From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1007 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 Thursday, March 20 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:17:09 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Eric and Johnathan: Whipping Boys All right, all right: enough already! Seems to me that the current trend at being annoyed at Eric's = impassioned essay, and by debating its on- or off-topic-ness, and thereby pulling = the moderator into the fray ("Well he let Eric's bone-headedness through but = he didn't let my bone-headedness through!"), is all becoming, in and of = itself off-topic by making a topic of the topic and thereby forgetting the = topic! The topic is LDS literature. Eric is a writer of LDS literature. Sometimes that literature comes from = him in the form of well reasoned, dramatic, thought-promoting plays. = Sometimes that literature comes from him in the form of un-edited, heart-on-his-sleeve, messy, unreasoned, emotional, impassioned, personal essays filled with egregious excess, name-calling, hair-pulling, breast-beating, bone-headed, beautiful humanity! Well I say bravo for both! Eric's essay was in no means a cautious, careful, thought-out, = well-reasoned attempt to persuasively argue a point. Therefore, I propose that it was = not an essay at all: it was a monologue! A dramatic monologue from a play (a work-in-progress) being contributed to Th. Jepson's amazing Epistolatory novel (also a work-in-progress), currently unfolding on computer screens = all over the world (but, alright, mostly in Utah)! What passion! What delivery! What controversy! [The following is an excerpt from Soap Opera Digest]: In today's episode, the fictional character of Eric S., while recovering from the flu, un-showered, unshaven, lounging on his sick-couch in front = of the tube, suddenly (and for no apparent reason) explodes on an = expostulatory ejaculation of unmitigated political ire, causing everyone around him to recoil in disgust; but also, secretly, causing all of his many fans (you = see how much mail he gets here at the station) to sympathize with this = delicate soul, flawed though he is, and to recognize that our favorite AML = superstar is, after all, a big, lovable teddy bear (conservative pig, though he = is)! Tune in next week for everyone's astonished reactions! You won't want to miss it. Cuz THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! Okay, nuf of that. You see what's happening here. