I'm writing it, my personal judgment, no more, no less. >> >> > Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling stories >> > that are inappropriate? >> >>There are well written, compelling stories where the author makes >>different decisions than I do on the relevance of certain details. I >>disagree wih them, and I[m sure they disagree on my assessment. So what >>are we going to do? I explain my reasons for believing as I do, he >>explains his reasons for believing as he does, maybe one of us is >>influenced to change our judment, maybe not. What I don't do is expect >>everyone to agree with my judgment as if it came directly from God. > I'm glad to see this question getting some good debate going; I asked a similar question--whether some things simply ought not be written about--a while ago, but nobody bit. I see where both of you are coming from, I think. On the one hand, we don't want to be in the business of drawing pharisaical lines in the sand or empowering one artist and not another to tell us what is appropriate and what isn't. On the other, many would like to preserve some aspects of our worship as absolutely sacred and therefore not speak at all about them. There seems to be an inherent value in holding certain things apart, despite any reason we might conceive that would suggest the opposite. How do we draw the line? I keep thinking of the second part of Goethe's _Faust_, specifically the episodes in the second part concerning Faust's creation of a "man"--the homunculus. Goethe seems to be suggesting that the fact that we *can* do some things doesn't mean we *should.* (If you're going to start reading this paragraph, please finish it.) More to the point, perhaps, I wonder if the pressures sometimes felt by artists from the official Church are increased by a (conscious or unconscious) disregard for the sacred; that is, if those called in official capacities to maintain the integrity of the Church feel that art is a threat because these lines are always being challenged for largely secular reasons (ie, most human storytelling and art). A different analogy to the same effect: I've mentioned before that I see the "corporatization" or "capitalization" of the Church and its culture not as the cause but the result of our being willing to market whatever we can--Book of Mormon action figures to be stored in the Gold Plates Carrying Case; the upcoming Book of Mormon movies; the entire missionary industry, etc. As we as a culture get more comfortable subjecting our pearls to the market, our church will inevitably follow. NOTE: I don't mean to say that every artist who has felt misunderstood or pressured by the official Church has disregarded the bounds of the sacred. Sometimes good art is just misunderstood. But I don't see a constant pushing the envelope simply for the purposes of storytelling (or any art) resulting in more tolerance from official positions; a retrenchment is more likely. Finally, if we're going to push the envelope, we should be aware of possible consequences and ready to suffer them, just as we would in a case of civil disobedience for a course we felt compelled to follow. I know that we will probably never come to a consensus as to what should be "held apart" (a better designation, maybe, than "off-limits"). It probably has a lot to do with, as D. Michael points out, personal judgment. Here's hoping that we can continue to listen closely and humbly for guidance in our creative efforts, and apply that the same humility to receiving what our fellow artists offer us. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Veda Hale Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT) I'm a lurker, but not a millionaire to take the entire AML list to see the stage play of Chicago, as Dutcher would like. But I do think I understand what he is trying to say. That understanding is coming from my work on this huge project that is consumming me, which is the biography of Maurine Whipple. She did what Dutcher is wishing for in her writing of THE GIANT JOSHUA. Hopefully, the biography will help a writer see how costly to a personal life the creation of something great can be. Lavina is finally finding time to get to the editing of the biography manuscript, so in the next year or two it should be out---even if I have to pay to have it published. It might be the only thing I ever contribute to the writing world as I am getting old. But I know in my gut that it is important and just for the reasons Dutcher is telling us. Cedar Fork did publish a novel of mine last year--THE RAGGED CIRCLE-- but I am not inclined to do what it takes to "get it out there". Veda Hale --- RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 24 Apr 2003 02:13:07 -0600 Harlow S Clark wrote: > I begin wondering about the morality of taking a > pornographic picture of a young teen actress so you can tell a story > about how destructive child porn is. > What think ye? I wonder if we can classify that photograph as pornographic. I'm not saying I agree with having the picture in the episode. I haven't seen the episode, so I don't know how necessary it was. Harlow may very well be right when he says it wasn't necessary. But I see a big difference between a man, slavering with lust, bullying or seducing a helpless child into posing for a pornographic photo that he will use to indulge his vicious appetites, and a young professional model posing for a photo as part of an artistic project which is trying to speak out against a terrible evil. In the first, the child is being victimized, usually against her will, under harrowing circumstances. In the latter, the child is choosing to participate, probably has parents in attendance to make sure everything is safe and comfortable for the child, understands the purpose behind everything, and is shown respect and courtesy throughout the process. Very different things are going on within the minds of the two young models, and it is in the mind where the damage will or will not take place. One can still believe that posing for the television show's photograph was inappropriate, but I don't think one can equate that experience with a victim of child pornography. > I started thinking about the idea we hear in the culture > occasionally that the people on the other side of the veil have a > tremendous interest in us and want to help us. Somehow I question that. If we're possessed with the same spirit in that life that we are in this life, then I suspect they're all too busy worrying about their own affairs to pay much attention to us. With, I'm sure, some noteworthy exceptions. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Date: 24 Apr 2003 02:14:43 -0600 Nan McCulloch wrote: > Nor can you copyright a title. I had what I thought was a *million dollar > title* for a children's book. I wanted to protect the idea until I finished > the book. Of course they wouldn't let me copyright the title until I had > the *body of work* to attach to the title. Even then you can't copyright the title. Anyone can use it, as long as they don't use it with the intent of trying to pass it off as your book (which is an infringement of trade issue, not a copyright issue). -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. Date: 24 Apr 2003 12:07:50 EDT I really like your hypothesis, though of course you know it's not that simple. I can't imagine any Paradisian just puttering in the garden for very long. I don't know of any who labor with greater vigor than General Authorities (also other "holy men [and women] that we know not of" - many of whom, I am convinced, live very quietly in our own wards). It's more like they're constantly making hybrids and developing new subspecies, as well as always endeavoring to assist the Apple Biters to come and partake of another kind of Fruit. I think that really, these "Paradisians" defy classification. They have come to realize that, like C.S. Lewis' story of the stable in the last volume of The Chronicles of Narnia, once you get fully established on the Strait and Narrow, you find it is bigger on the inside than on the outside. We Apple Biters need to be very careful about quantifying where we have not yet been, or about perhaps persuading ourselves that we can follow a different course and still arrive at the Tree. Only the great Innocent One can help us make those distinctions. That said, I restate that I really liked your thoughts. Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 10:19:38 -0600 On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:23:10 EDT, RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: >I look at my work lately and I see so clearly the restraints I have = placed on >myself. Where is anything that I have done where you can see my bare = soul >exploding on the movie screen? Have you ever seen me cut loose with a = camera >and show you what I can really do? No, you haven't. Why not? Because I >haven't done it! Because I've held back! I've been polite and modest and >restrained, all good and well behind the podium in sacrament meeting, = but >death behind a movie camera. > >For whatever reason, I haven't been fulfilling the measure of my = creation. I >haven't taken the talents the Lord has given me and magnified them to = their >potential. Why not? That's the question that CHICAGO put into my brain. = And I >can only answer with my work. and Travis Manning replied, in part: >"Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should = define >timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? = Richard >Dutcher? What if each of these individuals see and define art = differently? >Is one person's vision of art more courageous? less? more timid? = less? This seems like two completely different conversations, to me. I don't think Richard's complaint about timidity in art has anything to do with viewers or what their thresholds are. Instead I think he's talking about the artist's reluctance to tell the stories that are in him, unfettered = by fear. If the audience then thinks such stories are too raw for them, = it's their choice and obligation not to participate--but at least Richard = would know that he had used his abilities to the fullest. And I agree with him, wholeheartedly, one-hundred-percent. Every artist = has their own level of talent, their own limit to their abilities, and it's = my belief that we are obligated to reach for that limit. Anything less is = pure laziness--even if we never do reach the full measure of our potential, we ought at least to try. But because this level is personal and usually = only knowable by the individual, it's important for the rest of us not to = assume that there's some absolute scale by which artistic creation is measured. This is where Travis's comments come in. We can only truly know if our = own efforts are timid--not anyone else's. And "timid" doesn't equal "not graphic." I'm not nearly an artist on Richard's level, but his words about trying = to truly make the most of the talent he's been given touched me deeply. All= my life I've known that even as I'm receiving praise for the things I've = done, it didn't even come close to the limit of what I was capable of. And = it's just so *easy* to do the bare minimum, especially if the minimum looks really good. If we were being judged on results, some kind of threshold qualification for passing the earthly test, that might be safe, but I = think God wants our whole hearts, and that's much more of a challenge. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 16:26:58 GMT I have one more comment about passion. In December we visited Washington DC for the premiere of Russell's "Prelude to Glory." We visited the National Museum of Art, and the most interesting and powerful thing I experienced was the passion in many of the works. We stood in front of Rembrandt's "Windmills" and I just cried and cried--because it was incredibly passionate. You don't get that in the prints in the art books, but the brush strokes were pure passion. I saw the same thing in the very early works, the medieval stuff. They were almost abstract, they were so intense. It was a real shock to me. Again I resolved myself to more passion, more genuineness, in what I want to do. Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 22 Apr 2003 21:30:28 -0700 My good internet friend D. Michael Martindale, who I hope one day to = meet, but until then with whom I love to argue online (and by = "argue" I mean that word only in its most positive definitions -- those = about reasoning, thinking and exchange; and that wonderful, oft = forgotten quotation in Webster's New International Unabridged, Second = Edition, which says: "as in, to argue with a friend without convincing = him" -- rather than the negative and pejorative definitions of the word = which we more-often-than-not assign it, both in lexicography as well as = in practice), railed the other day on the literary notion of "obscurity" = with reference to the recent (and I have found, fascinating) thread = regarding some of the speculative works of Gene Wolfe.=20 I have accidentally deleted my copy of Michael's original post, and = being too lazy to go dig it up in the archive or to ask him to send me = another copy, I will plow ahead in this essay by paraphrasing him, which = will doubtlessly do desperate damage to the integrity of the quotes I = will assign to him, for which I apologize in advance. But basically, if = my memory serves, Michael responded to other's reviews and commentaries = about the linguistic and stylistic difficulty inherent in reading = Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" tetralogy, in a negative light. Michael = was not responding to Wolfe's books specifically, having never read = them, but to a more general literary notion or device, that of = "obscurity" or textual difficulty. Michael went on to argue forcefully = for "clarity" and simplicity: a straightforward approach to storytelling = which does not diminish the presentation of complex themes, but wherein = the language itself should be as clear as possible. I think I do not do = disservice to the general tenor of Michael's remarks by paraphrasing him = thusly. That was more or less the gist. Now it is not my wish, either, to speak about Wolfe's work specifically = (other than to cite an occasional illustrative example) -- at least not = yet. I have to do a little refresher course and preparation to be able = to adequately contribute to any discussion of him. After all, it's been = 20 years. But I will say (just so that this admission will set my bias = cards on the table, and it will be clear where I'm coming from) that I = like Gene Wolfe. In my opinion, he's on the "must-read" list for anyone = interested in speculative fiction (which I know Michael is); but then, = that's just my opinion, and Michael says that specifically because of = the recent thread about Wolfe's complexity, Michael doesn't want to read = him. So, to each their own.=20 As a side note, I can further admit that I just dug out my copy of = "Castle of Days" this morning and found some great pleasures in it (so = thanks to Jonathan for reminding us about that interesting tome). = Furthermore, I expect that I will be doing some extensive Wolfeian = re-reading in the next few months. All of this chat has set my mood = swinging in that direction again, and I'm actually quite excited and = looking forward to it. A great, gargantuan gulp of gastronomic sci-fi, a = tapestry of superfluous invention, adventure, images and ideas - Yeah! = It's a feast! And I can't wait to go back to the table! So be = forewarned, I am a fan of Wolfe, specifically, and harbor a tendency = towards a certain gothic verbosity, generally (DUH! as if that isn't = obvious). So I'm not impartial. But that statement of personal inclinations aside, I would like to offer = herein a more general, and I hope well-reasoned, argument on behalf of, = or in defense of, literary obscurity. But to do so, I must also state = that I, basically, agree with Michael's defense of clarity. And what I = hope to do herein is to plead for a balance in literary practice and = criticism: the need for a recognizable common clarity; and the delights = and importance of an occasional obscurity. In Wolfe's seminal sci-fi tetralogy, he plays with a notion he calls = "The Book of Gold". This "Book of Gold" (much like the many-winged = beasts in Revelations) is both an actual book and a figurative one. The = Book of Gold is relative to each person. Your "book of gold" may not be = my "book of gold", and yet, the aged librarian in "New Sun" can describe = his perfectly. Whatever your book of gold is, it resonates with you = forever, changes you, becomes a part of you. And each person will have a = different one. Again: to each their own. Wolfe also plays with the idea, which I like very much, that "books of = gold" are usually encountered early in life. The librarian in "Sun" = tells the main character that he will never actually see this Book, as = he is "past the age when it is met." That reminds me of a quote by David = Kherdian who said that: "What we learn in childhood is carved in stone; = what we learn in adulthood is carved in ice." And then I can never = remember who said this (Dickens? or somebody), but I believe it: "We = never love a book so much as when we are 10." (Maybe it was Stephen = King.) So not only does each person gravitate towards their own personal = inclinations (and my French half is inclined to shout: "Vive la = difference!"), but timing in life, and timing in the encounter of any = given piece of art or literature, also alters the field of perception = and reception. It was said to us as missionaries that, statistically, = people will have 7 or 8 encounters with the gospel before beginning to = seriously investigate it. Sometimes we need a set-up, preparatory = experiences, prior to being able to embrace or appreciate a thing. Other = times, we identify with something suddenly and in whole cloth, as if the = veil of forgetfulness is ripped away and we just recognized something = we've know forever which we have just encountered for the first time. = Other times, no amount of effort or exposure will cause someone to = identify with a thing which feels foreign or which remains perpetually = outside their interest. And then, back to the Dickens or King quote, = sometimes we miss opportunities which may never return. Since my son's brain injury, however, I have learned about the notion of = "neurological dispensation" with respect to youth. While it is true that = your young brain learns things that our older brains do not (the ice and = stone metaphor), certain brain injuries actually set back the clock to = some extent. Neurologically speaking, my son is an infant even though he = is four. His latent potential, then, is still in its infancy. Even at 12 = or at 20, theoretically, after unlocking certain sensory blockers, he = could begin to learn at a rate that only toddlers can, despite his being = a physical adult. This is his neurological dispensation, a gift of the = synapses: perpetual youth. Given that we generally accept in this forum that we are eternal beings, = I have always felt comfortable with the model of this mortal experience = being a spiritual infancy, regardless of our mortal age. And by seeing = it that way, I would argue that our capacity for change, learning, = growth, fundamental development, is ceaseless, or at least, barely = broached while here below. If my son has been given a biological = dispensation of time from a physical sense (whether he is able to take = advantage of that or not has yet to be seen -- we are only talking about = potential), so then do we, in a sense, have a developmental dispensation = of time from a spiritual sense. Whether we are able to take advantage of = that or not has yet to be seen. What I mean to say is that we are forever growing and changing. If we = are seeking perfection (in whatever form one defines it), and if we = think that art -- appreciation of others, the exploration of lives not = our own, the human craving for the exchange stories, the mental exercise = of metaphor and allegory -- if any of this is a part of that arc of = perfection, then there is something to be said for the constant = evolution and modification of our tastes. Literature, for those for whom = it is important at all, is usually considered vitally important, of = fundamental importance. And yet, as has already been explored, we have = so little time. We'll never get through all that we like, and what about = all that stuff we don't like? Or don't know if we might like in future, = or might have liked had we encountered it in the past but it is too late = now? To me there is hope in these questions, not despair. Again, we are = eternal beings. I propose that with respect to struggles in art, = searches for growth, appreciation of the pantheon of experience: we may = always be 10. We may yet be able to find, each of us, our various Books = of Gold. And the encounter at age 90 may be just as etched in stone as = our experience in youth. I'm an optimist in that way. So how does this revolve back around to the subject of clarity versus = obscurity? When I was young, certain texts seemed to me obscure; once I was older, = they were more clear. When I was young, certain texts seemed to me quite = simple and clear; once I was older, and could see previously = unrecognized nuance, they were more obscure. Things change. We may yet = be able to comprehend things which are now obscure. In other ways, the = more we learn, the more we realize how little we understand. Not everyone is at the same arc of time, the same point in the sphere of = progression, the same phase in developmental evolution. We all complete = our arcs of progress (if you will accept that such a concept exists) at = different rates; each of us takes a unique path; all of us may end up at = diverse, but equally glorious, conclusions. One of my kids is probably a = genius (never had her tested, but she's brilliant); another of my kids = is developmentally delayed. My delayed kid is spiritually perfect; my = genius kid, not quite nine, already struggles with sin. Arcs and loops = and ups and downs and improvements and reversals -- we stumble into = eternity with more questions than answers, more hope in promises than = evidences of things seen. Life is not always clear. So how do you communicate THAT feeling, in an articulate way? You must = use every tool you possess. And literature is one of the most powerful, = fluid, elastic, plastic, dynamic, malleable and manipulatable forms of = expression there is, next to music I suppose. But whereas music has mood = and dynamic and emotion, language also carries a meaning which is = somewhat more concrete than music; it has a greater power to more = directly convey meaning (even though it cannot always do so). Language, = in all its power and inadequacy, in all its hamstringing limitations and = vibrant life is that tool.=20 How do you convey this overwhelming life in language that is not, from = time to time, in and of itself overwhelming? One of the powers of literature, is to communicate something which is = often greater than the sum of its various parts. A story is a story. = People in it do what they do. But that story may have a broader meaning, = another layer of communication. This second (third, fourth, fifth.) = layer of meaning may be obvious or obscure. It may be intended by the = author, or it may be perceived by an audience in a way that the author = had never thought about. A symbolic level of communication may have been = intended by the author, but no one in the audience gets it. All of these = aspects of literature make it fascinating, make it worth studying and = discussing, make it ultimately, worth more than the specific plots it = recounts. After all, there are only 7 stories (speaking about plot) in = existence. Or 12 or 25 or 102, depending on who you talk to; but the = number is always small and finite. And then there is style: the phrases and words used to describe the = stories themselves. And herein lies the infinity of our form.=20 The story may be that Buck kicked a ball. But "Buck booted the ball", = "Buck belligerently bashed the ball" and "The boy with the brick-red = face bent his toe to the apex of all his longing and showed the crowd = what he was all about" are all different styles of the same ball story, = the last example the most "obscure", but perhaps also the most "true". = Depends. Furthermore, as has been explored somewhat in other threads regarding = validity of memory, individual words are tricky things, and reality and = perception itself, constructed as it is upon a tenuous spider's web = network of untrustworthy synapses, is bound to be inherently complex and = difficult to relate. And each attempt to relate it, to convey a sense of = reality, will be more or less accepted or understood by each audience = member depending on a host of external factors, not the least of which = is where they are in their overall life journey to begin with. Therefore, nothing can be clearly stated for everyone. There is no story, no experience, no character, no thought, no literary = exercise, that will, in every case, be clear to everyone. A science book = that is clear to Clark Goble today may never be clear to me, or some = day, in time, I might get it. A joke that is utterly hilarious (and = therefore, completely accessible) to my 6 year-old, may strike me as = totally obscure; when my 6 year old is 38, she may not get why it was so = funny back then, either. Clarity and obscurity in literature are subjective, relative = experiences.=20 [I have to just quickly make an aside and quote Paris Anderson's funny = and wonderful reaction the other day under the "Time Heals Artistic = Wounds" thread talking about his altered perceptions of music over time, = going back to music that used to be dangerous and intense to him and = finding it today suddenly jaunty and innocent. He says: "Whoa! My memory = has been betrayed! It's one of those things that make you wonder if = anything is real." I love that.] The quest for clarity of communication in literature is laudable, and I = would argue further, is ALWAYS the goal of the accomplished writer. = Great writers are always struggling to clearly communicate something. = What they are trying to communicate may be obscure to some of their = readers; they may fail in their attempts to be clear; they may use words = and devices and metaphors and symbols and terms which do not communicate = to a portion of their audience, but the overall mood or feeling or = concept is communicated clearly. Bad writers are obscure for obscurity's = sake, or impose upon their otherwise bad writing a veneer of style = (read: obscurity) to disguise their lack of talent. (Bad filmmakers do = the same thing.) This is not something I defend. I am defending good = writing here, great writing (and Gene Wolfe, by the way, is great in his = genre), and I would say again: great writers are ALWAYS trying to be = clear. But how do you clearly describe a psychedelic experience? What if your = point is to clearly communicate a sensation of total disorientation? = What if the life of your character is a hell, a hell which you wish to = communicate, not just in its outer trappings, but within the inner life = as well, to go into a mind that is filled with disorder, in order to = briefly (I say "briefly" as a critic, because it is my opinion that if = such things go on too long they become pornography; but I have a = different definition of that term than many, and that is a topic for a = different essay), I repeat, in order to briefly convey to the reader the = "reality" of the character's disorder? This may require the writing of = some very difficult passages, difficult not just in content, but in = style, presentation, meter, time, narrative device, all tools used by = the artist to convey, clearly, something which is to most of us = unimaginable or obscure.=20 To one reader, such a passage might hit the nail on the head so = powerfully as to bowl them over with a sense of recognition. Another = reader might say, what the heck is this writer doing, I don't understand = a thing that's going on here! Obscure for one; clear for another. But the writer used the literary = device of obscurity to convey, as clearly as the limitations of his = medium and the range of his inventiveness would allow him, the reality = of the experience. And I say we must allow this artist to do so. You see, if we limit ourselves to one expression of reality, we have = effectually closed the door to possibility. In some sense, I agree with = much of the concepts of artist and lecturer Ben Zander. Zander talks = about art being absolutely interested in this concept of "possibility". = He says, there are three ways that we can react to the world, three = choices we can make when faced with the conundrums of existence: we can = react with a sense of resignation, anger or possibility. He creates a = syllogism of interconnected concepts: 1) When faced with the world we = can feel anger, resignation or possibility; 2) a human being in the = presence of possibility has shiny eyes; 3) art is to create shiny eyes = and to transform people's lives. Okay, perhaps this is simplistic, but = the simplicity of his ideas offers a certain clarity, no?=20 He goes on to propound the following sound-bite: "All you can do is = stand in possibility and create." (Which may, of course, be a little = obscure for some tastes.) At any rate, to insist that obscure writing is bad writing is to miss a = very big point (not that this is what Michael suggested -- I'm just = saying). In the description of extremes of experience literary obscurity = may be the only way to "accurately" convey certain things. And, in this = argument, poetry is essential to some forms of expression; and poetic = forms, which are obscure to many, communicate truth to some in ways that = no other medium can. We cannot disallow it. Sometimes, obscurity is used, temporarily, to make a larger point, a = point which would be less clear, if it did not start out obscurely.=20 For example, and this is not the best example, but I'm too lazy right = now to think of a better one, and it was something that happened on the = list: a little while back, to make a point about reality, and some other = things, I played a little literary "joke". I created a fictional = character, Voder Foss, and had him write an introduction to the list = denying my own existence with the claim that he had created me. I = submitted the false letter without explanation. There was almost = immediate confusion. Our fair moderator, attempting to adjudicate a list = with a no-anonymity rule, and not knowing me from Adam, found himself = perplexed. What is real? Who are you? What is going on? Everything was = sorted out pretty quickly and I got to make my point in a follow-up = essay. Some people laughed and got it; some people got it, but didn't = laugh; some people could have cared less. That's not my point. The point is that I used an initially confusing device specifically to = create a literary object lesson which I desired to express clearly. The = confusion at the outset was essential to my point, and precisely the = reaction I desired from that portion of the audience that would = eventually even care. I chose, consciously, to be obscure, to create a = temporary mood of confusion, so that my point about the vaguities of = literary reality could then be made. Initial confusion was an essential = element of the bigger joke. Could this have been done a different way? = Sure. Was it successful done this way? Maybe, maybe not. As I said, it's = not the greatest example. But I propose that as a concept, it is valid: = literary obscurity can be a viable device for the conveyance of a = different spin on the truth, or to punctuate reality in an unexpected = way, initiating a thought process in the audience that is, again, = greater than the sum of the parts the writer presents, because it = demands a reader's involvement at a heightened level than a more = conventional (clear) telling might have required. Now let's move to scripture. I'm going to argue that scripture is = literature. (This is, obviously, not to suggest that literature is = scripture, even great literature, or that Gene Wolfe's Christian = allegories in an otherwise violent and sexy swashbuckling sword and = sorcery adventure make that specific work important or even worthwhile.) = But scripture is a literary form: it is written by men, describing their = spiritual experiences, stories about their lives dealing with issues of = faith. Many of us also write stories about our lives dealing with issues = of faith. At any rate, some would say that scripture is literature at = its highest most rarified form. And I hope I don't come off as smug or = condescending when I point out that, excuse me, there is nowhere a = better argument in defense of literary obscurity in all the world than = scripture! Some of the most famous devices used by the great spiritual teachers, = many of whom we venerate, are the forms of the parable, the symbolic = rite, the extended allegory, the poetic allusion and the visionary = rapture. None of these are devices to which I would attribute a great = deal of "clear and simple storytelling"! Scriptures are often not = straight-forward; they often defy initial compression; they demand study = and thought; they engender debate and discussion; we hunger after = interpretations and clarifications; we struggle to discover applications = of them in our actual lives, etc., etc., etc. Scriptures use obscuring literary devices more consistently than any = other written form, and I am here to argue that it is ESSENTIAL that = they do so. Why? To PROTECT the reader. And to IMPRESS themselves upon the mind of the = reader. It is not God's intention to damn us out of hand, I would suggest. = There's a great plan of salvation, an atonement, and some incredible = quantities of mercy being bandied about. We are getting lots of chances = to "get it", as it were. But there is an interesting wrinkle in justice, = however, that says that you are responsible for that which you = understand.=20 (I'm going to go into more detail about where this thought might lead us = in an aside in another essay I'm working on in response to Jacob = Proffitt's and my recent exchange under the heading of "Artist's = Personal Lives", but some of those thoughts relate to this argument as = well.) We do not believe that a man will be condemned in ignorance. That is to = say, we do not believe that a man can be saved in ignorance, either. But = we do believe that all men (yes, women, too, sorry about the = gender-centricity of my language, but it's just easier) will be taught = the complete truth, and after that will have to decide. We do not = believe in judging people for laws they have not been given. = Missionaries do not go in to teach a young couple living together and = immediately start out by screaming madly, spittle running down their = chins: "You sinners! You fornicating heathens!" No. They start out = slowly, teaching principles, which, if accepted, lead on to others, = until finally, if this couple desires baptism, we say, "Oh by the way, = you guys really need to get married." At which point, the couple says, = oh yeah! Of course. Given their new understanding, they move into a = different sphere of law and obligation. Say you and I are god. Or rather say that I am god. (Yeah, that sounds = more cool!) Okay, so I'm god. And my dog, his name is Henry, he is my = creation or charge or whatever. Now, my dog is pretty smart. Henry's got = a lot of things together; more, in fact, than a lot of people. But even = so, there are some things Henry doesn't get. So, what would it be like = if I said to my dog, "Henry, I want you to go wash the car. Right now. = And triple wax it, too." Henry is, of course, not yet equipped to 1) = understand what I'm asking of him, or 2) to actually do it if he could = understand me. Then, we'll take the example one step further, what if I = was to put some kind of extreme penalty upon his failure to accomplish = my directions? If you don't do what I tell you, I'll kill you. Now, = Henry's a pretty nice dog, but you know what? That puppy's dead.=20 There is no way that Henry can do (yet, at this point in his evolution) = what I ask of him. There is no way that he can even understand it = (again: yet). But what if I have this other dog, Butch, who is actually, = kind of amazingly, not like any dog you've ever seen. This dog Butch can = read newspapers, walk on his hind legs, and likes to go dancing. He has = a tendency to smoke cigars and play poker with his other dog buddies = (one of whom is an artist), but still, this is one fairly evolved dog. = So now I say to Butch, "Go wash the car, do a good job, or your dead." = Butch gulps, washes the car, and he's off the hook. But Henry, = unfortunately, he didn't get it, so he's dead. Not very fair, right? I have to take into consideration that my dogs are = not on equal terms here. But what can I do, the laws of nature have been = decreed: dogs who don't wash cars will eventually die. It's a law, = folks. Out of my hands. (See, I'm not such a vicious god after all -- = this is just the way things are.) Really, I'm a very nice god. I don't = make arbitrary rules. In fact, all I really do is provide an education = service to try and help my charges evolve based on rules which are in = existence which they have forgotten that they know about. So, somehow, I = have to tell my dogs that these are the rules. But thankfully, I don't = have to execute the penalties until everybody understands everything. Or = at least that's the theory. So, I decide I'm going to publish some of these rules and things in a = book. And I pass the book out. Butch, he's a great reader, he gets it. = Henry, he's still pretty doggy and all, and he can only decipher = "H-E-N-R-Y". (I have a sneaking suspicion that he can also read = "D-O-G-F-O-O-D", but I can't prove it yet.) But see, I'm stuck: when = somebody understands the law, they are under obligation to live by it or = suffer the consequences. (Some laws have consequences even if you don't = understand them; Butch's cigars hurt him even if I decide it's not an = actual sin to smoke them; but I'm just interested right now in the = "what-you-don't-know-can't-hurt-you-and-what-you-do-know-can" kind of = laws.)=20 So I come up with a plan to disguise some of my instructions in fairly = obscure texts. Butch, chances are, he'll figure it out after a while. = Henry, on the other hand, to him its all garbly-gook, which is just as = well, because he can't even walk on his hind legs yet, and if he KNEW he = had to go and wash the car, well then, darn it, I'd have to kill him. All right, my dog game's gone on long enough. I think my point is = probably boringly obvious. I may be wrong about this whole thing, but I = think that one reason for literary obscurity in scripture is a = protective device to limit the texts accessibility to those who are = ready to receive it. And that is a perfectly acceptable reason to = indulge in a little confusion from time to time. Ironically, it is the scriptural character who is most apt to preach in = defense of clarity, Nephi, who is the one who most vigorously suggests = that we study Isaiah, one of the most literarily obscure of the ancient = prophets. "For I Nephi delight in plainness," he says, and then he turns = around and says, "Great are the words of Isaiah," and everybody should = study them! He goes onto explain that Isaiah is not hard for him to = understand, because he was taught in the manner of the Jews, lived at = Jerusalem, and he has the tools in his arsenal to work out the truth = between the lines. But he then goes on to say that anybody who really = desires to work out Isaiah can do it, with a little study and prayer. To = Nephi, Isaiah IS plain. But for me. Yikes! Why make it so obscure? Why give us the allegory of the tame and wild = olive tree? Why give us chapter after chapter of Isaiah (when we know = good and well that there are some great action scenes coming up in just = a little while)? Why give us the parables when straight-talking would be = easier? My contention (besides the idea I presented about, about "protection") = is that in some cases, these devices are the only means or at least the = best possible means, to convey certain truths to the human mind. Poetry, = symbolism, allegory, actually have a power to etch themselves more = easily into our comprehension after, or perhaps even because of, an = initial period of struggle. In fact, there is concrete evidence that the mind remembers those things = better which stand out as unusual, or which have to be cognitively dealt = with in some way before being stored into memory. Do you know that it = takes you a split second longer to read the word "red" if I were to = print it in green ink? Your brain spends that split second analyzing the = dichotomy. And the more connections and interrelated associations you = have with a word or an experience, the more likely you are to be able to = recall that word or experience in the future. Neurologically, things = that are set apart, pop out and stick in our minds, while things that = the brain considers not unusual, are often completely ignored by our = senses. Therefore, it is my contention that when used sparingly, the literary = device of obfuscation, of adding complexities in tone, style, = vocabulary, image, content, by forcing the reader to engage in a deeper = or more prolonged thought process for understanding, can have an = intensely rewarding outcome and make an impression on the mind which = could not be achieved IN ANY OTHER WAY. Laman and Lemuel had things very clearly spelled out to them time and = time again, but it did nothing to change them. Nephi was thrown complex = and difficult allusions from a very young age, and in his struggle for = comprehension, discovered wisdom and clarity. I suppose to conclude my defense of obscurity, I must acknowledge the = importance of balance. We should strive, as Michael suggested the other = day, to be as clear in our writing as possible. But we should not = dismiss the power of the tools we have at our disposal, nor be afraid to = indulge in them from time to time for desired effect. Gene Wolfe, who is indulgent, certainly (but then, so am I), will never = appeal to many. But he vigorously defends his style as being essential = to the story he wanted to tell, to the mood he wanted to convey. In his = opinion, it would have been boring any other way -- pointless. His use = of arcane words, narrative leaps, starting and stopping in time, and = other elements which make his text difficult, all have specific, = conscious reasonings behind them. Some audiences may disagree, but for = many thousands of readers, his desired effect was achieved, and he truly = "communicated", and did so "clearly", impressing the mind and doing so = in a unique and artistic way.=20 Wolfe wanted to create an utterly foreign world, a truly new experience. = And yet he wanted that world rooted in the history of our own world. And = so, every word he uses comes from our own language and history. There is = not a made-up word in the entire text. That was an essential condition = for him. There is no "Klatu-Baracktoo-Nicto" in his world - no words are = made up. But there are lansquenets and fulgurators and khaibits and the = blacker than black color of nigrescent. These words are utterly foreign, = truly alien, of another world (science fiction). And yet, they are = somehow real, genetically familiar, rooted in the history of our own = language's past. And the process of looking them up, comprehending them, = creates an astonishing juxtapositioning in the mind. A heightened level = of reality is achieved, even within the confines of a completely = fantastic and unrealistic world. Furthermore, Wolfe wants to toy with the idea of memory (as I do), but = does so in a spectacular way, by leaping from events and disassociating = the standard flow of A-B-C narration, he forces us to comprehend the = illusive nature of time and memory, and the lateral connectivity of = reality within the human mind. Difficult? Yes. Rewarding? Yes (to some). = Does it convey a truth and a realty? A variety of it, yes. And could it = have been done in any other way?=20 Is a rose a rose by any other name? the Bard asks. But then, why use = iambic pentameter? Why use verse at all? Why not just talk? Damn, = Shakespeare (and many do): his plays are so long, too! Is a rose always = just red or pink or white. Does it smell "rosy", or "delicious" or = "light". What is the "clear" way to describe it? Is there any way which = is clear to everyone, or will everyone have a different take on the = smell or color or name of a rose? We look to the artist to surprise us and shock us and teach us and regale = us. Sometimes we want to be blown away, astonished by the rose, so that = we can stop, suddenly in our tracks, and say: What?! And by that = metaphoric stopping, by that reconsidering, by that figuring obscure = things out, we have literally (and literarily) "taken time to smell the = roses". And the experience of doing that can be, occasionally, = infinitely more profound than it would have been otherwise. To use a recently discussed example from one of Michael's own books: if = Sheila masturbates, then she does, whether I do or don't, whether my = wife does or doesn't. And if her brief but brilliant ecstasy can only be = described by an artist in an indulgent, fanciful flight of archaic words = and disconnected images and flashing prose, then that's the way it has = to be. The writer in Martindale didn't do it that way, apparently, but = told it straight; but either way, "clear" or "obscure", there will = always be readers who don't like it, or don't get it.=20 But to others, you will have discovered, in your slice of obscure = observation, truth. And to someone, you will have written the Golden = Book. This is what art is for, but all of it ain't for everybody, nor = should it be. After all, everybody knows, deep down in their heart of hearts, that = sometimes, once and a while... a rose is anacreontic.=20 And when it is... it needs to be. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 23 Apr 2003 23:45:24 -0700 7 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I note with some embarrassment that Tracie Laulusa and Jacob Proffitt both replied to me more than a month ago, and the replies I started still languish in my drafts folder. I wrote quite a bit, but didn't send it, and have decided to send this part out first, rather than try and put my thoughts into one monster post. Speaking of the Latter-day Enquirer I said: The most distressing thing about the article was that he said he=20 had absolutely no remorse about killing the intruder. Hadn't=20 rattled him at all. I wonder if he thought the lesson of Nephi and Laban is kill and don't think about it. Jacob Proffitt replied: > I rather suspect that he was thinking of the lesson taught by=20 > Captain Moroni, Mormon, Ammon and other spiritual military=20 > leaders in the Book of Mormon--people willing to defend=20 > their freedom and the lives of their families. Then Tracie Laulusa said, Sat, 15 Mar 2003 : > Or maybe he was thinking about a little brother sleeping in the=20 > next room, or a sister down the hall, or Elizabeth Storm and=20 > all the other missing children..................... >=20 > Harlow, it appears to me that you were trying to somehow put this=20 > kid in a class with the profile of the kids who were responsible for > Columbine, and other incidents.=20 Not at all. This story was long before Columbine. Though I do wonder if there's a connection between the lack of ability to express remorse for killing someone and the kind of violence we sometimes see erupting in our schools and workplaces. Of course, what the boy said to police could be, as Jacob said, simply bravado. I'm glad I mentioned the story, because Jacob and Tracie's replies got me thinking about why I don't like the story. It's not so much that the boy killed an unarmed intruder, as it is the celebratory tone of the news article. No, wait, one of the reasons I didn't send this a month ago is that that paragraph was supposed to be a conciliatory response to the sarcasm I perceived in Jacob's reply: > For myself, if I were in his shoes, I might be sad for a life=20 > wasted but it wouldn't throw me into a guilt-spiral ending=20 > in a tear-ridden confession of my own worthlessness to live. =20 > I wouldn't need therapy or anything. I never said he was supposed to feel worthless to live, but if you read the story of Nephi and Laban with a careful ear for tone, and ask yourself who's writing the story, you might realize you're reading the words of a fairly old man who's still upset by something he did maybe half a century ago. It's as if he's saying, "If you kill someone, even if the Holy Spirit commands you to, you'll remember it and be troubled by it for the rest of your life." It is not a trivial thing to kill another human being. And it really does bother me that the reporter (or the reporter's editor) presented a story about a boy killing an unarmed intruder without warning as a feel-good story. My one-time colleague at UVSC, Paul Tanner, spent 10 years as a police officer before becoming an English teacher. One=20 semester during the English Dept's night of readings, he read an essay about the time he drew a gun. He said that despite what you see on cop shows most police never draw their guns, and when they do the others come around and express their condolences. He was called one night to respond to a break-in and drew his gun on the intruder, who was hiding in the shadows and wouldn't come out. And Paul was ready to shoot him but a little voice (he didn't say whether it was an audible voice, or a voice of conscience or whatever) told him "Not yet." And Paul said it was a good thing he didn't because the intruder turned out to be a 16-year-old, and things get enormously complicated when you shoot a minor. I contrast Paul's introspection with what I found utterly chilling about the article, the celebratory mood: Here was a good LDS kid who killed an unarmed intruder and the police made only a cursory examination, looking to see what posters he had on his wall and what station his radio was tuned to, because he was such a good LDS kid, and by the way, aren't we a great church to produce such a kid? (That's an accurate reflection of the article's tone.) It's no small thing to kill a person, and for me that article simply reinforced a cultural stereotype seen on TV cop shows and many many (tekel upharsin) movies that casual killing is ok as long as the good guy is the one doing the killing. And if there's not something rather disturbing about reporting a killing as a faith promoting news item, can you imagine the report I've just described, told in the kind of breathless fawning prose you see in celebrity mags in the Ensign's Mormon Journal section? How would you feel to run across it?=20 (My thanks to Eric Samuelsen for an example of such prose in his Jan 3 03 description of the Nedra Roney profile in the January/February 2003 Utah Valley magazine by Jeanette W. Bennett, www.uvmag.com. I read part of the article, and Nedra Roney seems an honorable woman, but the prose was so breathless I walked away from the article thankful she hadn't named one of her many adopted children Micah Roney.) Actually, I did run across a piece in a church magazine about what it means to kill someone. In The Friend on the inside front cover of the July 1997 issue, a piece called "Personal Protection," by Dallin H. Oaks. I find the following two paragraphs deeply deeply moving: >>>>> >From behind the robber, a city bus approached. The young man became distracted, and his gun wavered from my stomach. I realized that with a quick motion I could seize the gun without the likelihood of being shot. But just then the Spirit let me know what would happen if I grabbed that gun: We=92d struggle, and I would turn the gun into the young man=92s chest. It would fire, and he would die. I also understood that I must not have the blood of that young man on my conscience for the rest of my life. <<<<< I remember my first reaction to that talk. I may have been supervising Matthew as he dug pennies out of the Seagull fountain to throw back in, or he may have been doing something else, but it was one of those electrifying moments where I say to myself, did he just say what I thought he did? (Another such moment came while sitting in the Kingston NY chapel half drowsing, about 10:00 p.m., to the lull of Pres. Kimball's voice admonishing us, "Don't kill the little birds that sing in bush and tree" then hearing him say, =93I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives,=94 said John Taylor, my predecessor, =93for I have seen him.= =94 (May 1978 Ensign, =93Strengthening the Family=97the Basic Unit of the Church,=94 p. 48--Hmm, April conference would have put me in the Batavia chapel--I think, though I'm sure the stake center wasn't there).) It's hard to suggest how deeply I needed to hear Elder Oaks say that. Our culture is suffused with messages about how fun it is to kill other people in a good cause, and I needed to hear someone in general authority over the Church say that even killing someone in self defense is a grave matter that may leave blood on your conscience for the rest of your life. I'm not exaggerating when I say our culture is suffused with messages about how fun it is to kill other people in a good cause.=20 In my original post I said: > One of the oft-recurring archetypes in tv and film thrillers=20 > and cop-shows is the villain so evil and implacable he=20 > (usually, sometimes she) has to be killed--there is no > no safety outside the villain's death. and Jacob replied,=20 > I think you misread the culture again. Movie villains don't die=20 > because there is no safety outside their death--they die because > a court battle and 25 to life isn't a cinematically satisfying > climax. Sure it is. There are lots of films that end with a court battle, but your point is good. I've often noticed that the reason the villain dies is that the filmmaker doesn't want to deal with the legal system in the film, but as a statement of cinematic aims, "Not killing the villain isn't cinematically satisfying" is so cynical you'll almost never hear a director say it. Instead, to justify the killing, the film/novel makes the villain implacable, so dangerous as to inspire no possible sympathy. If we could have sympathy for the dying villain the killing wouldn't be satisfying. Consider John Wayne's late film _The Cowboys_. You know as soon as Bruce Dern comes on screen that he's going to cause a lot of trouble. He's such an implacable villain that he has to be killed, and the way the cowboys become cowmen ("You are cowboys, not cowmen) is by killing first his band of villains, then him. The film nuances his killing by making it more an execution than a situation where he has a fair chance of drawing first as in the typical gunfight sequence. So that killing is not completely satisfying--but the director doesn't want to shake us up too bad. Another of Wayne's late films, maybe his last one, _The Shootist_ nuances the situation even more. He made it while dying of cancer (a gift from his uncle, who was safely testing nuclear bombs upwind all those years his nephews and nieces spent filming in Monument Valley). It's a film about an aging gunfighter dying of cancer, who tries to find a clean well-lighted boarding house to die, but people won't let him be. The doctor (wonderful scene with Jimmy Stewart) describes how his body will break down, and tells him, "If I had your courage I would not die such a death." So he sets up a gunfight with three people who would like to kill him--and, well, you can guess what happens. It's a disturbing film and I found myself wondering about the moral situation of a man who decides to use his death to kill a few bad guys--hey, that's Sampson. (Including a wonderful scene with a barber.) I suppose you could call Sampson the original suicide bomber.