From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #79 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, June 23 2000 Volume 01 : Number 079 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:25:18 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Eric Snider wrote: > I guess it depends on your definition of "violent," but "Titanic" certainly > had violence and death, had two F-words, and remained PG-13. And nudity . . . The problem with using the rating system as part of our LDS standard is that it is not a divine standard. The ratings board does not work by the Spirit. Certain ratings can be bought with power and infulence. The studio wanted teens to have access to TITANIC, so it got it's lower rating. The more I learn, the more I realize that the rating system is only a standard in the most vague and abstract way. With all of our concern with not adhering to the world's standards, one wonders why LDS people are so hung up on the R-rating or the rating system in general. The Pulitzer thread has had a number of people asking why we'd even care if outsiders judge our work. On the same note, why would we let outsiders dictate our standards? Is it possible that, as a group, we're too lazy to do the work of finding out if our material is "of good report" or worthy of our attention and want to be told what to do so we won't have to think for ourselves? Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:35:00 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ > What is secondarily distressing is the way she will undoubtedly be portrayed > (as evidenced by the brief description of her). They're already setting her > up as someone who, largely due to her Mormonism, doesn't know much (hasn't > experienced much of the world), and is about to learn. As for how we present > ourselves, and how we appear... In this girl's case, it really won't matter > HOW she presents herself. TV, like all forms of media (including novels, > plays, movies, magazines, etc.), is a strictly _mediated_ mode of > communication. They'll make her look the way they want her to look, not the > way she presents herself. Out of fascination I went on the MTV message boards, and was pleasantly surprised. 80% of the chatter on these things showed a great deal of support for this girl. So there is at least some recognition that MTV and some viewier are trying to make her out as the bad gal. Moreover, they tend to think she's courageous for taking a stand. My interest in this follows Chris Bigelow's observation that this could fare well for all of us who want America to show some sort of interest in Mormonism so that we can write and get our work published on a national level. I've had enough of Mormons being the rubes and villains of other people's literatures (ORGAZMO, RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE). In many cases it might take something like the work of feminists and African Americans who were tired of the same in the 60s and 70s. Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:54:36 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Nudity (was: Movie Ratings) (compilation) Folks, I'm going to try something Ben did from time to time, and compile several posts into one to cut down on list volume while letting everyone have his/her say. All of these are responses to Jacob Proffitt's comment regarding whether nudity earns a particular rating automatically. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > ANY frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17. Not true. _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_ has Tom Berringer cavorting naked. Rated R. The most recent _Lolita_ has Frank Langella showing his stuff. Rated R. - -- Thom Duncan - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read the further adventures of Moroni Smith, the LDS Indiana Jones! The long-awaited second episode in the Moroni Smith LDS adventure This is so not true. The classic example is one from the 70's in _Life of Brian_ when Brian opens the shutters on his window to see the mob outside. He isn't wearing anything and you see everything. Bruce Willis has very brief bit of nudity in _Pulp Fiction_. I never saw it but I believe he had frontal nudity in _The Color of Night_ as well. Kevin Bacon had frontal nudity in that pseudo-noir movie with Matt Dillon, Bill Murray and Neve Campbell. (Forget the name - kind of a forgettable movie) Once again I never saw it, but I believe _American Gigolo_ had Richard Gere with full frontal nudity, causing quite a stir at the time. The best example is the rather large closeup of the male anatomy in _Fight Club_, although it was done very quickly. I'm sure others can supply further examples. Generally though the genitalia can't be focused in on too much, unlike female breasts. It's just that the male anatomy is a little easier to see than the female equivalent. And I suspect that there is the ever present bias of attracting male viewers through sexual means. That means attractive women in various seductive poses. Hollywood has learned that such things are a cheap and easy way to attract viewers. (Despite the G, PG, R ratios people have mentioned - and of course even PG movies utilize a lot of sexuality) - -- Clark Goble --- d.c.g@att.net ----------------------------------- Wrong, wrong, wrong. Give me a couple days, I can come up with a list of quite a few R-rated movies with frontal male nudity. Off the top of my head: "Any Given Sunday," "Life of Brian," "Room with a View," "Wild Things," "Boogie Nights" (yeah, it's fake, but it's supposed to be real), "The Piano," etc. Of those, only "Room" and "Piano" could be considered "artsy"; the others were quite mainstream. Nudity authority, Eric D. Snider ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com I'm afraid that this may be drifting away from how this topic relates to LDS literature, but the above is simply not true. I have seen very few NC-17 movies, but I have seen plenty of male frontal nudity. (Just what exactly does FULL frontal nudity with regard to males? I don't get that. Oh well.) Darvell [Hunt] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:25:07 -0600 From: Kristi Bell Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. The Virginia Sorenson story is called "The Ghost" and actually the man is dressed as a member of the Klan. It is an interesting story that explores the themes of prejudice and marginalization through the eyes of a young girl. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Margaret Young To: Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. > Virginia Sorensen had a story about a black man > who everyone assumed (falsely) was costumed as a ghost at a Halloween party--but > I forget the title. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:49:22 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] re: Movie Ratings [MOD: Part snipped for the compilation post.] ___ Scott ___ | Currently, the ratings are hard on violence and easy on sex. ___ While I think Hollywood has become much more liberal with sexuality and has started to feel uncomfortable with violence, I really don't think the above is true. To see the difference just compare American ratings with European ratings. Most R rated movies have quite a bit of violence and the sexuality usually is still fairly restrained, with a few exceptions. Once again an example of this is the recent _American Psycho_ which was edited for sexuality, not violence, despite some rather atrocious acts in it. (Once again a film I've not seen and do not desire to see) As I said, I think the balance is changing somewhat, but overall I think Hollywood has been liberalizing both aspects. Recent films such as _American Pie_ or _Something About Mary_ have pushed the envelop for some previously taboo topics. But then _Starship Troopers_ glorified dismemberment in a rather graphic form that really pushed the edge of violence. (As the director's _Robocop_ had done before) The sad fact is that many filmmakers feel that to be cutting edge or to push the edge they must bring to light what was unspeakable in previous years. This means more and more things are presented graphically that were once at worst alluded to. An other fact is that Hollywood really doesn't judge based upon violence or sexuality. Movies that are controversial for their violence often have little real violence. (i.e. _Fight Club_ which technically was far less violent than _Star Wars_) It's just that in one the violence is realistic while in the other it isn't. (It's OK if you die politely and without a mess I guess) The same is true of sexuality. So long as the sex is alluded to and not explicitly shown, it's fine and can often get a PG rating. - -- Clark Goble --- d.c.g@att.net ----------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:00:07 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: [AML] JENKINS & LAHAYE, _Left Behind_ (was TARR, _The Gathering Storm_ ) I have read the first of the Left Behind series. The story speculates what the world would be like if Christ raptures the saints, leaving the unconverted behind. (Personally, I've always had a problem with using _rapture_ as a verb, but the authors do it all the time in _Left Behind._) Lahaye and Jenkins do a good job turning a conversion story into a suspense novel. The novel does bog down in the middle as all the characters waiver in their faith and determination, but the last third rolls along at a fast pace. Although the authors freely admit that they hope to get the reader to make a commitment to Jesus, the text of Left Behind doesn't come off very preachy. I have the second book, _Tribulation Force,_ but haven't read it yet. You can read my full review of _Left Behind_ at http://www.xmission.com/~jeffress/reports/b/B200008.html - -- Terry Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:05:48 MDT From: "Travis Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit >From: "Rex Goode" > >In this discussion, I've heard several times a qualifier about people >thinking that writing about sexuality is OK if the characters are married >and the scene affirms our beliefs in that way. > >What about scenes not between married people that affirms our beliefs by >showing the tragedy of promiscuity? It's been months since I've paid attention to this list, but I'm cleaning out my stuffed mailbox before Hotmail cleans it out for me! I'm in a small book club with friends and last month was my month to choose, and I chose Levi Peterson's _The Backslider_. Several readers in our book club chose not to read the entire book, in fact, they only read a few pages. One person read the first two pages and chose not to read _Backslider_; another person communicated with this person, read the back cover, and then chose not to read it; and yet another person, opened _Backslider_ to some place in the middle of the book, and based on the recommendations of her highly regarded friends chose not to read it. I was, in very question, asked to reconsider my selection-of-the-month and to perhaps choose something that they could all read, actually get through . . . . I was stymied and befuddled. I felt censored. But I said no, that we needed to get through this book, that based on various opinions of Peterson's _Backslider_ I've obtained from AML there was/is value to this book. At that time of "censorship" I hadn't yet read it, and to be honest with you all, haven't yet finished it because I'm getting married in two and one-half weeks and haven't made time to. At any rate, we at least got to discuss the issue of censorship, of self-censoring, and various types of censoring that goes on around us. I made the point that it is important and invaluable to rely on our own gut instincts when we begin to read something. For several members of our book club they decided that Peterson's discussions on sexual frustration and immorality were not for them. So be it, self-censoring is vital to our individual spiritual well-being. On the other hand, one member of our book club found Peterson's novel fascinating, that she connected especially with one of the characters -- which she would not name, because she said it dealt with her past. Question: does Peterson's _Backslider_ have merit and validity even though he discusses things like masturbation, though not titillatingly or explicitly, rather frankly and openly? Referring back to what Rex Good says above about showing promiscuity of a couple in or out of wedlock, can a great Mormon novel reach every Mormon audience? Is What is spiritually motivating for one necessarily spiritually motivating for another? Does Mormon lit necessarily need to be spiritually motivating? I'm interested in your responses, either on or off list. Travis K. Manning "Men and women die; philosophers falter in wisdom, and Christians in goodness: if any one you know has suffered and erred, let him look higher than his equals for strength to amend, and solace to heal." (Jane Eyre) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:45:50 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: [AML] re: Movie Ratings [MOD: Snip from this post included in compilation post on nudity.] Rating of films nowadays is so arbitrary. Film like _Orgazmo_, which had almost no nudity (VERY quick topless female in the distance and a few short shots of males from behind), yet it got an NC-17 rating. And I really don't think it's for the sexual content, either. I imagine it's probably because of mockery of religion, but again, somebody simply made that decision and wouldn't budge on the rating, despite Trey Parkers pleas to get it reduced to R. And I, too, was quite alarmed at the violence in _Home Alone_. At first, the violence was funny, but it went on and on and on. And this is a kids' movie? I guess that's what "Parental Guidance" means. Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:03:35 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: [AML] Nudity (was: BLUTH/GOLDMAN, _Titan A.E._) Linda Adams (adamszoo@sprintmail.com) wrote: >So. If it is "only R," can anyone explain why there is so much less full >male than female nudity on average, in films containing full nudity? >But of those I remember seeing (back in the days when I cared less >what I watched), I remember seeing plenty of nude women here >and there but never a fully nude man. (Hm, *maybe,* a split-second >shot in _Romeo & Juliet?_) Therefore my argument remains: the >industry is biased. Either they are exploiting women more than men >or they are protecting men's privates with greater concern than >women's. >Linda Adams I hesitate to continue this thread, but if the moderator will allow... If you think about it, it really does make sense. (But keep in mind that I'm seeing this from a man's point of view.) More men control the industry. More men are directing films. One good reason. Women's bodies, frankly, are more pleasing artistically than men's. Men really kind of look funny, if you think about it. And women have more to show. You can show a topless women without really getting crude. Generally showing frontally below the waiste is considered more crude. I'd bet the numbers are much closer when you don't consider above-the-waiste nudity. And lastly, statistically, men are more interested in seeing women than women are interested in seeing men. With all these things considered, it shouldn't surprise us in the least that women are exploited more in movies than men are. Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:58:15 -0400 From: Dean FH Macy Subject: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best Mormon Novel of the 90s Andrew Hall wrote: > Okay, I think it is time to vote for the Best Mormon Novel of the 1990s This is it, according to my wife. AAA+ based on literary writing, plot, characters, enjoyment. *** Nunes, Rachel Ann. "Ariana" series. Covenant, 1996-1999 *** - -- Dean FH Macy, Lit.D./Mus.D. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Specializing in Management of exceptionally talented youth in Music" EPI Records - NetWork Films - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Making children do something they don't want to do is the job of the parents. If that doesn't work, there are always juvenile detention centers." - Mike R. - - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:37:58 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ Our real world character is facing another real world dilemna. Will BYU let her register for fall semester. She has not followed the Honor Code and cohabited with the male gender. I wonder if MTV will follow-up with that? Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com "When the freedom they wished for most, was freedom from responsibility then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again." - Edith Hamilton - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:40:15 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best Mormon Novel of the 90s I have read the following books from your list, and I have attempted to = rank them in my order of personal enjoyment and appreciation (if you want = only one book vote from me, take #1): 1. Parkinson, Benson. "The MTC: Set Apart" Aspen, 1995. This one is overall the most satisfying on the list to me, = closest to striking the balance between realism and faith that I think is = most true to LDS life. It's also got great characterization and captures = well an experience I've gone through myself. 2. Van Wagoner, Robert Hodgson. "Dancing Naked" Signature, 1999. I'm actually in the middle of this one currently. The writing = is overall quite good, and I like the honest, deep approach. Although = faith in Mormonism is lacking, I find myself trusting the author's = sincerity and feeling deep interest in the characters. 3. Orson Scott Card, "Lost Boys" HarperCollins, 1992. This is just plain good storytelling, with a lot of remarkably = direct Mormon characterization and settings for a national book. This = remains, I'm sad to say, the only OSC fiction I've yet read. 4. Smurthwaite, Donald S. "Fine Old High Priests" Deseret, 1999. This is from one of the Church propaganda presses I don't = trust, but I found myself charmed by it despite its obvious message-oriente= d motive. 5. Young, Margaret Blair. "Salvador" Aspen, 1992. Frankly, I read this one during the same semester as "Lost = Boys," but I remember it far less well. It kind of slipped through my = fingers, perhaps. I can't even tell you the plot. I've heard enough good = about it since, however, that I stick it here. 6. Evenson, Brian. "Father of Lies" Four Walls Eight Windows, 1998. Fascinating in the same way that watching a snake or = alligator is fascinating, but I related to it about as well as I do to = reptiles. On the one hand simple and smooth to read, but on the other hand = quite slippery when the unreliable main character is narrating.=20 7. Fisher, Franklin. "Bones" University of Utah, 1990. Densely written but fairly interesting, about a backslider = who goes on a mission. Not outright anti-Mormon, but obviously not = sympathetic to Mormonism. 8. Gagon, David. "Honorable Release" Signature, 1992. Another mission story. I don't remember it well, except for = not liking it much. Kind of a pot boiler in some ways, but with literary = pretensions. 9. Kidd, Kathryn. "Paradise Vue" Hatrack, 1990. Generally I don't like books with comedy as their #1 = purpose. (However, I do like books with comedy as their #2 or #3 purpose.) 10. Nunes, Rachel Ann. "Ariana" series. Covenant, 1996-1999. (1 vol. only) A romance for the mainstream LDS audience. The writing is = mostly pedestrian and unconvincing for me, and it's obviously moving = toward a happy ending. Books from your list I already own, ranked in order of my anticipation of = reading them: 1. Kirn, Walter. "Thumbsucker" Broadway, 1999. 2. Palmer, Susan. "The Tabernacle Bar" Signature, 1995. 3. Card, Orson Scott. "Homecoming" Series (vol. 1 only) TOR,1992. 4. Peterson, Levi. "Aspen Maroney" Signature, 1996. 5. Sillitoe, Linda. "Secrets Keep" Signature, 1995. 6. Wolverton, Dave (As David Farland) "The Runelords" series (v. 1), St. = Martins, 1998. 7. Freeman, Judith, "A Desert of Pure Feeling" Vintage, 1996. 8. Barber, Phyllis. "And the Desert Shall Blossom" University of Utah, = 1991. 9. Hughes, Dean. "Children of the Promise" series (vol. 1 and 2), = Deseret, 1997-1999. 10. Lund, Gerald. "The Work and the Glory" series (vol. 1 only), = Bookcraft, 1990-1998. (Both lists happened to come to exactly 10 apiece.) Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Interested in novels, stories, poems, plays, and films by, for, or about = Mormons? Check out IRREANTUM magazine at www.xmission.com/~aml/irreantum.ht= m. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:43:01 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] BLUTH/GOLDMAN, _Titan A.E._ - -----Original Message----- From: Linda Adams To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: Nudity >Okay, Thom, thanks for the clarification. So. If it is "only R," can anyone >explain why there is so much less full male than female nudity on average, >in films containing full nudity? Simple. Men have most of the power in Hollywood. A male actor can say, "no frontal nudity" and he'll work again. Few female actors can take that stance unless they are on the "A" list: Meg Ryan, Meryl Streep, etc. >Now I don't see a ton of these for myself. Someone else who does could >enlighten me further. But of those I remember seeing (back in the days when >I cared less what I watched), I remember seeing plenty of nude women here >and there but never a fully nude man. (Hm, *maybe,* a split-second shot in >_Romeo & Juliet?_) Therefore my argument remains: the industry is biased. >Either they are exploiting women more than men or they are protecting men's >privates with greater concern than women's. I think you are correct. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:00:45 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings >I would like to see a rating system that simply states what quantifiable >elements exist that are likely to be objectionable: S for sex, N for >nudity, V for violence, L for language, with a 0-3 severity assessment. You already get this from reviews. For instance, I was not at all surprised about the sexual content of "Basic Instinct." Every review I read talked about the famous leg-crossing scene of Sharon Stone. And I knew "Showgirls" was soft porn before I ever went to see it (both films written by the same guy, as a matter of fact), but wanted to see what a 3 million dollar screenplay looked like (I was disappointed). How do you calculate the severity assessment. Cleavage only gets a N1? I prefer to make my decisions based on what those who like movies say about them, rather than some nameless group of whose credentials I know nothing. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:08:52 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ >Jason Steed wrote: > > > My concern, then, about the way this girl will be portrayed on _The Real > > World_ is that many of the "readers" of the show (like many of the=20 >readers > > of Kushner, Orgasmo, etc.) will take the portrayal for what it claims to= =20 >be: > > namely, "The Real World." > >But it is the Real World, Jason. The standards by which Mormons live >are about as different as they can be from the majority of the rest of >the world. We are only five million in America, and maybe two million >who actually attend every Sunday. We don't get to dictate what the >world's standards are -- we just aren't that large yet. I have not seen the show (I avoid MTV, partly because I think it's utterly= =20 void of worth, and partly because I can't afford cable). But my post was=20 expressing concern that this girl would be portrayed as a country (read:=20 Mormon) bumpkin who is ignorant and naive--and I was afraid that 'they'=20 would break her, essentially illustrating the need for Mormons to be=20 'broken' (read: educated, awakened, etc.). This was the "real world" (read:= =20 a definition of and attitude toward Mormons) that I was afraid would be=20 perpetuated. >To what do you attribute this girl's naivet=E9 BUT Mormonism? This is not >necessarily something we need be ashamed of by the way. Naivet=E9 is its >own reward. While I admit that Mormonism CAN contribute to naivete, I don't see how=20 naivete is a NECESSARY result of it. Are you suggesting that this girl's=20 naivete can only be the result of her Mormonism? (You seem to be saying=20 this.) Can't growing up in a small town produce naivete? Aren't there just= =20 some people (non-Mormons in big cities, even) who are just naive? If I am=20 black, I won't like it that blacks are often portrayed as uneducated...=20 Likewise, if I am Mormon, I don't like it that Mormons are often portrayed= =20 as naive. That is NOT the 'real world'--that's a stereotype (and a damaging= =20 one). Apparently, though, everything turned out okay with the show...But largely,= =20 it seems, because the girl's character was rounded out--she wasn't merely=20 the naive Mormon, she became a 'real' person--an individual who _may or may= =20 not_ be representative of a larger group. I'm okay with that, because that= =20 IS much closer to 'reality.' Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:44 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Jason wrote: > According to the U.S. Census Bureau (and I freely admit that this >cannot be trusted as wholly accurate), "whites"--or at least those >who define themselves as such by checking the little boxes on the >form--still make up around 80% of this country's population. I wasn't referring to just this country when I made my statements about the white minority, even though my particular reality call took place in San Francisco. I was referring to the entire human race. However the fact remains, those who live in Utah and have never been anywhere else for any length of real time, IMHO, live in a racial cocoon. No matter what, in the Christian world, Mormons are definitely a minority, if they are even considered by other Christians as Christian. We still need to focus our writing on and hold this error up to the light and let the world see where we have been and where we are and where we are going. But most important of all we need to let the world know and understand that we know all humanity is cut from one bolt of cloth, and sewn together by one tailor. Regards, Bill Willson Keep your hand moving and your muse alive. bwillson@mtwest.net - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:36:51 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: [AML] Definition of Terms (was: Race and Culture in LDS Lit.) >Jason Steed wrote: > > > A lot of people probably think I'm being very opinionated and aggressive >in my > > posts, because I'm tossing around this term and practically accusing > > everyone of being "racist." Part of this is my lack of tact; part of it >is > > intentional. Racism is a STRONG word. It gets our attention. I contend >that > > if we own up to our _racism_, we'll realize its gravity, its >seriousness, > > and by being more conscientious of it in this way, we can better combat >it. > >Swerving back into a literary connection... > >I disagree. "Tossing around" a strong term and applying it in a >universal way only dilutes it into meaningless. Rather than getting our >attention, we tune it out, because it has become noise. First, I used the phrase "tossing around" somewhat ironically. I think my posts make clear my belief that I think "racism" refers to something in particular and concrete--though perhaps not so particular as that to which some others felt it refers. > >Also, using a strong term for mild or moderate behavior will cause no >one to own up to the problem--it will cause them to see no connection >between the strong term and what they are doing, and thereby concluding >that they have no problem. This seems a rash generalization to me. The scriptures say that lusting in our hearts is adultery. Most of us would say that the former is milder than the latter. Yet, if we define the former as equivalent to the latter, it gets our attention. Perhaps there ARE those who will disassociate the two, refusing to see the connection. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say this is simply what happens when a strong word is used with reference to something mild. >I see this progression happening for racism, Nazism, sexual harrassment, >and a number of other terms which are favorites of the political >correctness movement. Among people for whom words are a vital part of >their occupation and/or interest, the dilution and corruption of words >ought to be of serious concern. I don't think we can stop the changing nature of language. Yes, words become "diluted" over time and with use; a word doesn't carry as much weight or power (or it carries more); things aren't the way they used to be. But not only do I think this can't be prevented--I'm not sure it ought to be. That's what makes language so rich, is the ability to use a word that wouldn't normally be associated with a certain image or idea, bringing two seemingly disparate things together. How would we ever use metaphors, for example, if we were worried about the "corruption" of words? The notion that words can be "diluted" or "corrupted" suggests that there is some inherent meaning in them, some locatable, definable thing that can then be "diluted" or "corrupted." But I think (and most contemporary literary theory seems to lean this way) that language is a constructed system: IOW, words mean only what "we" decide they will mean. Thus, they are flexible, changeable, as signifiers. I'm concerned about how words are used--as we all should be. Deeply, irrevocably, biologically concerned. That's why I used the word I used. I believe it signifies a certain meaning that I wish to convey. I don't think I'm "diluting" the meaning of the word--on the contrary, I was trying to point out that by not calling certain actions racist, we are "diluting" the meaning we assign to them... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:13:10 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: [AML] Marion SMITH, _Riptide_ (review) Smith, Marion. _Riptide._ Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999. Trade paperback: xii, 191 pp. ISBN: 1-56085-131-7. Suggested retail: $14.95. Laurel Greer learns that her son-in-law Clint has sexually abused her grandchildren, the neighborhood kids, and her own youngest children. No one discovered the abuse for years until Clint's daughter Elizabeth (then seven years old) finally told Laurel. Clint's wife, Katherine, decides that her three children will not testify against their father, and the other parents follow her example. Without the children's testimony, the prosecutor won't file charges and the police call off their investigation. The Greers bristle as Clint escapes responsibility for his actions, but almost worse, the Mormon church doesn't take any disciplinary action. _Riptide_ starts several years later. After Clint loses his job for sexually harassment, Laurel decides to take matters into her own hands and kills Clint. The story then follows Laurel's stream of consciousness as she drives from the crime scene in Parley's Canyon, Utah, to her carefully crafted alibi in Palms Springs, California. As Laurel remembers, we get a picture of her life, filled with efforts to craft a perfect Mormon family and shattered by the actions of one man. In retrospect, she thinks she recognizes warning signs that she should have acted on earlier to prevent or limit Clint's damage. Between the self-blame and guilt, Laurel seems barely coherent. At one point Laurel compares Clint to a rock thrown into a pool. Laurel can clearly see how Clint's actions have a ripple effect and changed the lives of many people, but she doesn't see that by killing Clint she has thrown her own rock into the pool. Laurel does try to minimize her family's association with the murder, but she never extends this sentiment to Clint's children by his second marriage or to the rigors of a murder trial. With such a dismal story line, _Riptide_ has some other agenda than pure entertainment. In her "Author's Note," Smith states: This story is fiction. There are, however, many cases of abuse similar to that described in this book. Often these cases are reported to both police and ecclesiastical leaders, yet no action is taken. While details of individual stories differ, the effects of child abuse and reactions to it seem remarkable similar. (vii) Smith wants to demonstrate the wide scope of damage caused by child sexual abuse, with a secondary message to criminal prosecutors and ecclesiastical leaders to take greater action toward sexual abuse cases. For me personally, true stories (such as Pelzer's _A Child Called "It"_) more effectively demonstrate the horrors of child abuse and the needs for child protective services. And when an author wants to make me aware of a problem, I also want to see some possible solutions. Smith provides a counter-solution. She shows us what doesn't work. Perhaps she believes in prevention as the only solution. Smith also takes an anti-Mormon tone, repeatedly mentioning how the church failed the Greers. Laurel feels betrayed by the church because even though her daughter married a returned missionary in the temple, he still turned into an abuser. Of course, just for extra jabs at the church, Clint didn't act alone. The daughter of an unnamed Mormon apostle participated in Clint's abuse factory. Laurel believes that the close association to an apostle's daughter caused the investigators and prosecutors to avoid Clint's case. Laurel concludes that if she could live her life again, that she wouldn't raise her kids in the church: I've never told Duncan [her husband] that if I had my life to do over, I wouldn't raise my children in the church. It's too punishing and can make their parents treat their children in ways that are destructive. Even with all the good it can do, I wouldn't do it again. It seems too cruel to tell Duncan what I sometimes wonder -- that the abuse might not have happened, or we might have been able to see it sooner, if we hadn't been Mormon. (153-4) In spite of Smith's assertion that abuse cases seem "remarkably similar" to this fiction, I had a hard time relating to the Greer family. Duncan works as an investment broker, and Laurel works in all the auxiliary branches of the church. The Greers took vacations in England, South Africa, Hawaii, and the Mediterranean. They fly to New York City just to buy a wedding dress. They fly to Mexico, to bring their daughter on a student exchange news of the abuse. They fly to India to make sure one of their daughters gets safely to a volunteer position in a leper colony. I know too many real families that live in near poverty resulting from putting one child through therapy or a recovery program, that the Greer's suffering feels hollow. Smith drops enough literary references to keep a humanities student busy for a semester. She mentions _Crime and Punishment_, _Hamlet_, the works of Homer, _The Brothers Karamazov_, _Wuthering Heights_, _King Lear_, _The Plague_, _The Adventures of Don Quxiote_, and others. That list includes only literary references; Smith gives about equal time given to philosophy, film, music, TV, and religious references. While the humanities students work out the literary references, psychology students can practice dream interpretation. Laurel relates both her own and her daughters' dreams, rife with Freudian content: I one of my dreams, Clint was a monster-size black crab with huge pincers reaching everywhere for all of us. We were tiny, miniature people burrowing in the sand as he slowly crawled toward us. There was always a child I'd forgotten to hide, and as his claws picked up that child, I would wake up. (159-60) A well written dream can say a lot about a character's emotional state. One or two related dreams would sufficiently characterize Laurel and her daughters. Instead, Smith includes at least 10 dreams, most of which demonize Clint and do nothing to further expand Laurel's character. She creates vivid scenes filled with emotional power, but her scenes repeat the same character and plot development without moving into new territory. You can also see Smith's agenda driving the characters' dialog into contrived paths that never get around to answering the real question: What should we do with a heightened awareness of abuse? - -- Terry L Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #79 *****************************