=20 But why should it be cinematically satisfying to watch people die violently, let alone more cinematically satisfying than a court battle and prison sentence? I think of two films that feature utterly nasty implacably evil adults who torture children. The children eventually triumph, but without killing the adults. Every time I see _Matilda_ I'm moved by the scene where the evil principal tries to flee the school and all the children pelt her with food. And I'm moved that Danny DeVito did not feel it necessary to kill her off. This past weekend I saw _Holes_. The tv ads are so atrocious--light bursting forth from the hole and from the trunk--that I didn't want to see it, didn't want to see Dizndey ruin another great book. Fortunately that ad was just crap. The icky adults are still there torturing children, and again I'm grateful Louis Sachar didn't feel the need to kill the evil adults off, but let the criminal justice system take care of them. Cinematically that is much more satisfying than killing them off would be. And I find myself resonating with stories that show mercy and compassion rather than trying to create cinematic satisfaction by throwing the villains out the window of a skyscraper and onto the hood of a police cruiser. And I find myself seeking out stories that don't hold the life of a villain cheap, that don't make the villain so utterly evil that we cheer when he (usually he--sometimes she) is slaughtered by the good guy. BTW, I saw a play about mercy tonight, about the need to extend it even to our enemies (a virtue taught by the Mother). _Stones_ is a wonderful play produced with a sense of full wonder. Plays through Saturday 50 West Center Street - Orem, Utah 84057 - 801-225-3800 7:30 p.m. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 24 Apr 2003 02:34:27 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > > (In defense of the Dr. Phil women--dropping his name and quoting his > show might have been an attempt to help another man understand what they > meant, not the crux of their argument.) I don't think so. They were all but ignoring me as they discussed it. They made it sound like his statement was the reason they believed what they believed, not just some useful information to convince me. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 24 Apr 2003 11:54:55 -0600 Congratulations Darlene! I'll be honest about pregnancy and writing. I never stopped writing--but I found that my work during my various pregnancies was consistently lousy. I wrote an entire novel while expecting my 2nd daughter, and tossed it into the trash shortly after her birth. I found that pregnancy is a great writer's block. It's the epidural for the brain. However, I DID get back into the swing of things after each of my four deliveries. The key was (as it always is) reading excellent writing. For me, that meant going to _The Best American Short Stories_ series (contemporary stuff--contemporary writers need to be reading contemporary writing). I'd go through one story after another until suddenly something clicked, some idea started hatching, and I had a story gestating. Nursing time was always reading time for me. And my kids' nap times were always writing time. If I could do it over again, I'd put a sign on my door letting neighbors know that the hours of 1-3 every afternoon were my writing time. No calls, no visits, no hard feelings. Obviously, though, when nap time ended, writing time had to end too. That was actually a good thing, because I'd usually have to stop in the midst of the writing rush, and then could hardly wait to get back to it the following day. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Context and Artistic Appropriateness (was: Temple in Literature) Date: 24 Apr 2003 14:36:47 -0600 ___ Harlow ___ | I can't resist asking, how did we get from sex to hygiene? ___ Both are deemed inappropriate when portrayed graphically. Both can be seen in medical or biological terms without being offensive. I don't, for instance, find the biology of the digestive track offensive. Indeed I find it a miraculous device. However I don't want to see full color pictures of people making bowel movements on a toilet. I consider it inappropriate. The reason this relates to sex is that the same *way* of thinking relative to sex is the same. It isn't that it is "bad" but rather there are ways of portraying it that are appropriate and inappropriate. Further that this appropriateness is determined external to the text proper. i.e. the reason the biological discussion is appropriate isn't because of internal relevancy but external relevancy. The main reason I moved to a more "scatological" discussion rather than a sexual one is to avoid the connotation of the old pornography thread. I think this issue is more fundamental. You'll also note that this relates to my comments on postmodernism from last week. I am arguing for an absolute ethical standard, but one that is based upon an essential contamination of the text by its context. ___ Harlow ___ | Surely, Clark, you're aware that there are people who devote | their lives to collecting detailed stories of rape and torture | in all its glorious Technicolor. ___ Yes, and what makes that appropriate or inappropriate is the external context. i.e. such tales are appropriate at a UN conference on human rights but not as a form of entertainment. Recognize that I'm *not* arguing that "relevancy" isn't what determines appropriateness. I don't think there is some "thus shall you do" that determines appropriate literature. I *do* think there are absolute ethics regarding what is appropriate. Further I think that this is judged by the *context* of the text and not the text itself. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Anne Perry Letter Link Date: 24 Apr 2003 12:52:20 EDT [Linda's suggested subject line: Wish I Were Anne Perry.] Glorious prose and glorious visions. Here's the link: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/anneperry/030424april.html Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 24 Apr 2003 15:04:38 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | Gene Wolf looks like a different manifestation of that | discussion. My question is, why on earth make your writing | hard to read? ___ If it is hard to read for hardness sake, then I think that silly. But perhaps an analogy might be in order for why some like texts that are "hard reading." Consider Jazz. Now probably most people can appreciate one of the great early Jazz artists like Louis Armstrong. Probably relatively few can appreciate Miles Davis. (Ignoring for the moment his nadir in the 80's) Why? _Birth of Cool_ is one of the greatest records of all time but it is much more difficult to listen to than Louis Armstrong singing "Mac the Knife." I love both, but I like different *styles*. I really appreciate listening to the complexities of what Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, or Charlie Parker are doing. Further, to understand what they are doing in part benefits from seeing how they are reacting. There is a density to the *style* of their play which some love and others don't. I think the same is true of literature. I've not read Gene Wolf, so I can't speak for him. But I enjoy stories with labyrinth plots, switches, and lots of complexities. One of my all time favorite books is Umberto Eco's _Foucalt's Pendulum_ which is nothing if not complex in content. I also enjoy rather straightforward plots. I like simple poetry like Emily Dickenson. I like more complex poems as well. (I consider the metaphysical poets like Donne complex, but others might not) Each engages me in a different fashion. Sometimes I really like reading a book where the artist is so conscious of the text *as* text that they play with style, just like the Jazz greats did. While it was never intended to be that complex, I think reading Shakespeare or even the King James Bible fits that bill as well. It is very difficult reading relative to most modern literature. But I love the way it is written as much as I enjoy the content. There is a power to the words that transcends the main message. It is music to my ears. Complexities of style can be beautiful on their own terms just as simplicities of style can. I can appreciate a Zen garden. I can appreciate baroque architecture. Each is appropriate on its own terms. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 24 Apr 2003 16:39:27 -0600 Re: Harlow Clark's post (see below) I've always marveled at the possibility of a departed friend or loved one on the other side of the veil guiding and leading us in our decisions, including the selection of our art. (Though I admit I kind of suspected that some of the below thought were just little spoutings from your brain and not really decisions and or opinions). I have to ask everyone. Did you all hear stories in your missions like the following story? Here it is: Two sisters were tracting in an area and were having little success. Then, a young lady approached them and, before the missionaries could even ask her name, she pointed out her house to them and said that her parents would like to meet them. They followed the directions, and, when the parents opened the door, the sisters were quickly admitted in without much question. After a minute or two, they explained that the young woman directed them to the house, and the parents looked shocked and confused. After a few minutes, they began to weep, which made the missionaries feel a little uncomfortable. Then they explained that their oldest daughter, who matched the description of the young lady the sisters had met, passed away the year before... One of the RM sisters in my 3rd area told me that this happened to her and a companion, and I remember just staring in awe. But, and I don't mean to question the integrity of this lovely RM, is that just another 3 Nephites type of legend? I'm so curious. Anyway, it's interesting to imagine that a departed one would guide us to certain literature, etc. Like, I wonder who made me interested in seeing Godspell for the first time? Was it an angel? Or was it just the fact that an ex-boyfriend of mine was in the high school production of it a few years earlier, and I borrowed the video from the drama club just so I could gawk at him awhile longer? Yes, I think that was it. We do have a divine nature, though. So despite the fact that I chose to watch it just to see Brian Norberg, I was moved by it because of the play's theme, message, material, etc. Somehow, life, after lining me up with some great support groups through AA and NA and teaching me that I had a Higher Power, decided to show me a little bit about Jesus Christ and let the teachings of the Savior do it's work on me. I was more prepared for the good news of Christ than I'd ever been, and this time talk of Christ pierced my soul and I was forever changed. Uh oh, by saying that life had prepared me, etc., I'm now acknowledging that it really may have been an angel, aren't I? Or is mortality really just a strange tapestry of people and experience, and, though I hate the word coincidence, maybe it was just coincidence. Or maybe Brian Norberg, besides being a very cute boy with a lovely baritone voice, was one of my angels without really knowing it. I kind of think the latter. Where is this going? Don't know. It brings us back to the miracles and providence discussion regarding the miracles surrounding the return of Elizabeth Smart. All I can say is, if _Bone Game_ changed you, then so many things could be a part of it. Angels, providence, coincidence, etc. _Franny and Zooey_ did the same for me, and Zooey so deserves to have his mouth washed out with soap. I love the book and so glad I read it, though, the last time I read it, I had a white out pen in hand and made it nice a PG (sorry if that's blasphemy to someone out there. I hope that Salinger isn't on this list). I guess we can be so grateful for the experiences we have that help us change and grow, even if they may offend a little. I worry when we seek them out, though. Okay, I should be done, but I have to share this. I'm a stay-at-home mom, and I talk to myself quite a bit. [MOD: I've extracted a personal introduction here so that I can send it out under a separate subject line.] Okay, intro done. Next. While some of the views I've expressed on this list have probably seemed pretty conservative, especially with reference to material in films, etc., I can not deny for one second how much I have learned from some literature and film that contained some grit. Like I said, J.D. Salinger's _Franny and Zooey_ was just life-changing for me. Here's what's been on my brain lately, though. Do some Latter-Day Saints who are trying not to be stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in their reading and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"? Do we ever make it a little mission of ours to find the outer limits of liberality in Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at those outer limits? Okay, I'm getting very Buffy here with my speak, so I may be losing some of you. Still, I'd love some feedback. Here's my pity story. I, like some of you, came from the dregs of moral society. I realized a few days ago that my sister and I were rarely allowed to buy new clothing, but Mom somehow had the money she needed for a good stash of dope, liquor, and porn. Funny, isn't it? Yet, the yucky experiences we had as kids helped make Christina and I who we are, and I think we turned out better than would be expected under the circumstances. So, I can't really complain at this point. But, when the dregs pop up in books and film, I'm inclined to either comfortably embrace them, because it's kind of home to me. Or else, more often these days, because I've been washed by the blood the Savior, I want to run, and run fast. What I'm saying, or asking, or something-ing is, why do people run to dregs or seek them out? Why is it so important for some LDS people to "make sure they're well rounded" and get their daily dose of dirt? It may be an obstacle which, in the overcoming of it, will bring us closer to Christ. But, we might not overcome. Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Dianna Graham Date: 24 Apr 2003 16:39:27 -0600 [MOD: Extracted from another post from Dianna.] Wait, maybe I should back up and introduce myself. Scott Bronson told me I should do that sometime. I'm a BYU graduate in Acting, an unemployed actress/singer, and the proud mom of a gorgeous 15 month old girl named Sophie. My husband, David, is a tall, blonde, and very cute BYU graduate in Film Directing (advertising minor) who is also rather brilliant at Production Design (AKA Art Direction). He was the Production Designer for Roots and Wings, if that impresses you at all. (Oh, I hope it does, because he worked pretty hard on that, and we gave up a lot of furniture during the shoot while I was pregnant and laying in bed with a migraine, so I couldn't read, and I was bored stiff and didn't have a TV to watch...). Anyway, we're trapped in lovely Orem, UT, for the time being. If any film-makers out there need a great Art Director, let us know. No one who has ever worked with David has ever regretted it. Of course, he'd be a little embarrassed to know that I've just told you all this. Oh, yeah, I'm pretty busy with the baby, but I'm a decent actress too. Thought I might add that since there's a major shortage on talented actresses... ;) Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] The New List Date: 24 Apr 2003 19:29:45 -0700 Please don't leave this list though. I need something to stir up my dormant (un-pent-up) aggression. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Thom Duncan > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:08 AM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [AML] The New List > > > As one of the eight people who has already expressed interest, if we > can't find another person willing to jump full-tilt into our world of > frenzy, I promise to post twice as much as I normally would (I got a lot > of pent-up agression ). > > Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon Date: 24 Apr 2003 18:34:32 -0500 [MOD: This is not a post that I would normally allow out. It comes very close to being condescending, insulting, and personally judgmental of what Linda has said. ] Thank you, Jonathan, for this preface. My post was one sent too quickly, which seems to have happened to me several times last week. I half-expected my note to get MOD-rejected because of its nature, but it went out, which is all right--I did send it. What's printed can't be un-printed, so there it is. But I'll try not to make things any worse. I spent much of last week in a far too emotional state, as I tried to clear two special names for their temple work, which we did Saturday. It's a 4-hr. drive each way from St. Louis, and we experienced great joy and fulfillment there. I think, in part because of the work we were trying to get done, I was too stressed to send coherent email on this topic; it happened to push a hot button. Last I checked, though, human beings are allowed sore spots as long as we are in the process of healing. Healing requires time. This particular issue is still fresh, but I assure all of you I am working on it. <> Glen, I believed my context was clear. Taken in context, my statement "I am NOT happy" meant only that I am displeased to discover a book has been received into store inventory *after* everything I went through to pay for and have delivered to my home what I believed to be was every last remaining copy of my book. I have made no claim that Horizon shipped that book (I only know where it did *not* come from). The above statement is not an adequate basis upon which to judge my personal state of happiness, nor was it intended as such. I am, indeed, a rather *happy* person. I have a wonderful husband and six terrific children who bring me great joy and for which I have deep gratitude. I study the Gospel for 30-60 minutes daily, minimum, and do all other things required for my PERSONAL happiness. However, that does not make me immune to suffering caused by other individuals against me. I will forgive Mr. Crowther in time, I am sure of it; others have hurt me far more deeply than this and I have forgiven them. Please bear that in mind. << it may have been committed by the party that did not pay for Horizon Publishing while Duane and his wife were on a mission with his company "sold". I don't know and really don't have much interest in knowing. I care for both of you and are saddened by the anger, resentment, and bitterness I see in your post.>> I am saddened by your unwillingness to hear me out, but I hold no hard feelings toward you for your opinions. However, the particular issues I have discussed do, in fact, refer ONLY to Horizon. You admit you have no knowledge of the details. But I do. <> Exactly. "At a fair profit for the author" is the key phrase. I don't wish to invite legal difficulties, and likely have said too much already. I will post what I believe I can, which are documented facts with solid evidentiary support. I am not a lawyer, but I have consulted with three separate legal firms in two states for advisement, all of whom agreed I have a valid claim against Horizon. I have also done extensive research in the matter of copyright law. I invite interested parties to visit their local libraries or search the Internet for further explanation or verification of the points I will mention here. For those who have not been following my saga regarding the fate of my book: Cornerstone Publishing printed it in June of 2000. A legal mess ensued between them and Horizon over the following two years. As part of the fallout of that legal messiness, the existing *copies* of my book were given to Horizon as part of an asset transfer settlement. However, my contract did NOT transfer with the inventory. A book falls under Intellectual Property Law. It is not the same as if a paper company received cases of paper towels which they may then resell, and the paper towel maker can't say Boo about it. Paper towels are Real Property. Intellectual Property (generally, works for which one is paid royalties) is completely different. Books, like films or videos (as discussed here recently so expertly by Jongiorgi), have particular rights which may be sold to others or retained by the author, which is called "copyright." My signed contract with *Cornerstone,* which allowed *Cornerstone* the right to print, sell, and distribute _Prodigal Journey,_ became null and void upon the bankruptcy due to the specific terms of *that* contract, thereby returning all (ALL) rights to me. Therefore, I, and only I, possess the right to SELL and DISTRIBUTE this work. I have this in writing. You are likely aware that Duane Crowther is not a young man fresh to the publishing world. He is an experienced businessman who has kept his company, Horizon, in business for upwards of 30 years (someone else can look the exact figure up). Those facts alone demonstrate that it is extremely unlikely that he is ignorant of basic concepts and laws in the business of publishing, or his business could not have lasted. However, I make no actual claim as to what Mr. Crowther actually is or is not aware of. Upon receiving stewardship of the physical copies of *my* _intellectual property,_ Horizon *should* have contacted me first thing to arrange for a _contract,_ which, if signed by me, would have granted them the proper rights to legally advertise, sell, and distribute the work. Such a contract would provide for as few or as many rights as both company and author agree upon. If they had followed this standard, basic procedure in the business, there would be little or no problem today. In this public post I must keep to facts for which I have hard evidence. I cannot report anything said in telephone conversation between Mr. Crowther and I. For your perusal, based solely upon what I can prove by producing the appropriate dated documents and/or other physical evidence, this is the order of events that took place: 1. Horizon received inventory of my book. 2. Horizon advertised my book and began offering it for sale in their catalog. 3. *I* wrote to Horizon to ask why they were doing so without a contract with me, concerned that they had not previously arranged for rights, neither had they arranged to pay me anything at all at any time. 4. Horizon _then_ sent me a contract. 5. I did not sign the contract. [They offered less than half the royalty terms I had been paid by Cornerstone, for one thing; the terms were not more favorable than retaining rights and printing the book myself. It also requested the publishing and reprinting rights, which I had not offered, and was unwilling to sell to them because I am seeking to take it to the national market, which fact I made clear in previous letters to Horizon. ...But I digress.] 6. I sent Horizon a certified letter, with a copy sent to my attorney, notifying them that I was not interested in their terms and would not be selling them any rights, and requested that they stop sales immediately and remove my book from their advertising. 7. Horizon responded by letter, asking me again to sign the contract, or if not, the remaining 1972 copies would be destroyed, or I could purchase all the copies *if* I paid in cash by a date two weeks out from the date of their letter, at a specified price. 8. A discrepancy of about 200 copies exists between my extensive Cornerstone statement (listing all sales and inventory of _Prodigal Journey,_ *including* the quantity seized for transfer to Horizon), and the quantity listed by Horizon's letter. I have not proven what happened to the missing copies at this date. 9. Upon the advisement of my attorney, I chose the option to purchase the books rather than pursue litigation against Horizon for violation of US Copyright law, for the reasons listed in my previous post. 10. The books were shipped to my home in March 2003, after Horizon received prompt payment by cashier's check, as requested. They are now on two pallets in my basement. 11. I have never at any time signed any agreement with Horizon allowing them any rights to my work; in fact I have stated the opposite in writing. All of my correspondence with Horizon is signed personally by Mr. Duane Crowther, and all of my letters were addressed to him. 12. Last week, a copy of _Prodigal Journey_ showed up in an LDS bookstore (not DB) in California, just received in stock. I am in the process of researching its origin. I did not send it. Those are the facts. Not emotions, not hearsay, just the facts I can prove. I will not speculate further upon these facts in this forum more than I already have. I apologize for publicly drawing conclusions. <> I am glad for you that it helped you. Knowing what I do of the man through *my* direct experience, having had lengthy conversations with him on the telephone, not merely a single handshake by accidental meeting (although I experienced that too), I *personally* cannot accept his work with the same ecstatic dedication as you do. I'm aware I'm not the only person on AML-List that has been treated poorly by Horizon, but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they choose. <> I have, before you mentioned it. It's a beautiful CD and I'm happy to have it in my home. I also believe Christ lived with joy; joy in the laughter of little children and their delight, joy in nature, joy in the sinners who repented, and many other things. I for one am eternally grateful for the work of our Redeemer that makes repentance possible, that life is eternal, and that Jesus can remove the pain of all things, both self-inflicted sin and the pain of damages caused by others. I look to Him for healing and for grace, with faith and trust in Him that it will come. My testimony of this Gospel stands firm and unshaken. Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] The New List Date: 24 Apr 2003 18:52:16 -0500 How much of a free-for-all is it, again? If the volume isn't too humongous I guess I can sign up. It's just that, the more time I spend reading and typing email, the less time I spend writing stuff I can actually *publish*.... Still, it could be fun! Linda At 04:07 AM 4/23/03, you wrote: >As one of the eight people who has already expressed interest, if we >can't find another person willing to jump full-tilt into our world of >frenzy, I promise to post twice as much as I normally would (I got a lot >of pent-up agression ). > >Thom Duncan Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Date: 24 Apr 2003 19:06:19 -0500 Congratulations, Darlene! It sounds like this one was a wild ride for you. At 12:21 AM 4/23/03, you wrote: > >Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda > and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a > decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Pregnant, I was very creative. It somehow inspired me. Plus it has a deadline, after which the "night cometh in which no work can be performed:" No work that is, save that of caring for the newborn, which is precious and not to be missed! Nursing was just, well, draining. :) The drive to write, I find, is affected by many and various factors combining to create or destroy it. It's never the same with each pregnancy/child/ other life stress, but yes it will be there waiting for you once you come out of survival mode. If you can hold that baby and nurse and type one-handed you can still get quite a lot done! I'm experimenting with ViaVoice, but I haven't given it much of a go yet, which, if I get used to dictating to myself, should be a nifty gadget. (The hard part is saying aloud, "quotation mark. period. comma. new paragraph." All that.) It stinks for editing and rewriting, which is what I'm working on right now (when I'm not on email... ), but new copy works out all right. And congratulations Andrew on your new baby too! How completely wonderful. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 21:21:07 EDT In a message dated 4/23/2003 10:31:18 PM Mountain Daylight Time, tmanning.eagle@sisna.com writes: > For any person to presume they are unaffected by art is blowing smoke out > their keister. I'm in total agreement. I hope no one misunderstood my previous post. I did not mean to communicate that I am somehow immune to any negative influence from the films I choose to watch. It is clear to me, however, that I am not effected as strongly as many others. For instance, I came out of the theater earlier this week after watching the new Disney film "Holes" (PG or PG-13?) and I ran into a fellow LDS writer friend. She mentioned that some of the imagery was too graphic and somewhat disturbing to her. After seeing the film twice, I'm still surprised by her comment. The director was skillfully discreet with the violence. Perhaps even violent situations or the suggestion of violence are too much for some. > > "Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should > define > timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? Richard > Dutcher? > The last, of course. You are finally starting to understand. I am always right. I will never lead you astray. Trust me. Look into my eyes...You are getting very sleepy... Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 21:30:11 EDT In a message dated 4/23/2003 10:48:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time, gkeystone@aol.com writes: > As strick Jews understand, to not enjoy life and all its juice is > to sin. To miss the joy is to miss it all, and so many are missing it all. > > I love this thought. It feels so deeply true to me. Also, It reminds me of Michael Martindale's excellent Apple Eater post and makes me wonder... Is the juice of life apple juice? Richard Dutcher (This post brought to you today by Del Monte/Martinelli Inc.) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] Babies and Creativity Date: 24 Apr 2003 20:39:40 -0600 I wrote between babies, but during pregnancy and intensive nursing I didn't write much. This grew incrementally the more kids I had. However I read like mad during those times. I remember reading all of Dickens in one year that way. I consider that gestation time, too. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 25 Apr 2003 01:10:23 -0700 Yes, Bill, there are many LDS scientists. And I am familiar with the Brigham Young quote you reminded us of. And certainly our gospel encompasses all of it, which is what I was talking about in my original citation you quoted at the top of your thoughts; that is why I am comfortable (among other reasons) being a member of this church. Unfortunately, the members of this list and other groups which I have enjoyed sharing an exchange of ideas with, form, in my opinion, a cultural minority: "Mormon Thinkers". And while there are and have been many great LDS men (and you should also have said "women") of science and mathematics, a gospel which demands deep thought and which has such far-reaching theological implications has engendered a statistically disproportionate quantity of deep thinkers, I feel. But, I have always found such thinkers to talk to wherever I have been, though it has often been a hard search (internet has made this much easier, thankfully). I, too, am often out of my depth when I encounter texts which surpass my education in a given subject, but I am still deeply pleased, even in my profoundly realized ignorance. On the flip side, I wish dearly that I didn't get so many blank looks when I make one of my comments in Sunday School class. The vast majority of our brothers and sisters are of the "blank-look school". Which is what I was bemoaning originally. But, I have learned to live with that fact, even to embrace and celebrate it, as I will explain later in a final of three essays I'm playing with, which I'll think about posting down the road. I appreciated your thoughts and comments in this post (and others of yours I have read). Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 25 Apr 2003 01:25:43 -0700 I don't know the specific episode in question, and I don't have any insider knowledge about the producers of this particularly show, but as sick and wrong as most people thing Hollywood is, they are VERY litigation conscious and surprisingly prudish in their own bizarre PC way. So, not that it enters into this conversation at all, but from spending 10 years in LA working directly for major studios, I can GUARANTEE YOU that the actress in that picture Harlow is wondering about was 18. Absolutely no doubt about it. In fact, the category "18 to play younger" is an official Breakdown category that agents and casting directors are always looking for. They drool over the young-looking actresses because there is such a huge demand for legal-age performers to play young kids. The sick and twisted part is that they really want you to think its a young girls, but she was 18 (which of course, an a differently twisted way, makes it "anything goes"). Again, this doesn't add or contribute to this discussion, but do rest assured, after the backlash from Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields days, all "pretty babies" nowadays (PARTICULARLY on Network TV) are all 18. Jongiorgi Enos ----- Original Message ----- > Harlow S Clark wrote: > > > I begin wondering about the morality of taking a > > pornographic picture of a young teen actress so you can tell a story > > about how destructive child porn is. > > > What think ye? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 25 Apr 2003 03:25:31 -0400 D Michael: > > I suppose this tactic is used because pornography is a convenient code > word for evil: everybody except Larry Flint accepts pornography as an > example of truly immoral art. Me: I suppose you really mean everybody who has been taught that pornaography is evil. I have friends that are in many ways very moral people who believe that pornography is no big deal, something every red blooded American male does. And it was the wife in the couple expressing the view. That was a bit of a surprise to me at the time. Tracie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 25 Apr 2003 03:28:24 -0400 If you watch movies strictly for entertainment value than perhaps this would be one for you to miss according to your ideas of entertainment. There are other reasons to watch movies. Something that stretches you or makes you think differently might not be just entertaining, though I happen to like it best when the two things meet. Tracie ----- Original Message ----- > > I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were > > supposed to be appalled. > > So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > > Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 25 Apr 2003 05:45:59 -0700 I am happy that Veda Hale goes forward with the Whipple biography. Veda w= rites: "Hopefully, the biography will help a writer see how costly to a p= ersonal life the creation of something great can be." I am curious, Veda, as to the degree= to which you believe Maurine's eccentric personality, rather than her no= vel, may have contributed to her estranged, lonely existence. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Burton Subject: [AML] Re: Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 25 Apr 2003 08:08:19 -0600 The word "self-indulgent" isn't a carelessly tossed epithet. A writer who doesn't have the business end of writing in mind _is_ being self-indulgent: writing for himself rather than for a large audience. Now there's nothing wrong with that if they want to do that (and that's why I added that Gene Wolfe may not care if he maximizes his audience), but I don't get why an author would want to do that. This is something that I can see ... my wife and I have discussed this often. There is a need to provide an income and care for the needs of a family. That need is real. There is also a need that people have to express their feelings. That need is also real. The two needs do not need to be concentric or even overlapping. I am an engineer ... being and engineer provides and income for my family. I am not a good musician, I almost never play for someone else, usually when I am at home alone. Playing brings a great satisfaction and when I am playing for ME I don't care at all whether it would be appreciated or desirable to anyone else. Sometimes everything comes together and it is very moving, private, personal and exhilarating. That is everything (for me). >From my experience, it seems very logical that someone might also write for himself, without any thought to building readership or increasing the monetary worth of the document (which was mentioned in the quote). I don't know Gene Wolfe or his work, I could be very wrong, but I can see why he might choose a style that really is self-indulgent and why he might be content with that. As part of our discussions, one of her observations is that too often an artist will subvert the second need in a desparate attempt to satisfy the first. If both must be satisfied in the same expression, both must be in harmony or the work is flawed. Ken Burton -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 25 Apr 2003 11:43:11 EDT In a message dated 4/24/2003 11:52:54 PM Mountain Daylight Time, susanpc@platformcreative.com writes: > I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were > >supposed to be appalled. > > So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > > Because being "appalled" will help reinforce right and wrong in your heart and, perhaps, correct your course if you have been leaning at all towards this type of behavior, lifestyle, or attitude in your own life. It's useful as a reminder, just like getting the same Sunday school lesson over and over and over and over. One example (in addition to "Chicago"): while watching Martin Scorcese's masterful film "Goodfellas," which was based on a true story (and "Casino" to a lesser degree), I was so appalled and horrified by the actions of these characters, and by the consequences that naturally followed, that I understood more strongly than I ever had before that I want nothing whatsoever to do with that lifestyle. Also, while seeing "The Piano" and being appalled at the actions and philosophies of the Nazis, I was reminded how such appalling behavior is not unique to the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, but that it reappears time and again, most recently in Asia and Africa. Some believe that it would be best if we didn't watch this kind of entertainment, if we didn't appall ourselves occasionally and remind ourselves of the horrors that happen on this earth. Seems to me that's an awfully dangerous opinion to keep. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 25 Apr 2003 13:20:35 -0400 > Harlow S Clark wrote: > > I begin wondering about the morality of taking a > pornographic picture of a young teen actress so you can tell a story > about how destructive child porn is. > > What think ye? It reminds me of an episode of Different Strokes (Inter-racial Adoption with Gary Coleman, Todd Bridges, Dana Plato, etc.) that aired probably twenty years ago. This episode featured the great LDS actor/icon, Gordon Jump, portraying a child pornographer who enticed Arnold and a young friend into his apartment to pose for some photographs. As I recall, the young actors were down to their briefs and about to play horsie when Arnold (Gary Coleman) finally drew the line. I don't know if he delivered his trademark "Whatchoo talkin' bout?" at that moment or not. The entire episode was handled with sensitivity and with the stated purpose of portraying these kinds of dangers so that children would recognize them immediately and take action. But it got pretty darn graphic with Coleman and his little buddy posing in their skivvies. I don't remember any backlash or public outrage about the episode and I once had the opportunity to tell Mr. Jump personally (he was visiting our Salt Lake ward) how much I admired his decision to do the role, that it must have taken great courage to enact such a horrid scene thing for the greater good. He remembered the episode with clarity and we ended up talking all through Sunday School and most of the Sacrament meeting. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Re: Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 25 Apr 2003 18:01:09 +0000 >. What I truly don't get is >why an author would make him/herself hard to read. You may enjoy >putting >your mind through a meat grinder (I don't--not a meat-grinder >of difficult >writing style), but I feel pretty confident that the >majority of readers >don't. >What I don't get is why writers would choose the difficult approach. It >_will_ decrease the size of the audience. >Maybe that's what I'm trying to say: easy thoughts can afford >labyrinthine roads to them. Difficult thoughts need enticing, >effortless >paths. Difficult thoughts paired with difficult roads >sounds like a recipe >for failure. You seem to be making the assumption that "thoughts" and "words" are completely independent of each other. That is, a writers can check any box they want - "easy thought," "difficult thought," "easy word," "difficult word." I think it makes more sense to say that language and thought interact with each other. I suppose that the plot of, say, "Absalom Absalom" could have been told as a straightforward, chronological narrative, in "simple," "accessible" language, but would the same ideas have been expressed? I think not. The form and language of the book are absolutely inseparable from the thoughts and ideas it contains. There are certainly authors who strike me as needlessly difficult, as letting their language get in the way of their stories (Annie Proulx is one I can't get through 2 pages of). But I recognize that this is to some extent a matter of taste. I also recognize that most good writers write in the ways that work for them and, if they tried to tailor their material for 'what the audience wants,' they would probably be less successful artistically, and perhaps commercially as well. I think the reason that so many studio movies are so bad - or at least so forgettable - is that the desire to give the audience what they supposedly want and would be able to "understand" has superseded any inherent artistic content. Often movies or books that try to frame big issues in an "accessible" way (think "The Life of David Gale," which turned the death penalty debate into an inferior chase picture, or think just about any Grisham book) just make a mess and lose the big ideas. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a simple style, but it's not necessarily a size that fits all ideas, or all writers. carrie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 25 Apr 2003 12:12:35 -0600 Interesting question that implies that movies should only engender certain kinds of emotions in its viewers. And the question that leads to is this: are feelings in and of themselves, good or bad? Psychologists will say no. To the person going through the stages of grief, it is encouraged to all yourself to feel anger, frustration, depression, etc. To me, emotions and feelings are like colors which the writer uses to paint his/her palate. Sometimes, the art piece suggests that one use "happy" colors. Other times only colors that make one appalled are the requisite colors. Some passages in scripture appall me. The story in Judges about the man cutting up a woman into twelve pieces appalls me. I'm not particularly amused when I read about Lamanites drinking the blood of dead Nephites. Lot's daughters getting their dad drunk then having sex with him without (as fas as I know) any divine or earthly punishment also appalls me. I believe that, rather than react negatively to any emotion of feeling a work of art engenders in us, we should (as we also ought to do with scripture) instead ask ourselves why we have that feeling. Was it generated from the work itself? Did we react such and such a way because of inherent prejudices? And, perhaps better, is there anything I can learn from that feeling or emotion? Thom Duncan >-----Original Message----- >So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > >Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Housing Needs Date: 25 Apr 2003 13:27:00 -0600 [MOD: Note: Please respond directly to Margaret's email address of margaret_young@byu.edu rather than replying to this email, which will get sent back to AML-List.] I don't know how many of you are in Utah, but we have a particular need in the Genesis Group. On June 8th, Gladys Knight and her 110 voice choir will be presenting a program in the temple square tabernacle. We would like to save the Church a large hotel bill and house these folks in our homes during their stay in SLC (from Saturday June 7-Monday June 9, I believe). If you have room to help us meet this need, please e-mail me personally. Let me know your address and how many you can accommodate. Thanks!! ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 25 Apr 2003 15:18:17 -0600 Veda Hale wrote: "That understanding is coming from my work on this huge project that is consuming me, which is the biography of Maurine Whipple." Veda, as a great fan of THE GIANT JOSHUA, I thank you in advance for your efforts in chronicling Maureen Whipple's life and work. I look forward to reading it when it's released. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jennifer Ellsworth" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 25 Apr 2003 17:20:16 -0600 I've been wanting to read _Brother Brigham_ since it was first discussed on the list. Point me in the right direction to read it and this female will weigh in on the great Sheila debate. Jennifer Ellsworth (who mostly lurks) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 25 Apr 2003 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT) I really enjoy the discussions of literary theory on AML-List. Even though my own reaction to theory is akin to Dracula when shown a cross, or Elaine Benes when the toupee on George Costanza's head is thrust upon her consciousness. Why I am provoked like this? In an essay, Philip Roth once wrote that there was a central metaphor in much of his fiction. We are all born seeing through the eyes of our parents and others, and not with our own independent thoughts. We are confronted with a cultural wall, a way of seeing that separates us from other perspectives. Imagine a man shot out of a cannon, at that wall. In Roth's case the wall was his Jewishness. Some of Roth's characters are smashed against the wall and destroyed by the impact. Others are shot half-way through and lie torn and bleeding in the hole. Some manage to pierce the wall and fly into the great unknown space beyond. In my own case the wall is cultural Mormonism. Hugh Nibley once said "There are things about the church that appall me, but I know that the gospel is true." (That was back when BYU faculty were allowed to say things like that in public.) I too have a spiritual witness of the gospel but have come to really dislike what some people's popular ideas about the gospel are, and I really struggle with the implications. So I guess I lay torn and bleeding in the hole in the wall. So many of my brethren and sistren insist on things like no R-rated movies, no television or newspaper on Sundays, multi-level marketing schemes like Amway are inspired by God, the Republican party is the only true party, women should strictly stick to having as many kids as possible, etc., etc. etc. Much of my time at BYU was spent in silent loathing at many of the attitudes I found there. It was a minor miracle I graduated. So I have become highly allergic to systematizers, to those who extrapolate systems of thought from just the basic facts. The money quote from the "New York Times" article is from Sander L. Gilman: "I think that one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track records of intellectuals are any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways." Deconstruction, feminism, psychoanalysis--all ideas with a germ of truth, that are set upon by careerist systematizers who harden them into orthodoxies that permit no dissent the the academic marketplace. That's one reason I have a powerful intellectual attraction to modern-day neo-conservatism. It doesn't deny the possibility that ordinary people can find truth. It permits the possibility of God. And it's laissez-faire and eclectic about ideas. There's no neo-Marxist straitjacket you have to fit into. I still enjoy the *insights* of individual post-modernists. For example, at Salon.com there is an excellent post-modern analysis of the horror movie "The Ring" that really illuminates why that film is so creepy. (You have to sit through an advertisement to get to it.) http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2003/03/18/ring/index_np.html It's only when such readings become The Only True Readings that I bridle. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 24 Apr 2003 02:20:13 -0600 "Travis K. Manning" wrote: > "Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should define > timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? Richard > Dutcher? What if each of these individuals see and define art differently? > Is one person's vision of art more courageous? less? more timid? less? There's a very simple way to define timidity in art that automatically covers the huge spectrum of perceptions from individual to individual. Timid art is when an artist thinks he should do it one way for artistic integrity, but doesn't for fear of the audience's reaction. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] CHISHOLM, _Following the Wrong God Home_ (Review) Date: 25 Apr 2003 01:22:07 GMT Review Title: Following the Wrong God Home Author: Clive Scott Chisholm Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 405 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-8061-3488-7 Price: $34.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Chisholm's book is subtitled "Footloose in an American Dream." Huh? What "American Dream" is he talking about? His prologue answers the question, and sets the scene for an oddly affecting and thoroughly absorbing travel memoir: One night in early July 1985, in what seemed the exact middle of no place, I gave up on the American Dream. I was lying with my head out of a small mountain tent, looking up at a scrim of stars, when it drifted away. Forty-nine, I was pressing the edge of a walker's luck, averaging twelve miles a day while seeking an accommodation with American land, its people, its memories, and, especially, its Dreams. Alone on a remote section of Wyoming's Sweetwater River, I'd arrived at a high point in the geography of out-of-touch. To tell the truth, I hadn't been doing too much American Dreaming. For seventy-two days I'd followed a nineteenth-century emigrant trail from the Missouri River, pondering Dream's possibilities, tracing an exodus that took 143 men and boys, 3 women, and 2 children beyond the boundaries of the United States in search of a homeland. (p. 3) What on earth is Chisholm up to? He confesses to something of a mid-life crisis, a place where he has no idea where his life is going. He wants to leave family and job behind, hit the road, and find himself. But he has little idea where to start. And then he realizes: why not re-trace the steps of a group of people who also set out looking for identity, for meaning, for freedom? And thus begins a journey that would take him 1100 miles across country, following in the footsteps of the Mormon pioneers. Of course, there's one hitch: Chisholm isn't a Mormon. And, in fact, he has little sympathy for the belief system or for the Church itself. His motive isn't to build faith, or to please God, or even to find ultimate religious truth. He simply wants to find himself. Chisholm interlaces his story with references to the Mormon past, both as documented in the histories, and as encountered along the way. There is frequent divergence of the two as he discovers either ignorance or reluctance on the part of the people he encounters. Perhaps a cigar-smoking, alcohol drinking pilgrim along the Mormon trail causes some cognitive dissonance among the citizens. A map at the front of the book helps us to keep track of the places he visits and the people he meets. They are a diverse bunch, and Chisholm spares nothing in his attempt to describe his small-town encounters with the cynical eye of a hardened observer. Take the example of his stop at Columbus, Nebraska: Altogether, I spent thirty-six hours in Columbus, a big farm town with all the charisma of a stripped Ford pickup trying to dress itself up with extra chrome, roll bars, and mag wheels. Commerce and "boosterism" were squandering its fine old town square, feeding a cancer of concrete block shopping malls and commercial strip centers along a four-lane highway on the north side. The four-lane highway -- a bad Dream -- connected a two-lane highway on the east with a two-lane on the west. So far as I could tell, its main connection was from developers to their bank accounts, the resulting architectural travesty what H.L. Mencken called "the American lust for the hideous." (p. 57) He then ties in events in Mormon history centered in that area. Luminaries from Brigham Young to Ezra Taft Benson populate his discussion of Columbus. Similarly, each stop is look at how things are today, with reference to Mormonism's encounter with that town. This, for me, was a high point in the book, a knitting together of past and present that gives life to the historical narratives. He follows this pattern from one stop to the next, filling us with rich detail and humorous asides, cynical squints at what he perceives as the disingenuity of the mid-west character, the superficiality of the American experience, and, I stress, *his* perception that Mormonism fits the pattern. His criticisms are frequently harsh, and he sometimes misses the mark. But his prose is always amusing. His own particular view of Mormon life and practice is sprinkled throughout. His final arrival in Salt Lake City, and his visit to the Temple, are typical of his barbed observations: I saved the famous Mormon Temple for next to last, walking around the entire walled city block that encloses it, pacing the final steps around my journey, stopping at last in front of its grand portal. Off limits to Gentiles, it guarded its secrets like a pharaoh's tomb. Out front, a photographer was snapping wedding pictures, two couples having been "sealed" with its walls for "time and eternity," each couple waiting its turn for the shutter to freeze them in yet another Mormon family history. They were beautiful young people, but they seemed to be going Dutch treat. Stepping into eternity with each other, they were no more or less plastic looking than all newlyweds, but an undertone of awful seriousness, like a coat of gray primer, lay behind smiles for the camera. I wanted to offer a friendly Gentile's advice, tell them everything would turn out all right if only they remembered that marriage is a kind of friendship sanctioned by the police. To Mormon brides I'd offer Kathleen Norris's wisdom: "There are men I could spend eternity with -- but not in this life." For grooms a truism from George Coote: "No woman ever shot her husband while he was doing dishes" -- or taking out the trash, for that matter. Sadly, no video cameras are allowed inside a Mormon temple, so with no reruns, there's no chance for a Mormon husband (or wife) to play the tape backward and watch himself walk out a free man. But it was all so *forever,* their leap of faith into marital outer space, everything depending on whether they believed the God of this world lives on a planet called Kolob -- well, not really -- but that Joseph Smith, among billions of sentient beings across the eons, had alone been handed the keys to the Kingdom of God, his way the path, destination assured, providing you didn't take a road less traveled or, mixing metaphors, rock the boat. Then I remembered Red Martin in the Ponderosa Bar in Elk City, Nebraska, saying, "I'll take a green horse any day over a Mormon. You can't break a Mormon." I was glad for the horses. (p. 383) You get the idea. This is not faith-promoting literature. It isn't even a particularly accurate view of Mormon belief and culture, if such a thing can actually be codified. Instead, it is the story of a gifted writer who sets out to find himself. Losing oneself can be tricky business, you know. And whatever methodology you use to reclaim your identify must be chosen carefully and with a particular end in view. But Chisholm decides to blaze his own trail, following in the footsteps of men whose belief he does not share. And with every step, and every stop, he unleashes his incredibly fertile imagination and talented, although barbed, pen, bringing us along and sucking us in. Readers of this review will note that I spent more time quoting the book than I generally do. I realized there was no way to convey the spirit of the book any better than direct cites. It seemed the wise path to take. (Readers should be aware that expletives in this book are definitely not deleted. If you're sensitive to tough language, this book isn't for you.) "Following the Wrong God Home" is a genuine tour-de-force, a wild ride and a wilder read. I will actually read this one again when I finally catch up with everything else on my reading stack. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. Date: 24 Apr 2003 19:52:31 -0600 Wow, Michael. That was a powerful, powerful message. It hits me in my gut and says "truth". Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 25 Apr 2003 12:15:57 -0600 Bill Willson wrote: > *"The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler; 1995 > This writer was not to my knowledge a member of the church, but then he > could be by now. Who knows? Oh, he's definitely not a member of the church. I doubt he's a member of any church. He was quite agnostic, if not atheistic, earlier in his life, and came to a "belief" in God through scientific deduction. His book is a fascinating bunch of speculation, but he creates a God which only an agnostic could love. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 25 Apr 2003 12:23:05 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: > But I will never come back to them. I will never read a book that easy > twice, much less think of it again. And not out of some pretentious > literati-type snobbery. I won't because it's no fun, and there's nothing to > be gained from a second "viewing". > > A novel that challenges me, though, that I could read for the sound of its > words alone, I'll come back to time and time again. Especially if I'm not > sure what it means. Holy Moley I get frustrated sometimes. Easy books? Who said anything about easy books? Now if you love the sound of words and come back for that, well more power to you. But to call a book easy simply because the writing is easy to read does not compute. Perhaps this analogy will illustrate. When I go on a trip, I fo to enjoy the sights, to experience places that I haven't experienced before. Now I would much prefer taking that journey in a comfortable vehicle: roomy, air conditioned, nice stereo system, smooth ride, no mechanical breakdowns. A beat up, vibrating, stifling jalopy that constantly breaks down only distracts from my vacationing experience. The vehicle is the medium. The locations are the message. I wouldn't read a book once that is hard to read because of thw writing, let alone enjoy reading it multiple times. But I'll read often books that are challenging in their ideas. How can you say a book with challenging, thought-rpovoking ideas has nothing to be gained from a second viewing? Those are the very books that you read multiple times. Unless you enjoy the broken down, bumpy jalopy experience. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 25 Apr 2003 13:08:28 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: > How do we draw the line? Here's how: if you feel uncomfortable writing about it, don't. If your story requires that you write about it, write a different story--don't cheat the first story by writing it dishonestly to make it "appropriate." If someone else _does_ feel comfortable writing about it, let them. Give them the benefit of a doubt that they are trying to do good as they see it. > I wonder if the pressures sometimes felt by artists > from the official Church are increased by a (conscious or unconscious) > disregard for the sacred; that is, if those called in official capacities > to maintain the integrity of the Church feel that art is a threat because > these lines are always being challenged for largely secular reasons (ie, > most human storytelling and art). I think this borders precariously on insult to artists. I'm sure there _are_ artists who have little regard for the sacred, but they are uninteresting to discuss at the moment. I'm talking about artists who are trying to be faithful to the gospel, but are condemned anyway because someone didn't like what they did. Those called to official capacities in the church are sincere, I'm sure, in their efforts to maintain the integrity of the church. But that doesn't make them right when they are wrong. Often the analogy of a plumber or electrician is evoked. What church leader would dictate to these professionals how to do their job? None that has any sense at all. But they feel like they have every right to dictate to an artist how to do his job. And the results speak for themselves. One could counterargue that art is different from plumbing or electrical wiring. Those things serve basic, utilitarian purposes that are easily identified. Art messes with people's minds, emotions, and spirituality. But in fact, there is no significant difference. The customer shouldn't dictate to the plumber how to do his work, but the customer _does_ dictate to the plumber _what_ work to do. Fix that toilet; stop that leak in the faucet; unclog that sink. The customer tells the professional what result he wants, then lets the professional go about doing it without interference. That's exactly how art should happen. The church has every right to dictate what result it wants from the art it commissions. This film should interest people in investigating the gospel. That theatrical piece should demonstrate that we are Christians. But then the church leaders should leave the artists be and let them do the work they know how to do. A plumber wouldn't put up with a customer staring over his shoulder kibbutzing every move he makes. Why should artists put up with that? The same goes for the independent artist. We should be looking at the results--the message, not bean-counting individual uses of artistic tools. If a film has no profanity, nudity or graphic sex scenes, but the message says that it's great for kids to have sex with each other, that's an evil work of art. If a film has a bunch of that stuff in it, but the message is that chastity is desirable and sexual sin destructive, that is a moral film. If that film has a bunch of very explicit scenes whose purpose is to titillate, that's an evil film masquerading as a moral film by grafting a cheap moral message onto a film celebrating sexual immorality. If an artist shows a disregard for sacred things, then don't hire him. But be very careful what you're calling a disregard for sacred things. There's a warped notion in the LDS culture these days that the only acceptable handling of sacred things is silence. Maybe this comes from the years of brainwashing we get in primary that "reverence" means "shut up." Well, reverence means no such thing. Reverence means respect, honor, appreciation. You can do all that without shutting up. When they teach us in Primary to shut up, they're not teaching us to be reverent, they're teaching us behavior that makes their job easier. That's fine, but let's not distort the word "reverence" with the Primary definition of convenience. The problem isn't unique to our generation. Alma encountered it. He was criticized for boasting. He was told to "shut up!" But he didn't put up with that any more than I do. "I will boast in my God!" he proclaimed, loudly I imagine. I will also boast in my God and my religion. I will display them with all the pride _and_ reverence I can. Temples, the most sacred physical maifestations of our religion, are designed to be beautiful, set on a hill where they can be seen for miles, and lit up with great ostentation. Nothing silent about that. Aren't we supposed to be shouting the good news from the rooftops? > I know that we will probably never come to a consensus as to what should > be "held apart" (a better designation, maybe, than "off-limits"). I don't think the problem is so much deciding what should be "held apart," as deciding what "held apart" actually means. I think equating "holding apart" with hiding is a superficial way to reverence something--a Pharisaical way. I think the correct meaning of "holding apart" is to treat that which is sacred with honor and respect. I do _not_ accept the Primary definition that reverence equals shut up. The "shut up" approach to reverencing sacred things I suppose stems from the oft-abused quote from Jesus not to cast pearls before swine. Good advice, if you're confronted with a swine. It _is_ better to just keep silent about sacred things when you are surrounded by people who will mock the sacred. But how many people do that? The whole world except for Mormons, if you go by some Mormons' apparent perception. Yet when I look at the reception of the world to such religious films as _God's Army_, _Brigham City_, _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_, _Fiddler on the Roof_, _The Apostle_, and numerous works of literature, I see precious little mocking of such things and a great deal of respect for them. The evidence for the existence of herds and herds of swine out there is lacking. I do wish we Mormons could get over the habit of calling everyone a swine who doesn't believe as we do. Every time we say we should hide something sacred from everyone, that's exactly what we're doing. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia Date: 25 Apr 2003 17:48:39 -0700 (PDT) --- Barbara Hume wrote: > At 03:17 PM 4/22/03 +1000, you wrote: > >: I want to read and watch Mormon history told > >from an English perspective (yes, Australian too, but I'll come to > >that). I want to see Ken Loach, or his Mormon equivalent, do an > >historical drama about the working class and middle class converts in > >19th century Britain. I want to see this done from an _English_ > >perspective. Everyone knows how well the English do period drama - and > >that's everything from the tasteful Jane Austen pieces to the sordid, > >harrowing recreations of life in the coal mines or dark satanic mills > of > >the industrial revolution. I want to see that. Whether sentimental or > >not (there's plenty of room for both), I want to see how it was for the > >converts themselves. Because what happened to them is a window into a > >major, major part of English history. > > As a decided Anglophile, I love this concept. [snip] But whatever the > circumstances were, I will always value my British heritage. I know I have been a fan of British culture since my first exposure to Monty Python as a teenager. I really like precise, witty British prose; Ralph Vaughan Williams; Giles on "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"; Philip Larkin; The Beatles (but who doesn't, now); Tony Blair's support for the war; etc, etc. My family from both sides (Rasbands and Thackers) all come from England as far back as we can trace them. I sometimes half-jokingly wonder whether my own Anglophilia is a result of my genetic kinship calling to me from across the ocean. In his spy novels John le Carre' refers to American intelligence services simply as "the Cousins." For some people Anglophilia is an affectation, a form of snobbery. But it's ironic for me because my family was working-class and dispossessed farmers when they came to America--they were refugees from a loathsome class system which regarded them as dispensible. I think there is a strain of Anglophilia in popular LDS culture that could be the result of heritage similar to mine. C.S. Lewis is of course the most famous honorary Mormon. I know Neal Maxwell loves to quote Churchill and other Brit luminaries when he gets the chance. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 25 Apr 2003 18:00:31 -0700 (PDT) --- Kim Madsen wrote: > > However, anyone I've ever known who has reached > that Nirvana hiked through great doo-doo to get there. Great > happiness, great joy can only be quantified as "great" in opposition to > something else. If you don't know the sorrow, how can you know the joy? > >Bigotry, > adultery, murder, war, child abuse, racism. Love, forgiveness, > acceptance, loyalty, honor. The words only mean something in comparison. Norman Mailer once wrote: "We use the word 's--t' so we can use the word 'honor'." See also Milan Kundera's meditation on the connection between the denial of the existence of (feces) and Stalinist totalitarianism in his novel "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Date: 25 Apr 2003 19:56:07 -0700 Nan McCulloch wrote: >...I had what I thought was a *million dollar >title* for a children's book. I wanted to protect the idea until I finished >the book. Of course they wouldn't let me copyright the title until I had >the *body of work* to attach to the title. And not even then. Not sure who "they" is, but copyright law does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. But don't take my word for it: --lauramaery --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Maurine Whipple Date: 26 Apr 2003 03:20:50 +0000 Good luck with your project, Veda, I look forward to reading the biography. At one point in the mid-90s I saw your name attatched to a project that would publish a collection of previously unpublished Whilpple writings. Is that still on your radar? Is there a lot of good unpublished material waiting for us to read? Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Irreantum and Babies Date: 25 Apr 2003 18:07:12 -0600 At 07:30 PM 4/22/03 GMT, daryoung@juno.com wrote: > >Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Is it just exhaustion, or is it true that our creative juices are flowing elsewhere (ewww, not such an appetizing metaphor) when we are producing babies? I can't bring myself to even want to write, and I'm worried the desire won't ever come back! Well, I had my last child about 19 years ago, and I certainly experienced what you're talking about--for about a year, in fact. So don't let it get you down. The desire will very probably come back. Mine did. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon Date: 26 Apr 2003 00:56:30 -0500 At 06:34 PM 4/24/03, you wrote: > a book has been received into store inventory *after* everything I went > through to pay for and have delivered to my home what I believed to be > was every last remaining copy of my book. I am happy to report that after checking with the bookstore, it was a copy that has been on hand since 2001, and while it's a shame it hasn't sold yet, at least it came from the correct source. I'm truly sorry I allowed circumstances to upset me. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 26 Apr 2003 02:32:28 -0600 I'm trying to clip this to highlight the relevant point of what Michael seems to be getting at: On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:00:55 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >I'm sure I came across sounding like what you wrote here, but it's not >readers' tastes that I was complaining about. What I truly don't get is >why an author would make him/herself hard to read. You may enjoy putting >your mind through a meat grinder (I don't--not a meat-grinder of >difficult writing style), but I feel pretty confident that the majority >of readers don't.=20 So what? As long as a sufficient audience enjoys a particular kind of writing, those writer will be able to sell books. What's more, = "majority" is a term that needs further definition. In absolute terms, the majority= of readers are the ones who read only a few books every year, most of which = are bestsellers like John Grisham or Tom Clancy or Jayne Ann Krentz. I don't intend to gear my reading habits towards that of the majority, any more = than I insist that they follow mine. >What I don't get is why writers would choose the difficult approach. It >_will_ decrease the size of the audience. We must remember that we are >an elite crew here. We are literate. It's a heady ego booster to have >literate people praise your writing, but my first and foremost desire >for my authorial efforts is mass sales. I won't compromise my message to >get sales, but I will certainly gear my writing style to ease people >into my story as effortlessly as possible. Because the audience you're aiming for is one that wants books that are = easy to read. Of course making your books harder to read would be stupid! = But by the same token, it would be idiotic for Gene Wolfe to change his = writing style because he would lose the readership he wants--the readership he's cultivated over years. You are still making the assumption that what = *you* think is good is what *all* writers should do, which is what you said in = the paragraph above--"my first and foremost desire for my authorial efforts" = and "I will certainly gear my writing style to ease people into my story." I think your stated distaste for literary writing is coloring your opinion here. Gene Wolfe's books--and those of others who write with similarly complex prose--aren't written to elicit praise from the literati; they're not written for an ego boost; they are not written to mock the masses for their ignorance. They're written to match the desires of his audience. You're also assuming that Wolfe would be as successful if he'd just tone down his style a bit. Impossible to prove. We had this discussion about Jack Weyland, and my argument stands the same: You CANNOT prove that a successful author would be more successful if they just changed their = prose a bit, because it is entirely possible that their success hinges on the = way they tell their stories. That demand ultimately amounts to saying that = you would like the author better if they told their stories to suit *you*. Which would be fine if we were each the only people in the universe, but we're not. (This is not the same, by the way, as saying that any stupid idiot thing = a writer does is valid just because it's their own stupid idiom. There = would be no need for critique groups then. And don't we all know *some* novel that needed a really good critique?) >The word "self-indulgent" isn't a carelessly tossed epithet. A writer >who doesn't have the business end of writing in mind _is_ being >self-indulgent: writing for himself rather than for a large audience. I disagree with you that having the business end of writing in mind is equivalent to gaining a large audience. That is definitely one way to = look at it, but ultimately what matters is that one's books sell to one's intended audience. And I think there are probably a lot of authors out there whose definition of success means writing the books they want to write, in the way they want to write them, and gaining a loyal = readership. It's not making money, or becoming famous, or anything else. And while = you might not agree with that model of making a career out of writing, you cannot legitimately say--at least as far as I'm concerned--that they're wrong, or even self-indulgent, to do so. There is no law that says that = a person who wants a career as a writer has to follow a certain path, or = that they've only achieved success if they follow a particular business model. Success in this field seems to me to be a rather flexible thing, all = things considered. I actually understand your point better now (at least what I think is = your point). And really, if you stipulate all the things that you did about = what writing should do, what it's for, then your argument makes sense. What = I'm saying in return is that I disagree with some of your stipulations, and therefore I disagree with your conclusions. Actually--this just occurred= to me, and I wonder if I can put it into words--to me it seems as though = you've very accurately identified the needs and desires of one subset of = readers, and are describing ways to draw in those who are not quite in that = subset. My perspective is that there is a whole world of readers who will never = be satisfied with the kind of literature you're talking about. There will never be a unified field theory of reading; there will never be a book = that every reader will love, at least until Mahonri Moriancumer gets his fiction-writing career going in the Millennium. I think I prefer it this way, regardless of whether anyone is maximizing his or her writing = career. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] re: Passion in Art Date: 26 Apr 2003 05:50:56 -0700 On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:23:10 EDT, RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: >I look at my work lately and I see so clearly the restraints I have = placed on >myself. Where is anything that I have done where you can see my bare = soul >exploding on the movie screen? Have you ever seen me cut loose with a = camera >and show you what I can really do? No, you haven't. Why not? Because I >haven't done it! Because I've held back! I've been polite and modest and >restrained, all good and well behind the podium in sacrament meeting, = but >death behind a movie camera. > >For whatever reason, I haven't been fulfilling the measure of my = creation. I >haven't taken the talents the Lord has given me and magnified them to = their >potential. Why not? That's the question that CHICAGO put into my brain. = And I >can only answer with my work. and Travis Manning replied, in part: >"Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should = define >timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? = Richard >Dutcher? What if each of these individuals see and define art = differently? >Is one person's vision of art more courageous? less? more timid? = less? Melissa Proffitt: This seems like two completely different conversations, to me. I don't think Richard's complaint about timidity in art has anything to do with viewers or what their thresholds are. Instead I think he's talking about the artist's reluctance to tell the stories that are in him, unfettered = by fear. If the audience then thinks such stories are too raw for them, = it's their choice and obligation not to participate--but at least Richard = would know that he had used his abilities to the fullest. ************************* I can see what you're saying, Melissa, upon a second read of Richard's earlier comments. It's weird sometimes how I latch on to a single phrase or comment and, for whatever reason, don't see the larger picture or context of the original statement. And, it's nice to hear mutiple perspectives on a single issue / topic / notion; sometimes I get blinders on. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] The New List Date: 26 Apr 2003 09:20:31 -0600 Can't leave. I seem to recall that I'm the third or fourth most wordy responder. I have to stay at least until I gain the number one spot. Thom >-----Original Message----- >Please don't leave this list though. I need something to stir >up my dormant (un-pent-up) aggression. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 26 Apr 2003 09:17:56 -0600 Dianna Graham says: >Where is this going? Don't know. It brings us back to the >miracles and providence discussion regarding the miracles >surrounding the return of Elizabeth Smart. Miracles? They showed the face of David Mitchell on America's Most Wanted. Soon after that, half a dozen people seem him walking the streets. Standard by the book police work. I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved in these kinds of things. Because the implication is that somehow God listens more to Elizabeth's parents than he does to another family. And I don't like the other answer I usually receive: well, God doesn't answer everybody's prayers the same way. Then on what basis does he choose to intervene in Elizabth's life but no one else's? I believe in miracles, but not this kind. I believe in the miracle of a family's love that can stay strong throughout such a horrible ordeal. I believe in the miracle of how humans kind find a way to go on through dark tragedy, even if their loved ones never come back? I believe in the miracle of how love can transend death. >though. Do some Latter-Day Saints who are trying not to be >stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in their reading >and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is >the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"? That is not a lie to my mind. I seek out the grit as you call it because well, it speaks to me. I've never been moved by fluff in my reading or viewing. Until very very recently, the world's literature and film has been far superior in content and depth to what we Mormons had provided. > Do we >ever make it a little mission of ours to find the outer limits >of liberality in Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at >those outer limits? Okay, I'm getting very Buffy here with my >speak, so I may be losing some of you. Still, I'd love some feedback. I do and I do it on purpose because I feel cloistered hanging out in Mormon conservativeness. I tend to feel some kinship with all the great people in Mormon historyk to tell you the truth. Joseph Smith himself was, in comparison to the religions of his day, a flaming liberal. He wasn't content with the religion the world had given him. He sought for me meaning. He was the last guy in the world to accept a status quo. As we can see from his brief but amazing life, he was enhancing the doctrine and practices of the Church up to this dying day. The great revelation about the nature of God was given a month before he was killed. Another of my mentors is Parley P. Pratt. He and his brother Orson are almost entirely responsbible for codifying Joseph's revelations into a coherent theology. So was B.H. Roberts. I don't consider Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie in the same league. Instead of trying to stretch the doctrine to embrace more or eternity, they were trying to pull the reigns in. Joseph Smith said that Mormonism didn't have a creed because our beliefs changed based on the revelation we will always keep getting. But if you ask people what Mormons believe, a lot of folk cite Mormon Doctrine, a book of Mormon creeds, if there ever was one. >What I'm saying, or asking, or something-ing is, why do people >run to dregs or seek them out? Why is it so important for >some LDS people to "make sure they're well rounded" and get >their daily dose of dirt? It may be an obstacle which, in the >overcoming of it, will bring us closer to Christ. But, we >might not overcome. Everyone, including the well-rounded LDS, are essentially dregs, in that none of us without sin. Our sins perhaps are not as evident as someone taking drugs, or viewing porn. Personally, I learn nothing from LDS who preach from a position of having always been seemingly without sin. But give me a GA who isn't afraid to talk about his wild youth than later repentence and I'm there. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Addictions and Art Date: 26 Apr 2003 10:40:57 -0600 [MOD: As we continue this thread, I'd like to move back to a more literary focus, or at least a literary tie-in. Does anyone want to talk about how addiction should/does appear in our art?] I have to put in my two cents again on addiction, though you've already heard my little spiel on addiction and art, etc. In school we're taught that addiction is based on the drug of choice. It's like the first of the 12 Steps of AA. "We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable." I prefer the NA version. "We admitted that we were powerless over our addiction..." Porn, gambling, shopping, sex, drugs, sugar, chocolate, food, perfection, alcohol, ecstasy, co-dependence... they're all toys, drugs of choice. They are not an addiction in and of themselves. Am I addicted to movies? I addicted to avoiding facing life. I didn't drink because my body had become dependent on alcohol. On the contrary, I was only 14 when I got clean. I drank because I was lonely, because I was bored with my homework, because my first official boy-friend was a bore to me but I couldn't handle him hooking up with other girls after I dumped him... (Or because the boys I really liked often could care less about me...) I just have to put this in, because I hate the "scientific" explanations for addiction. When I was in rehab at 14, a guy came in for 4 weeks because he wanted to break his addiction to crack. He had no intention of giving up alcohol or marijuana ever, just crack. That was his real problem. I always felt sad that so many of my companions at AA & NA meetings took up smoking after they got clean. I tried it for a little while, but something in my gut told me that I wasn't really going to be clean until I could get all drugs out of my life. Then I learned that the temptation would always be there to fill that void with something, anything. Anyway, that's my add-in. Addiction has so little to do with the drug of choice. It's the individual's inability to trust in a higher power, face shortcomings and trials, make amends, etc. I guess this kind of goes with obsessive/compulsive point below, but I still had to share this thought. Love, Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 25 Apr 2003 21:41:00 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > The story may be that Buck kicked a ball. But "Buck booted the ball", > "Buck belligerently bashed the ball" and "The boy with the brick-red > face bent his toe to the apex of all his longing and showed the crowd > what he was all about" are all different styles of the same ball story, > the last example the most "obscure", but perhaps also the most "true". > Depends. If we were to go by this example, my point has been proven. I do not insist on minimalism: I wouldn't use the bland "Buck kicked the ball." Ignoring the horrendous alliteration of "Buck belligerently bashed the ball" (which in and of itself would send that sentence packing from any story of mine), it uses more words than necessary to say the same thing "Buck booted the ball" says. The fourth sentence has veered well into the arena of purple prose and is only to laugh at. "Buck booted the ball" is best--it's clear, but adds some color over the first bland sentence without sacrificing any of the clarity. In my philosophy, you can go ahead and be as poetic as you want, as long as clarity of language doesn't suffer. > some would say that scripture is literature at > its highest most rarified form. And I hope I don't come off as smug or > condescending when I point out that, excuse me, there is nowhere a > better argument in defense of literary obscurity in all the world than > scripture! > > Some of the most famous devices used by the great spiritual teachers, > many of whom we venerate, are the forms of the parable, the symbolic > rite, the extended allegory, the poetic allusion and the visionary > rapture. None of these are devices to which I would attribute a great > deal of "clear and simple storytelling"! Okay, communcation breakdown here. I do not encourage simple storytelling. I encourage clarity in language. The parables of Jesus are loaded with many levels of understanding, but they are conveyed (the medium, the vehicle) in very simple language and images. I'm all for complexity, even obscurity, in concepts. Just not in the medium. To illustrate, I would argue that the actual language of our scriptures, centuries old as it is with the KJV Bible (or mimicking that style in our other books) _does_ interfere with our understanding. If we had versions in modern English, I think we would be better off. A barrier of understanding would be removed, and we could wrestle directly with the concepts, the principles, the symbolism, which is plenty enough complexity to keep us busy without the thee's and thou's and an hungred's getting in the way too. I think we should try to be more like Jesus. Present challenging, complex ideas, but do it in simple, easily processed langauges and images. > I may be wrong about this whole thing, but I > think that one reason for literary obscurity in scripture is a > protective device to limit the texts accessibility to those who are > ready to receive it. And that is a perfectly acceptable reason to > indulge in a little confusion from time to time. Yes, but the obscurity is at the level of ideas, not language. "Behold, a sower went forth to sow" is pretty simple stuff. > To Nephi, Isaiah IS plain. But for me. Yikes! Isaiah was written in Nephi's native language, using cultural imagery familiar to him. We are thousands of years removed from Isaiah, with very little cultural similarities, and have his words filtered through centuries of copying and translations. We as English-speaking Mormons still read his words in an archaic form of our native language. Everyone feels spiritually embarrassed when Nephi says Isaiah is clear to him, and we don't get it at all. But it isn't necessarily spiritual insight we are lacking--it's the cultural and linguistic barriers that are filtering his clear words to us. And we suffer for it--we find it hard to appreciate Isaiah the way Nephi obviously did. Most of us probably wish Nephi hadn't been so enamored of Isaiah. The concepts Isaiah wrote about are heady enough on their own. We really don't need the barriers of literary obscurity added to them. > To use a recently discussed example from one of Michael's own books: if > Sheila masturbates, then she does, whether I do or don't, whether my > wife does or doesn't. And if her brief but brilliant ecstasy can only be > described by an artist in an indulgent, fanciful flight of archaic words > and disconnected images and flashing prose, then that's the way it has > to be. The writer in Martindale didn't do it that way, apparently, but > told it straight; but either way, "clear" or "obscure", there will > always be readers who don't like it, or don't get it. Here's how I wrote that scene: Sheila stared at the door after C.H. left, then at the dangling chain next to it. What in hell just happened? She slumped into the sofa. The candles on the table blazed silently. Arousal burned in her veins. She could still feel C.H.'s lips pressed against hers, his body pressed against her body. She still couldn't believe it had even happened. Her hand wandered down to her crotch and unsnapped the teddy there. She fondled herself, and slowly began to writhe as sexual excitement rushed toward urgency. It didn't take long. In the cool aftermath of spent arousal, Sheila could now think. Time to make sense out of what had just happened. I used one paragraph of three sentences to describe the entire act. As you expected, I told it very clearly. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. I also followed my own rules by describing it, not only with clarity, but also matter-of-factly, with only as much information as I thought was necessary, and absolutely no titillation. Neither coy nor gratuitous. I am quite sure every woman in that reading group that objected to Sheila's masturbation understood what was going on in that scene. Whether it was believable to them or not is another issue, one at the conceptual level. But the language of the scene is quite clear, and no one was confused over what was happening. That's a good thing--it clears the way for us to discuss whether Sheila _would_ masturbate or not. We don't have to waste time arguing over whether Sheila _did_ masturbate, had I been more obscure about describing it. > Gene Wolfe, who is indulgent, certainly (but then, so am I), will never > appeal to many. But he vigorously defends his style as being essential > to the story he wanted to tell, to the mood he wanted to convey. In his > opinion, it would have been boring any other way -- pointless. I can't argue with him, having never read him yet. But this makes me wonder, if he needed to resort to an obscure style because his story was too boring and pointless without it, maybe that's a clue he should write another story. > His use > of arcane words, narrative leaps, starting and stopping in time, and > other elements which make his text difficult, all have specific, > conscious reasonings behind them. Some audiences may disagree, but for > many thousands of readers, his desired effect was achieved, and he truly > "communicated", and did so "clearly", impressing the mind and doing so > in a unique and artistic way. I'm sure he had conscious reasons for what he did, and I'm sure thousands of readers liked it, and if everyone's happy with that, great. If Gene Wolfe will "never appeal to many" and he's content with that, so am I. But I still don't get why he would be content with that. He couldn't have written that story so readers could get through it without stopping in frustration and forcing themselves to continue, maybe years later after the pain of the first attempt has subsided? If what he has to say is so important to him--and surely it must be if he invested the time and effort to write a tetralogy--I don't get why he wouldn't prefer to have tens or even hundreds of thousands of people enjoying it, rather than just thousands. If his story had to be told the way he told it, then I admire his artistic integrity to not compromise the story for the sake of commercial prostitution. But I have serious doubts that the story had to be told that way. I may have to read him just to find out if I'm right. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 25 Apr 2003 22:04:01 -0600 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > Because being "appalled" will help reinforce right and wrong in your heart > and, perhaps, correct your course if you have been leaning at all towards > this type of behavior, lifestyle, or attitude in your own life. It's useful > as a reminder, just like getting the same Sunday school lesson over and over > and over and over. I vote for the appalling experience over endless Sunday school lessons. Being appalled is a strong emotional reaction that is likely to impress me. The only emotion repeated lessons evokes in me is boredom, and the only thing that motivates me to do is stay home. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 3: Twisted Time Lines Date: 25 Apr 2003 23:10:48 -0600 INFORMATION ON D. MICHAEL'S FILM LABS, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR, CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab ======= D. Michael's Film Lab No. 3 Saturday, May 10, 2003, in the Salt Lake area. "Twisted Time Lines" Time is so boring. It relentlessly flows forward from past to future, without so much as a hiccup. Fortunately science fiction and fantasy come to our rescue with stories of time travel and alternate time lines. The three movies that we'll view for Lab #3 take us on roller coaster rides of twisted time lines, letting us explore what might happen when we tweak events just a little and let the consequences flow from there. 3:00 pm - Sliding Doors Peter Howitt, 1998 runtime 99 min R, language, some sexuality Gwyneth Paltrow just barely catches her subway--or just barely misses it. Thanks to one tiny change in events as she rushes to the station, two completely separate series of events unfold in her life--now lives. This film is a marvelous example of superb script writing, perhaps surpassed only by "Memento," as it skillfully interweaves two separate time lines without confusing the viewer. In addition to being an enjoyable, bittersweet love story, "Sliding Doors" is a great lesson in telling an intricate tale. 6:00 pm - Run Lola Run Tom Tykwer, 1998 runtime 81 min R, some violence, language In German with subtitles Don't let the subtitles scare you--even my kids enjoyed watching this wacky tour de force from Germany. Using avant-guard techniques effectively (i.e., not off-putting to the typical audience member), "Run Lola Run" is about a girl whose boyfriend gets in trouble through shady dealings with underworld characters and needs one hundred thousand marks in twenty minutes or he's dead. She dashes off in search of the money, and almost succeeds. But when things go awry, Lola refuses to accept defeat, and through sheer force of will, transports back in time to try again. We follow her through multiple try/fail cycles, while the film ingeniously shows us in swift flashes how the changes she makes in her life affect the lives of those around her. This film is a must for any student of cinema. 9:00 pm - Retroactive Louis Morneau, 1997 runtime 87 min R, violence, language (standard issue action violence: nothing gory) We turn from fantasy to science fiction for our third twisted time line. Bad boy John Belushi is illegally dealing in restricted microchips, unknowingly filling a vital supply link for Frank Whaley, who is working on a top secret time travel project. Meanwhile police psychologist Kylie Travis gets caught up in all this when she develops car trouble and is picked up by Belushi. He proves to be violently murderous, and she flees from him for her life, stumbling into the project and accidentally getting sent back in time--just in time to stop the murders. She tries to do just that, but only makes things worse. Complication piles on complication as the whole cast of characters revisits the same period of time and things continually go wrong. "Retroactive" is "Groundhog Day" turned nightmare, and a fantastic action film. RULES OF ATTENDANCE: Because space is limited, please RSVP to dmichael@wwno.com. You will then receive directions for finding the location, which is in Sandy, Utah. You may attend any or all of the films. Discussion will follow the viewing of each film, analyzing and critiquing the merits and weaknesses and impact of the film from an artistic, cultural, and yes, even moral standpoint. No expertise is required to participate. Just a vocal opinion and a respect for the opinions of others. (Personal attacks will not be tolerated!) No admission is charged (this is just friends gathering to watch movies together), but we like to pool our resources and order out for something to eat, since it's a long time to go hungry! PLEASE be considerate of others and do not bring anyone who will not be interested in viewing the films or be disruptive in any way. Be honest with yourselves--if your kids are little hellions, leave them home! No babysitting facilities are available!! We don't want to enforce age requirements, but we will enforce considerate behavior. Also be aware that there will be no attempt to select films or maintain a discussion that is "family friendly" (unless the theme is specifically intended to be family friendly). Frankness (but not crudeness) is an acceptable part of the discussion. YOU are responsible for deciding if attendance is appropriate for any particular individual, not us. Everyone attends at their own risk. We ain't got no commercial liability insurance. This is just for fun. You are welcome to bring pillows or blankets or beanbags if you like casually relaxing on the floor. Dress is as casual as you want to get. Heck, you can come naked for all I care (but others may care). D. Michael is the final arbiter of all rules. Come join us! It's bound to be fun. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 26 Apr 2003 14:54:35 -0600 Jon Enos Friday, April 25, 2003 2:10 AM wrote: > a gospel which demands deep thought and which has such far-reaching theological implications has engendered a statistically disproportionate quantity of deep thinkers, I feel. But, I have always found such thinkers to talk to wherever I have been, though it has often been a hard search (internet has made this much easier, thankfully). *** yes, thank you God, for the Internet! *** > On the flip side, I wish dearly that I didn't get so many blank looks when I make one of my comments in Sunday School class. The vast majority of our brothers and sisters are of the "blank-look school". Which is what I was > bemoaning originally. > > But, I have learned to live with that fact, even to embrace and celebrate it, as I will explain later in a final of three essays I'm playing with, which I'll think about> posting down the road. > I think that the deep thinkers take a long time to evolve, and there are less of them because they come from the group labeled, so aptly by D, as "apple biters." But you are right in learning to embrace and hold fast to the "blank stare" faction. These are the salt of the earth types that come from the stalwart pioneer stock who are responsible for preserving the gospel and creating a haven for it to flourish in. I get those same blank stares in Sunday school when I throw in one of my philosophical conundrums such as; "Darwin didn't really discover what he termed evolution, he just proved that the process of creation, which God postulated for the benefit of humanity through his prophet Moses, is the Truth." On the other hand my wife, who only thinks deeply about the things that really matter, like the budget and our family, goes way beyond the blank stare if I cross to far a-field in my deep thinking. She will actually give me an elbow in the ribs, or a toe to my shins if we are in Sunday school. This is my hint to shut up. If we are alone and I try to drop a deep thought at her feet, she only gives me that bewildered look and then she crosses her eyes. She helps me to stay close to the surface of rational thought, while allowing me occasional solo dives into the realm of the deep. She is my channel buoy and she helps to keep me off the rocks. 8-) Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Housing Needs Date: 26 Apr 2003 16:01:33 -0500 Oh! Do I wish I lived in Utah for just that specific night! Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Date: 26 Apr 2003 17:50:35 -0400 Linda, as usual, your information is exactly correct. However, I would add that paying royalties on the retail price is the norm among most US publishers of trade books (i.e., books normally sold in bookstores). Textbooks, professional books and college and university titles are sometimes handled differently. Anyone that is paying on something else isn't following the general industry standard. But, Linda is right that either can be just as lucrative for the author. For example, if the royalty rate on the wholesale price received is about twice the rate on the retail price. So, if you are getting 10% of the cover price, the equivalent would be about 20% of the wholesale receipts (assuming the publisher actually gets paid for all the wholesale sales) BTW, authors looking at a contract can consult the Author's Guild (http://www.authorsguild.org/) for information on contracts, and members of the guild ($90 a year) can have contracts evaluated for them. You can also search google and other search engines for "author's contract" and get further information. [Kent Larsen] -- Subscribe to Mormon email lists: Send command to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Mormon-Index subscribe mormon-index Mormon-News subscribe mormon-news Mormon-Humor subscribe mormon-humor LDSClerks subscribe ldsclerks LDSPrimary subscribe ldsprimary See http://www.MormonsToday.com/mormon-lists/ for more information. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon Date: 26 Apr 2003 22:23:49 EDT Linda, I had not intended to address again the matter of your book and Horizon publishing but just read your post on the facts as you know them. I appologize for my over-emphasis of your statement of unhappiness. Communication using this medium is not my favorite way and I've decided several times not to do it any more and will likely follow through on that committment very soon. Although it is good to work at reading and writting as well as speaking with greater clearity. This site, from what I know of its purpose, is for evualation and discussion of literature after all. I appreciate your time spent in clearification and wish you well with your pallets of books. I have several pallets also, though they are not in my basement. We are paying to have them stored. You did raise an intersting question in this stream of posts. Can a man being evil write something good? What is and should be our individual standard by which we decide what is good literature? Will we all one day agree what is good when we become of one heart and one mind? Certainly, I believe, God's still have personal preferences and are unique in their thoughts and feelings. But do they all agree what is good and what is bad in terms of literature? We mortals seem to argue or at least reason within ourselves that what we find interesting, inspiring, or at least entertaining or moving ought to do the same for others. The major challenge of mortality with literature and reading in general is that I can't read fast enough to read all I would like to. If I enjoyed it less and was more critical in my standard maybe I could actually read everything that is really good. Maybe my approach is too indiscriminate and I should come up with a list like one author posted on this site as to the best books to read. But that was his best or wish list. I don't know what is on mine so my favorite thing to read is what I'm reading right now, this present moment. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 26 Apr 2003 23:01:28 EDT In a message dated 4/25/03 10:20:56 PM Mountain Standard Time, ddgraham@netutah.net writes: > What I'm saying, or asking, or something-ing is, why do people run to dregs > or seek them out? Why is it so important for some LDS people to "make sure > they're well rounded" and get their daily dose of dirt? It may be an > obstacle which, in the overcoming of it, will bring us closer to Christ. > But, we might not overcome. > > Dianna Graham > I had a counselor in an Elder's Quorum Presidency about 30 years ago that argued this very idea one day with me. He said he needed to sin, and he was speaking of conscious sin and on purpose, so that he could understand what it was like. This is a serious laps in good reasoning or so it seemed to me at the time. In the 30 years since then I have not changed my mind. Sin is not wise and always harmful, but to sin on purpose with aforethought with the belief that it will make one better or wiser is a grave mistake and the Prophets have repeatably warned us against this adversarial lie. That being said, it seems that most of us participate in this sort of sin some or a lot of the time. The Book of Mormon, the standard in doctrine and spirit, clearly teaches we do or can clearly judge between good and evil. The spirit of Christ without the higher enlightenment of the Holy Ghost is very clear if we listen and don't rationalize that we need a little more proof that this particular thing is bad so we really know. As to the earlier part of your post and the part angels play in our lives: I read a very old book written by an English Professor at BYU in 1904. It is titled Scientific Aspects of Mormonism and the author was Nels L. Nelson. This book contains fascinating chapters such as what intelligent beings will do in the hereafter, spiritual forces only higher powers of forces known to physics, how God shapes the destiny of the individual, the real meaning of Godhood, how our father became God, and philosophical difficulties to the concept of a personal God. In one chapter brother Nelson addresses the issue of the modus opperondi of the Gods and how and who actually listens to and answers our prayers. Is the book fiction or science as the title suggests. Each will have to judge for themselves. But I seldom discuss with even fellow church members the ideas of this book, though I believe personally they are true and accurate. In the first place they are upsetting to some and what they "have been taught all their lives". In the second place they are probably not vital things for most to understand, at least yet. I will give a bottom line on the work of angels, that by the way is not contridicted by all the life after death accounts I have read. It seems the older I get and the closer the 2nd Coming gets the more aware I become of the nearness of close friends and loving relatives and the part they do play already and the increasing part they would be happy to play in my life. But, alas, we receive not because we ask not. The Bible Dictionary under "prayer" contains some very interesting and hope filled writting on what might happen if we all prayed mightily and sincerely without gile. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Article on Community of Artists Date: 26 Apr 2003 17:34:18 -0600 The new issue of _BYU Studies_ (41:4) has an article by Tanya Rizzuti titled "Imparting One to Another: The Role of Humility, Charity, and Consecration within an Artistic Community." She talks about building a Zion community of artists. She is a painter so her focus is on painters, but her conclusions can be extended to all others concerned with producing "art." What do you all think of her conclusions? Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Veda Hale Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Date: 27 Apr 2003 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT) I have been thinking of how to answer Levi's question. (I am > curious, Veda, as to the degree=3D > to which you believe Maurine's eccentric > personality, rather than her novel > vel, may have contributed to her estranged, > lonely existence.) Star-crossed, Fatal flaw, Love starved, are adjective-linked words that could be used. And a lot could be said to go with each-- A whole biography, as a matter of fact. But we were speaking of "Passion in Art". I was moved by what Dutcher wrote about his experience of seeing CHICAGO on stage from the front row. I think I know something of what it feels like. I had been dealing with just that kind of thing the day I read his post. I remembered Curtis Taylor once told me that he had so been touched by the "passion" in THE GIANT JOSHUA and that he, as a young teen, had experienced that same kind of passion in another way from film and that he was determined to create something of the sort. In 1986 he was trying to get a direction to help him write this something of great worth. He was nearly broke, but scrapped together enough to pay to drive many miles to St. George. What an experience he had with Maurine!!! I have a transcript of the interview part of this experience, which he taped. (Hummmm=85I just thought=85and then the Quail-Creek dam burst next day, flooding the dry desert=85nice symbol.) And then Curtis had to do with bringing forth of a national best seller--EMBRASED BY THE LIGHT--and then=85 and then, he was hurt by the aftermath, details of which I know little. And then=85he had much to do with getting me hooked on writing Maurine's biography. And then, Curtis, where are you?=20 You've left me high and dry! Anyone know? I bought his last book, liked it, saw symbols in it no one has commented upon, but the "biggie" I sense is still out there. Maybe the one he told me about--"The Leaves of Matty Gray"-- having to do with a woman like Maurine. In another post maybe I'll copy what he said of his feeling about the passion Maurine was in to write JOSHUA--if this thread continues with enough interest. I'm late getting in it, in fact the only post in the thread I read was the one of Dutcher's that moved me so much. But to say something to pertain to Levi's question: Those people who day after day gave of themselves the way Dutcher observed in stage production of CHICAGO, and doing it thinking they were going to be appreciated by close family and friends and well rewarded financially, what if they, instead, found they didn't make enough money to live on?=20 Not only that, but they see that those with whom they live closest think they were foolish and even damaged their own people? What do you think would become of their personalities? How many more productions would they give? In fact, after a hard hit to health by the very sustained giving of their passion, would they be physically or emotionally able to do it again? How much would the frustration affect their passion? I don't know. [Veda Hale] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 27 Apr 2003 21:59:28 -0400 Rich Hammett: >Is this tongue-in-cheek? Is dating Ms. Spears really in the same >class of evil as drug addiction and adultery? > Yes? If I remember correctly, I'd just been listening to the radio, and the DJs were doing their daily Hollywood gossip segment. And I kept listening anyway. They delivered three stories: so-and-so being in rehab, so-and-so cheating on their spouse, and so-and-so dating Brittney. I thought it was rather funny that they gave each story the same amount of importance and air-time. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 27 Apr 2003 21:51:32 -0600 Jon Enos wrote: "On the flip side, I wish dearly that I didn't get so many blank looks when I make one of my comments in Sunday School class. The vast majority of our brothers and sisters are of the "blank-look school". Which is what I was bemoaning originally." Man, I'd love to go to church with a bunch of you people... I've been asked to substitute teach our Gospel Doctrine class next week. The thought of facing all those blank looks at once feels me with dread and a strange excitement that maybe I can get 'em discussing something for once. Or maybe not. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 28 Apr 2003 07:00:14 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > > (In defense of the Dr. Phil women--dropping his name and quoting his > show might have been an attempt to help another man understand what > they meant, not the crux of their argument.) D. Michael Martindale: >I don't think so. They were all but ignoring me as they discussed it. >They made it sound like his statement was the reason >they believed >what they believed, not just some useful information to convince me. I was one of the women...I was there in the discussion...and for the life of me, I can't recall what was said regarding Dr. Phil. Won't it be horribly embarrassing and revealing if I were the one who quoted him? And I can't remember it? Interesting that what D. Michael focused on as being important in the conversation was just a passing blip not worth remembering to me. I do recall the strong feeling being expressed that women just don't react "that" way (Shelia's masturbating to relief sexual tension). However, would it put things in perspective to know that the women in this group are all 40+? Maybe younger women do act that way and we are just all out of touch. But isn't it interesting that the willingness (or unwillingness in the scene being discussed) the group had to attach themselves to Shelia's point of view and behavior was based on what each person brought to the table in terms of personal experience? Which is also the reason they were sucked into the narrative of the story in the first place--they related to the characters as Mormons with whom they shared a common heritage and cultural experience. After that though, many parted ways--several of the women present admitted they didn't like horror stories. And that's what D. Michael has created with BROTHER BRIGHAM a new genre--the Mormon horror story. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 25 Apr 2003 22:26:38 -0600 Jennifer Ellsworth wrote: > > I've been wanting to read _Brother Brigham_ since it was first discussed on > the list. Point me in the right direction to read it and this female will > weigh in on the great Sheila debate. Sorry, Jennifer, you've missed the window! I'm curtailing reading of the book, except for specific circumstances (like letting Richard Dutcher read it sounded like a good idea). Now that I'm shopping it around to publishers, I do't want any more potential customers reading it for me. (If nobody serves Mammon, what's Mammon to do?) -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] re: D. Michael's Film Lab 3: Twisted Time Lines Date: 27 Apr 2003 08:40:01 -0600 Okay, so the movie "Retroactive" that I advertised for the next D. Michael's Film Lab, does not star John Belushi, seeing as how it was made some fifteen years after his death. It's Jim Belushi. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? Date: 28 Apr 2003 11:33:03 -0600 ___ R. W. ___ | Deconstruction, feminism, psychoanalysis--all ideas with=20 | a germ of truth, that are set upon by careerist=20 | systematizers who harden them into orthodoxies that=20 | permit no dissent the the academic marketplace. ___ Deconstruction isn't part of a system. Indeed that is why authors are careful to say "deconstruction" and not "deconstructionism." Deconstruction typically is invoked to undermine attempts at systemizing. =20 While I'd agree that there are many attempts at flawed systems in feminism and psycho-analysis, not all are. Don't get me wrong, I think Freud one of the worst things to happen to the psyche in the 20th century. I think his few initial insights that panned out could easily be found elsewhere. I think the same of most 20th century feminism. (Based upon my reading - but recognizing that is such a wide field that I may find a lot I agree with were I to search) I think it dangerous to cast down the movement though simply because its initial attempts to realize its concerns were dismal failures. (And, to be fair, feminism had many successes in with the failures) ___ R. W. ___ | The money quote from the "New York Times" article is from=20 | Sander L. Gilman: "I think that one must be careful in=20 | assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In=20 | fact, if the track records of intellectuals are any=20 | indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost=20 | all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive=20 | and destructive ways."=20 ___ I'm not sure that is a fair comment. Certainly there have been schools of thought which have been rather na=EFve. Traditional Marxism, traditional Freudianism, and so forth clearly are great examples. However by the same measure I think he is leaving out a lot that came about because of "intellectuals" (whatever that is). Consider at a minimum racism and responses to it. While there have been failures in the effort there have been far more successes. Further the anti-racist views arise out of the humanist tradition and has largely been driven by intellectuals from the period of the civil war on up. (Which is not to discount the efforts of others, but often those views are made possible because of a condition set up by intellectuals) Don't get me wrong. I tend to be pretty anti-intellectual (meaning writers and commentators found in Universities but "unsoiled" by more pragmatic concerns) I also have often stated that I think engineering projects have done far more to improve human ethics than all the intellectual successes combined. I think that having ones basic needs taken care of gives people a freedom where they can be less selfish and then *naturally* act in ways intellectuals like. But that arose because of the teamwork of science and engineering and not pure intellectualism. However I do think that intellectuals get a bad rap. For all their failings one must admit that intellectuals don't tend to do the horrible things that their failures mark. If intellectuals have a blind side, it is in forgetting that not everyone is an intellectual. Thus they tend to make sweeping judgments which only work if everyone were an intellectual. That is, of course, na=EFve. But it reflects their = world. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Babies and Creativity Date: 28 Apr 2003 11:35:09 -0600 I read _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_ while nursing my first baby. Strange choice? I also read Tolstoy's _Resurrection_. A rather good combination, I'd say. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 28 Apr 2003 11:53:37 -0600 ___ Bill ___ | I started reading a book* written by a physicist a few years | back, but I had to stop, because it got way too deep for my | cognitive resources to comprehend. This book's purpose was | to prove, by means of pure physics, the existence of God The | author began by examining the "Chaos Theory" and speculating | on the odds of one cell forming under the parameters | accepted by this theory. ___ This sounds like _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ by Tipler and Barrow. It is a very interesting book. However it has a slight problem in that some might say that the only reason this particular state of affairs is special is because we are in it. It has this hidden "subjective" element that makes things appear more unlikely than they actually are. That's a confusing paragraph, I know. So let me put it in simpler terms. Consider someone deals you a particular hand of cards. Now I could go through how astronomically improbable that particular hand of cards was. And I'd be completely right. The only problem is that for *any* hand of cards the probability of that hand is small. Once you take that more "big picture view" the significance of that hand of cards suddenly seems small. What makes getting dealt four aces and a joker seem so significant? Well, we *made* it significant because *we* determined that particular hand is important. But from a more objective point of view it is no more significant than any other random hand. With regards to life we find this particular point in history so significant and so profound because *we* consider ourselves somehow important. But that judgment is really the same sort of thing as making four aces important. Further we are making this judgment only after looking at the cards. It is akin to determining what cards in poker are valuable *after* being dealt the cards instead of having the rules *before* the dealing. Now this isn't to throw out all the insights of the various anthropic principles. But it does suggest we ought to be cautious, especially if one adopts the view of multiple universes. This universe is significant only because *we* are here. It is our looking that makes it significant. It is not its significance that allows us to look. Sorry for all that, but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine as it is a fundamental misunderstanding that I see a lot making with respect to science in literature. It crops up in discussion of evolution as well. ___ Bill ___ | Here is an interesting website of Dr. Tipler's in which | he concludes: "So our mind children at the end of time | will be omniscient (they will know everything that can | be known); they will be omnipotent (they will have | infinite energy, controlling all the energy resources in | the universe), and they are omnipresent (they are | ubiquitous throughout the universe). ___ Tipler's Omega point theory is certainly interesting. People should be aware that it is *very* controversial and runs into various problems in terms of physics. I'd also point out that for Tipler this Omega point ends up being God. So it really isn't that compatible with a Mormon view of diety and resurrected beings interacting with mortal beings. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: [AML] Deductions for Literary Contributions Date: 28 Apr 2003 05:57:15 -0500 > >Thought this might be of interest, especially to the authors in the group. >Colleen > Colleen R. Cahill | CSTU@LOC.GOV > Digital Production Coordinator | (202)707-8540 > & Recommending Officer for | FAX (202)707-8531 > Science Fiction & Fantasy | Library of Congress >These opinions are mine, Mine, Mine! | Washington, DC 20540-4652 > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:55:07 -0400 >From: Kathye Fetsko Petrie >To: kpwriting@comcast.net >Subject: congressional support needed for H.R.806 > >Dear Local LIT readers and other concerned authors/artists and readers: > >Former Unites States Poet-Laureate (1973-74) Daniel Hoffman >has informed me about a very important bill, H.R.806, which is >about to go up for a vote in the House of Representatives. The bill is to >"amend the Internal Revenue Code . . . to provide that a deduction equal >to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of >literary, >musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor." >Daniel Hoffman explains the situation below and more information >is available at http://www.authorsguild.org/news/tax_position_april.htm. > >Please show your support for this bill by contacting your representative by >phone, fax or e-mail, and, urge that he or she co-sponsor H.R. 806, >the "Artists' Contribution to American Heritage Act." There are 42 >co-sponsors to date. More are needed. A list of all representatives >and their contact information are available at >http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ >The text of H.R. 806, as well as a list of its current sponsors, is >available at http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr806.html > >The Authors Guild http://www.authorsguild.org/ asks that you >also inform them you have sent a letter of support >E-mail the authors guild at staff@authorsguild.org to let them know >you called, faxed or e-mailed your representative or send a copy of >your faxed letter to the guild's fax number, (212) 564-5363. >ACTION IS NEEDED NOW as I believe the bill comes up for vote >early this week. Thanks so much. > >All the best, >Kathye Fetsko Petrie >Editor/Publisher >Local LIT >A monthly e-zine > of literary news and events > in the Philadelphia area >http://www.locallit.com > > >author, FLYING JACK >September 2003 >http://www.locallit.com/display.php?what=print_pub >Boyds Mills Press >http://www.boydsmillspress.com > >Please feel free to forward this message. >________________________________________ >TEXT OF LETTER FROM DANIEL HOFFMAN: >Dear Kathye: > > I'm on the Council of the Authors Guild, an organization >representing over 8.000 professional writers. We've taken a strong >interest in getting the Congress to repeal the provisions in the tax >code which deny a writer any tax benefit beyond the cost of >materials for donations of mss., correspondence, first editions, >etc., to a library, university or museum (same applies to artists >and composers). So the author of a novel or book of poems, donating >the mss., could deduct only the cost of a ream of paper and an ink >cartridge, while any donor not the creator of the work can get a >tax deduction of the appraised full market value of the gift. > > At last the Senate has passed and the House is about to >consider the "Artists' Contribution to American Heritage Act," H.R. >806, which has 42 sponsors among members in the House. If you could >put out an e-mail to your subscribers urging them to urge their >congressman to join the 42 as co-sponsor of this resolution, its >chances of passage will be greatly enhanced. > > I've written to Representative Weldon, pointing out the cultural >consequences of passing this measure, which would make attractive to >writers the donation of their archives in toto, thus facilitating >cultural research. At present such materials are more likely sold to >private collectors, scattering the documents necessary for >responsible interpretation; some collectors deny access to critics >and scholars, others don't publicize their holdings. So the granting >of tax deduction for responsibly appraised gifts to appropriate >institutions rights a wrong in the tax code as well as contributes >to the preservation of our cultural heritage. > > This resolution will soon come up for a vote, so anyone >interested in helping its passage would do well to call, fax, or >e-mail his/her congressman a.s.a.p. > >Yours, >Dan >________________________________________ >THIS MESSAGE MAY BE FORWARDED >-- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Dianna Graham Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:38:36 -0600 (MDT) I was bored stiff and didn't have a TV to watch...). Anyway, we're trapped in lovely Orem, UT, for the time being. > Dianna Graham Reply: I can think of worse places to wash ashore; for example, anyplace east of the Rockies. When we moved to Orem from Kalamazoo, my 4-year-old boy said to me, "Where are we going, Daddy," and I said, "We're going to the mountains of Ephriam to dwell." I guess I'm just a country boy. May you find what Arthur Henry King described in his poetry as "the right landscape in which to die." For him, it was that little ranch on the east side of the road on I-15, just outside of Holden. Fred Pinnegar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Anne Perry Letter Link Date: 28 Apr 2003 20:44:41 -0600 Thanks for this link to the Anne Perry letter. We just returned from a 30 day cruise on the QE2 in mid February. Although we visited a different part of the world I was amazed at how similar our experiences were. The cultural joys of this kind of adventure are unbelievable, and she presented them beautifully. Sorry we missed her lectures, but loved the series we heard in Tahiti on Paul Gauguin and Jacques Brel. In Tasmania I learned how to commit the perfect crime using a Tasmanian devil, since the little creatures eats up all the evidence (hair, bone and skin). My sweetest experience was when a lovely Japanese woman came to my aid on the island of Moorea. We had to wade ashore barefoot on seashells. She appeared out of nowhere, took my arm and guided me to the sandy beach. She spoke nary a word of English, but her kindness moved me to tears. Later she swam out to the reef and brought me back a heart-shaped piece of coral. My most glorious moment was seeing _Rigoletto_ at the Sydney Opera House. We live in a beautiful, fascinating world. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 28 Apr 2003 22:08:39 -0600 > Bill Willson wrote: > > > This writer (Frank J. Tipler, author of "The Physics of Immortality") was not to my knowledge a member of >>the church, but then he could be by now. Who knows? >> > D. Michael Martindale > dmichael@wwno.com Replies: > > Oh, he's definitely not a member of the church. I doubt he's a member of any church. He was quite agnostic, if not atheistic, earlier in his life, and came to a "belief" in God through scientific deduction. His book is a fascinating bunch of speculation, but he creates a God which > only an agnostic could love. > Does anyone know for sure if Dr. Tipler believes in God or not? He went to the trouble of writing an entire book, which postulates his own `proof' that there is a God. Personally I would hate to be guilty of labeling anyone an out and out atheist who wrote a book in an effort to convince the scientific world that there was a God. Maybe his God is one whom only an agnostic could love, but it is Mr. Tipler's concept of God. Doesn't our own eleventh Article of Faith tell us: 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. I think it is definitely a step in the right direction for the field of physics. Maybe if enough mathematicians and physicists get to work trying to disprove Dr. Tipler's theory, some of them will actually find God, and eventually the one true church.. There supposedly is a purpose to everything under heaven, and I seriously doubt if there is only one path that leads us back to our home with God. Anyway, it seems like there is more than ample food for our creative minds to explore the possibilities that could come forth from the above questions, dealing with the discovery of God through the pathways of science; of course the final proof would have to evolve a quantum leap of faith. Each of us makes that leap alone. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Draney Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 28 Apr 2003 22:49:40 -0600 At 01:08 PM 4/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Often the analogy of a >plumber or electrician is evoked. What church leader would dictate to >these professionals how to do their job? None that has any sense at all. >But they feel like they have every right to dictate to an artist how to >do his job. And the results speak for themselves. Part of this analogy breaks down in a critical way. It assumes that the artist's craft is as structured and predictable as a plumber's or an electrician's job. A plumber or electrician doesn't have to make the same decisions about how her work will impact the moral lives of those she works for-- how the job will materially influence others. It's simply a matter of applying technical knowledge and working to achieve a prescribed (and in some ways proscribed) end. The artist, on the other hand, often does take the moral dimension in hand, and can create situations which influence others in ways that can affect their lives in the most fundamental ways. I have said before, echoing many on this list (I think), that surely some (many) of us can judge for ourselves what to read or watch based on correct principles and the guidance of the spirit, but there may also be some individuals whose particular mortal circumstances make them dangerously vulnerable to things that don't affect others. An appropriate expression of marital sex for one reader may be a slippery slope into inappropriate, even sinful, action for another. The fact that these honest expressions of sexuality, or a valid and necessary depictions of violence, cannot be condoned from the official pulpits of the church stems from the fact that not every church member has the capacity to know when the line has been crossed. So, leaders speak in terms that draw the lines way back from the dangerous edge, and thus sufficiently far away from leading the weakest into sin, that their (the leader's) garments not be spotted with the blood of such sins. Some individuals may safely break the letter of the law because they understand the principles AND have the individual power to not slip into grievous error. Others clearly cannot. Thus, the larger question of whether such "rule-breaking" leads us to break eternal laws is much more serious and, to my mind, firmly settled. When and where artists broach that line, however, is not yet settled. Clark D. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Draney Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 28 Apr 2003 22:56:28 -0600 At 12:23 PM 4/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Perhaps this analogy will illustrate. When I go on a trip, I fo to enjoy >the sights, to experience places that I haven't experienced before. Now >I would much prefer taking that journey in a comfortable vehicle: roomy, >air conditioned, nice stereo system, smooth ride, no mechanical >breakdowns. A beat up, vibrating, stifling jalopy that constantly breaks >down only distracts from my vacationing experience. The vehicle is the >medium. The locations are the message. I guess I have a problem with this analogy because writing is hardly like a car to me at all. It's not a function of being able to afford a nice car. It's a matter of working sufficiently hard at conveying my message clearly and thoughtfully. The car is created by someone else and I just drive it. I like the amenities while they work, but I didn't make them. They are part of a prepackaged deal I got from the manufacturer (who, by the way, chooses much of what is in "my" car). Eventually it breaks down and I have to buy another one. Writing, on the other hand, is very much about learning what works and what doesn't (mostly by trial and error). Its about being sufficiently immersed in the discourse I want to write in and about to be able to convey easily and convincingly what is important to me. I create that vehicle for communication myself, painstakingly, step-by-step. And, it grows as I continue to practice the craft. I replace outmoded methods that no longer work as well for me as I once thought they did, but even that process is cumulative and transformative, not a transaction with a dealer. Clark D. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] International Mormon Lit? Date: 28 Apr 2003 23:02:28 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- I'm probably oversensitive > to this, and probably making too much of it, but I wonder if the absence of > works by authors from other cultures is one reason that Mormon literature > is not as broadly accepted (or, I would argue, as rich or cross-culturally > appealing) as, say, Jewish or Catholic literatures. This is a really interesting notion. Are LDS artists not reading widely enough, cross-culturally? There's got to be some truth to that. I'm inserting the movie version of _Fiddler on the Roof_ into the VCR even as I type (as it is due at Blockbuster tomorrow).... Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 29 Apr 2003 02:39:11 -0400 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Justin Halverson wrote: > > > But I will never come back to them. I will never read a book that easy > > twice, much less think of it again. And not out of some pretentious > > literati-type snobbery. I won't because it's no fun, and there's nothing to > > be gained from a second "viewing". > > > > A novel that challenges me, though, that I could read for the sound of its > > words alone, I'll come back to time and time again. Especially if I'm not > > sure what it means. >Holy Moley I get frustrated sometimes. Easy books? Who said anything >about easy books? I completely understand your sentiment. It's frustrating when a responder to your post only seems to read that post selectively before dismantling little bits of it. (Granted, I too find it much easier to make someone's argument look silly when I take it out of context.) I thought we were talking about "easy" books because your analogy described the kinds of books I find "easy." The post from which you snip the above quote was responding to a post in which you compared writing to the creating of a trap. You wrote: "Maybe that's why I am so big on writing in a way that slips the reader easily into my story. I tend to write things that are traps: forcing people against their will to think thoughts they wouldn't have chosen to think on their own" (NOTE: the full email is below. If I am taking you out of context here, I apologize and hope you will correct my misreading.) If I am "forced" by a book to think something "against my will," I call that book "easy"--I don't have to do any work. The book gives me all the ideas, and I can't work at all, since I "wouldn't have chosen to think [those thoughts] on my own." Painting a reader into a corner is *not* challenging or ultimately beneficial to the reader--no matter how interesting or good or wonderful or necessary to salvation or an understanding of the human condition your thought is. If the reader has to think what you want him or her to think--and he or she does, because, as you rightly point out--they're trapped. That's why I began my response by explaining as clearly as I could (since I was much more concerned with the message than the language), that your analogy applies "if you want to limit the literary experience to . If you want to trap your reader into a single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work, that's great. I won't deny that I really like and need those sorts of novels from time to time--for the same reason that I enjoy watching "Law and Order" or summer action movies." >Now if you love the sound of words and come back for that, well more >power to you. But to call a book easy simply because the writing is easy >to read does not compute. I do love the sound of words, but it's not just that. It's reading something that I *have* to participate in that I love--something that asks me to bring my own experience to bear on the author's. Again, what I meant by easy was that I didn't have to work anything out for myself, since you had not only already done all the work for me, but had trapped me into thinking what you wanted me to think. >Perhaps this analogy will illustrate. When I go on a trip, I fo to enjoy >the sights, to experience places that I haven't experienced before. Now >I would much prefer taking that journey in a comfortable vehicle: roomy, >air conditioned, nice stereo system, smooth ride, no mechanical >breakdowns. A beat up, vibrating, stifling jalopy that constantly breaks >down only distracts from my vacationing experience. The vehicle is the >medium. The locations are the message. Fine. Absolutely fine (as I said before, I "really like and need" the sorts of novels that often result from this approach). Your metaphor, however, reflects only your inability to understand anything but what you want me to see. It depends on the following three assumptions: 1) That medium and message are radically separate. If they ever do touch each other, the interaction, like the interface between a tire's contact patches and the road, is extremely small. 2) That difficult prose "constantly breaks down." It doesn't. Sometimes it does, but then it's no good. Perhaps you got the impression that I'm defending all difficult writing. I'm not. I don't like difficult prose if it "constantly breaks down." But good writing, even if it is difficult, does (by definition) *not* break down. 3) That a good reading experience presents itself before you like a landscape to be oohed and aahed over through a window instead of touched, tasted, smelled--even heard!--in addition to being seen. Perhaps I may appropriate your metaphor, and compare good though difficult (poetic would be another synonym) prose to a well-used, resonant, well-weighted classic cruiser, whose owner has spent countless hours tuning up and rebuilding from parts that, though they've been used in other cars and might seem ridiculous, mis-proportioned, or out of place when viewed close up--as solitary parts of most arguments--work just as they should, or even just as they weren't expected to, when taken as a whole. This car's owner/driver could be both reader or writer, since good prose, when it is difficult, often requires the reader to contribute as much as the writer. Since a writer isn't really a mechanic, though, and since not every reader is comfortable "experiencing" the literary world from inside a (however well apportioned) metal box, the analogy breaks down at this point. If I pushed it, though, I'd say this: with writing and reading, *both* types of vehicles are great at times. Sometimes I just want to hand over the keys, sit back, and enjoy the ride. I take great pleasure, too, though, out of driving in a vehicle I've actually had a hand in building and that will probably break down a couple times along the way so that I have to get out of the car, feel the grit under my knees, the dirt in my hair, and the grease on my hands and in my eyes. I remember the scenery of the road that much better for having had to see it looking up past the axle and the air-conditioner compressor, between the belts that drive the alternator and water pump, and through the air that wavers off the engine block. >I wouldn't read a book once that is hard to read because of thw writing, >let alone enjoy reading it multiple times. But I'll read often books >that are challenging in their ideas. How can you say a book with >challenging, thought-rpovoking ideas has nothing to be gained from a >second viewing? Those are the very books that you read multiple times. I *didn't* say that. I said that a book that only produces thoughts its readers are "trapped" into is not challenging nor thought-provoking, and therefore not worth a second read. >Unless you enjoy the broken down, bumpy jalopy experience. No. But just I enjoy taking the Lincoln on a Sunday afternoon drive, I also appreciate the surprised satisfaction of getting back on the road having had a hand in making what I'm driving, and being aware of how amazingly complex and intricate this thing I'm driving is, and how we depend on each other to get wherever we're going. Justin Halverson PS--The email to which I was previously responding, in full, if anyone cares and has actually read this far, follows: Melissa Proffitt wrote: > The point of all of this is that just because Wolfe does this and creates > good writing, it doesn't mean that his is the ONLY kind of good writing. > It's just different. And it's written for a different audience. Calling it > "self-indulgent" only makes it sound like you want to throw up a different > barrier: the one that legitimizes only the kind of fiction *you* like. Read > (and write) what makes you happy; stick to the kinds of books that you > admire most. Just keep in mind that others' tastes must needs be met as > well, and their preferences for something else aren't a denigration of > yours. D. Michael Martindale wrote: I'm sure I came across sounding like what you wrote here, but it's not readers' tastes that I was complaining about. What I truly don't get is why an author would make him/herself hard to read. You may enjoy putting your mind through a meat grinder (I don't--not a meat-grinder of difficult writing style), but I feel pretty confident that the majority of readers don't. And even though you enjoyed Wolfe's obtuseness, you also enjoyed the simplicity of the juvenile mystery series. Simplicity/directness/clarity in writing (whatever word you wish to choose to describe it) won't put off readers--even readers for whom Wolfeian styles appeal. What I don't get is why writers would choose the difficult approach. It _will_ decrease the size of the audience. We must remember that we are an elite crew here. We are literate. It's a heady ego booster to have literate people praise your writing, but my first and foremost desire for my authorial efforts is mass sales. I won't compromise my message to get sales, but I will certainly gear my writing style to ease people into my story as effortlessly as possible. The word "self-indulgent" isn't a carelessly tossed epithet. A writer who doesn't have the business end of writing in mind _is_ being self-indulgent: writing for himself rather than for a large audience. Now there's nothing wrong with that if they want to do that (and that's why I added that Gene Wolfe may not care if he maximizes his audience), but I don't get why an author would want to do that. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Traps need to entice their victims in effortlessly. Maybe that's why I am so big on writing in a way that slips the reader easily into my story. I tend to write things that are traps: forcing people against their will to think thoughts they wouldn't have chosen to think on their own. Maybe that's what I'm trying to say: easy thoughts can afford labyrinthine roads to them. Difficult thoughts need enticing, effortless paths. Difficult thoughts paired with difficult roads sounds like a recipe for failure. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia Date: 29 Apr 2003 02:58:45 -0400 >I think there is a >strain of Anglophilia in popular LDS culture that could be the result of >heritage similar to mine. C.S. Lewis is of course the most famous >honorary Mormon. I know Neal Maxwell loves to quote Churchill and other >Brit luminaries when he gets the chance. I wonder if it's also because we share a language and, broadly, a philosophical heritage. No matter how internationally-read we are, it's likely that all of us who grew up with "English" (scare quotes to mollify the Brits ;->) as our first language are better-versed in British literature than in any other national/linguistic tradition. As far as a specifically (U.S.) LDS Anglophilia, one factor might be our use of the King James Bible, and the way it colors the translation into "American" of much LDS scripture. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 29 Apr 2003 04:07:49 -0400 D Michael Martindale wrote: >I don't think the problem is so much deciding what should be "held >apart," as deciding what "held apart" actually means. I think equating >"holding apart" with hiding is a superficial way to reverence >something--a Pharisaical way. I think the correct meaning of "holding >apart" is to treat that which is sacred with honor and respect. I do >_not_ accept the Primary definition that reverence equals shut up. > >The "shut up" approach to reverencing sacred things I suppose stems from >the oft-abused quote from Jesus not to cast pearls before swine. Good >advice, if you're confronted with a swine. It _is_ better to just keep >silent about sacred things when you are surrounded by people who will >mock the sacred. > >But how many people do that? The whole world except for Mormons, if you >go by some Mormons' apparent perception. Yet when I look at the >reception of the world to such religious films as _God's Army_, _Brigham >City_, _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_, _Fiddler on the Roof_, _The Apostle_, >and numerous works of literature, I see precious little mocking of such >things and a great deal of respect for them. The evidence for the >existence of herds and herds of swine out there is lacking. > >I do wish we Mormons could get over the habit of calling everyone a >swine who doesn't believe as we do. Every time we say we should hide >something sacred from everyone, that's exactly what we're doing. My writing must be much worse than even my professors tell me, if this is the conclusion that you draw from my post. :-) Like you urge, I do not equate "sacred" with "secret" nor with "hiding" in the sense that we won't share it. Neither do the church leaders I've heard speak on the subject--at least not those general officers. They often remark that the temples are open to anyone who will prepare themselves to enter (just as Christ promised understanding to anyone who would prepare themselves to hear his "silent"--that is, in some contexts, unhearable--parables). I do, however, equate "sacred" with "silence" *in certain contexts.* The way I understand it is this: when in the temple, we are encouraged to speak about the temple as freely as we want, to ask any question we want, and to discuss openly what we learn and see. When outside the temple, out of respect for the most sacred places on earth--sacred in part precisely *because* they are, though set on hills and brightly lit, both circumscribed by walls of stone and dependent on walls of reverence--we speak in generalities but refrain, because we hold them apart from the everyday and the quotidian, from discussing (verbally or in writing) specifics. This silence is NOT to be construed as an implicit judgment of those around us as swine. Outside the temple I don't choose to speak to my wife or my daughter in specifics about the temple, and vice versa. Does that mean I think they're swine? (We won't ask what they think of me.) Only if "we Mormons" all talked about the specifics of the temple *outside the temple*, but shut up as soon as someone else walked into the room, THEN maybe we'd be calling everyone else swine. My wife's and my silence simply reflects our feeling that to talk about those specifics outside the temple would, in effect, bring those things into the discourse of daily life--which discourse we (my wife and I) don't use in the temple (ie, we don't choose to balance our checkbooks in the celestial room). Thus, they wouldn't be sacred to us anymore, since the definition of sacred is, I think (and I think you think), more productively thought of not as "off-limits" but as "held apart." I'll close this post with the same words I used to close the last one, which I think is what you're also asking for: Here's hoping that we can continue to listen closely and humbly for guidance in our creative efforts, and apply that the same humility to receiving what our fellow artists offer us. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ Date: 29 Apr 2003 10:11:34 -0700 > Some believe that it would be best if we didn't watch this kind of > entertainment, if we didn't appall ourselves occasionally and remind > ourselves of the horrors that happen on this earth. Seems to me that's an > awfully dangerous opinion to keep. I don't have a problem with movies that show appalling acts as long as there is something uplifting to counteract it. I think it's really rare in life that anything just brutally appalling happens without something positive taking place as well. Tragedy and horror bring out tremendous strength in people. (This is my favorite theme in movies--the strength and resiliency of the human spirit.) I've seen enough appalling things in my own family and in my own life, I don't need to see a movie to be reminded of it. In fact, if anything, I need to be reminded of the opposite. :) Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Re: Copyright Law and Horizon Date: 29 Apr 2003 15:58:44 -0700 >A book falls under Intellectual Property Law. It is not the same as if a >paper company received cases of paper towels which they may then resell, >and the paper towel maker can't say Boo about it. Paper towels are Real >Property. Intellectual Property (generally, works for which one is paid >royalties) is completely different. I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something? My legal education was, admittedly, under a British system, but the principles are pretty much the same under any legal system: Books *are* like paper towels (or -- inasmuch as they're not consumable -- perhaps like television sets.) While Motorola owns the intellectual property on the design of my tv (and I am therefore prohibited from stealing their design and manufacturing an identical tv of my own), I am absolutely free to purchase and resell the television set itself. And the person who buys it from me is likewise free to resell it. And so on. The intellectual property law doesn't apply to selling physical goods; only to stealing their design (or contents) and passing it off as one's own. If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from your account, I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge lawsuit. But if the book was published legally by another party, and Horizon then legally obtained the physical copies of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs to sell, yes? Or perhaps I'm missing something altogether. Are you saying you were gypped out of royalty payments? But there would *be* no royalty payments due on books sold back to the author...or so *my* contracts say. --lmg --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon Date: 29 Apr 2003 17:53:08 -0500 Thank you, Glen, apology accepted and no hard feelings here. You are most gracious. FWIW, while I agree it is easier to mis-communicate with email than in speech and normally published writing (essays, books), because it seems to be a blend between the two, it would not be good to lose your voice and your opinion here. You would be missed. Please keep posting. It's an important learning process for all of us. Linda -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 29 Apr 2003 14:44:52 -0600 Kim Madsen wrote: > And that's what D. Michael has created with BROTHER BRIGHAM a > new genre--the Mormon horror story. I always enjoy praise, but I think Kim overstates things. If people were to come to "Bro Brig" expecting a horror story, I fear they will be disappointed. It's definitely a character study, with the character revealed through some rather unusual circumstances. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 30 Apr 2003 07:03:02 -0400 We are going to be moving to a branch soon, and visited it a few weeks ago. Sunday School was great! It is a branch near a college, and gets a mix of professors, students, rural people, and city transplants. The discussion was great. Some times those blank looks are the fault of the teacher. Learn to ask a good question, and don't be afraid to wait for an answer. It seems like eternity standing there in silence, but you have to give the class some time to digest the question and formulate their response. After all, you studied in advance, and planned the question. This might be the same with comments as well. Maybe some of those blank looks are just people trying to assimilate a new idea. We can hope anyway. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > I've been asked to substitute teach our Gospel Doctrine class next week. > The thought of facing all those blank looks at once feels me with dread > and a strange excitement that maybe I can get 'em discussing something > for once. Or maybe not. > > Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 30 Apr 2003 09:19:22 -0600 >for sacred things. There's a warped notion in the LDS culture >these days that the only acceptable handling of sacred things >is silence. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to address this exact subject. I was in South Summit High School in Kamas as part of a team of theatre people adjudicating the drama entries in the KSL Sterling Scholar competition. During lunch, the subject of LDS theatre came up, as I was explaining to the people around me what the Center Street Theatre was. Eventually someone spoke of God's Army and how uncomfortable they felt that the sacred (in this case, the healing scene) was revealed in film and not hidden. I explained to them what I've heard Richard say about this scene, that it was purposely shot in two takes, that no one mouths the words of the prayer in its entirety, so as to avoid saying a complete and accurate LDS prayer. This seemed to satisfy the person that no sacred cows had been skewered in the making of this film. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 30 Apr 2003 10:23:57 -0600 Okay, so now I have to spill. Last weekend, I had the great honor of attending the annual Mormon Arts = Retreat. This is the latest iteration of the late, lamented Mormon Arts = Festival, which was a wonderful idea that Doug Stewart and Rob Paxton = worked like coal miners to create, which finally died, I think largely = because putting it on every year was so exhausting. So what happens = instead is that a bunch of artists from different disciplines get = together once a year in a snazzy hotel, and schooze, hear a couple of = speakers, and basically talk about Mormon artsy stuff, and, best of all, = have a Show and Tell thing where we get to see cool stuff like Brian = Kirshisnek's paintings and hear cool stuff like Sam Cardon playing jazz. = =20 Man is it fun. It's the highlight of my year. And I love getting to = know folks who I would never really come into contact with. And making = new friends is always good. That's why this year, I decided to show up = and do my darndest to rain on the parade. This year, the first speaker was Dean Hughes, who, in typical Dean = Hughes manner, said thoughtful and wise and intelligent things about the = challenges of writing Mormon characters into your fiction, and how one = avoids didacticism and morally polarized characters, and PR fiction, and = instead focuses on story and character and getting everything right. I = don't have my notes in front of me, but what I remember mostly from his = remarks wasn't so much what he said, but what he represents, the solid = professionalism and craftsmanship and gentle wit and sheer humanity of = his fiction. He's someone to emulate, certainly.=20 Okay, so then we had a nice dinner, and my table was particularly rowdy, = because Tracy Hickman and I were there razzing Richard Dutcher, and = pestering the waitress to bring us more rolls. Tracy, BTW, has a big = new fantasy series coming out which looks like the bomb. I mostly don't = read fantasy fiction, but I'm planning to give this series a read. =20 Then came the after-dinner speaker. A wonderful choreographer, Pat = Debenham, talked about ways in which our talents can become the means by = which Satan tempts us, lures us away from God. He urges us to think of = our artistic gifts in more mundane terms than we are used to, to = essentially repudiate the romantic notion of the Artist-Genius whose = connection with nature, or with the Super Sensuous as revealed in = nature, is so much richer than the connection ordinary people have to it = that He (the artist) leads us to God. (Pat didn't say all that; I'm = interpolating.) What Pat did say is that a lot of young LDS artists = leave the Church, and in part it's because we artists take ourselves too = seriously. Art is not a calling, it's a job, he argued. I don't mind = dumping the romantic conception of the Artist Genius, but sorry, Art is = a calling to me; if it weren't, I'd quit and do something else with my = life. As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly = surprising, when LDS culture (together with American culture) is in many = ways anti-art. =20 So Pat said something things that led to some hot, late-night debates, = which is all to the good. But then came Show and Tell. It was great, = let me tell you. Sam Cardon playing jazz, Sam on piano, with drums and bass. Fabulous = stuff. And this young musician Sam discovered, a nineteen year old kid = named Kalai, who is the next Cat Stevens, except that Kalai is fifty = times better on guitar than Cat Stevens. I love Cat Stevens, and loved = Kalai's music even more. And some wonderful hammered dulcimer music = from a husband/wife musical pair, the Schultzes. And we heard an = excerpt from Kristin Randle's new YA novel, and we heard a great = children's book from Rick Walton, and we saw lots and lots of paintings. = I'm not ordinarily a fan of landscapes, but I do love Robert Marshall's = work, because he focuses on mundane subjects, the log and not the = stream, the rock and not the panorama. I have a soft spot in my heart = for Mark England's collage work, especially his First Vision painting, = which includes a large scale nude, presumably Mother in Heaven. Jim = Christensen is doing something fun; he's invented a 'lost' Flemish = painter, and is doing a series of very funny paintings by this guy, a la = PDQ Bach. Loved those paintings. And we saw my personal favorite = painter in the group, Brian Kirshisnek. He's got these marvelous, off = beat, whimsical paintings, exploring social awkwardness, and the = knowledge we all have that, even in our coolest moments, our cats are = cooler than we are. =20 Now, some of the painters there are painters who represent an aesthetic = I don't personally connect to. One example is Greg Olson. I find his = paintings, for all their marvelous detail, somewhat sentimental. He's = got one painting I like a lot which we saw, which shows a guy, a teenage = runaway, sitting on a park bench, his backpack next to him. And sitting = with him on the bench is Jesus. It's a lovely painting, but I find the = execution of it a bit prettified for my taste. (I'd still buy it, if it = were for sale and if I could afford it, neither of which is true.) Liz = Swindle's another one; a technically accomplished painter, but a tich = goopy for me. =20 But see, here's the thing: I'm friends with Greg Olson now. I like the = guy. I know, and like, Liz Swindle. If their painting isn't my sort of = thing, that doesn't matter so much. They're good painters, whose work = genuinely connects emotionally with their audience. That's all to the = good. We've just got to get over this thing (to which I have, = unfortunately contributed) where we point fingers at artists we don't = like and accuse them of some sort of moral shortcoming. I say this, because I kind of wrecked the whole event, frankly. I = brought in a new play I'd written, a very short one, and that was my = contribution to Show and Tell. Kiss is a play I wrote about a husband and wife, driving down a Nevada = highway. He's driving her to work, her first day on her new job. About = half way through the play you realize that her job is as a prostitute. = She's LDS, and active, and she's going to work at the Mustang Ranch. I wrote the play for lots of reasons, one of which is that it's true. A = good percentage of the women who work in the Nevada brothel industry are = LDS, some of them reasonably active, a few even temple recommend = holding. (One presumes that they've been less than forthcoming in that = interview). That's an amazing fact, an astounding and shocking fact, = but it's true; I've read the research.=20 More than that, I think Mormon art can and should go to the darkest = places we can imagine. I don't think it has to do that, but it can; = it's okay to. I think the play talks about rationalization, and the way = we can rationalize almost anything. I think the play talks about two = people, a husband and wife, who really desperately need the atonement in = their lives. And I think that Mormon art is a really big tent, and that = at a retreat like this, it's valuable to push the boundaries a little. =20 Well, maybe so, but there were folks who walked out, and I think the = overall reaction wasn't particularly positive. We'd seen a lot of = overtly religious art, and I think there was a strong feeling among many = that my piece was inappropriate, and even damaging to a good spirit that = had attended the event. I regret that very much. =20 Still, it was a wonderful event, and I hope to go again next year, and = if I do, I'll write something, well, nicer. Meanwhile, Richard Dutcher = and Brian and Suzanne Kirshisnik and Scott and Lynn Bronson and I all = stayed up way past our bedtimes, chatting and solving the problems of = the world. I'd be happy to share with y'all what we came up with, just = as soon as I can remember where I put my head. So a good time was had = by all. Right up until they did my piece. And look, y'all, let's not = get too down on Mormon art. There's some great stuff happening. Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature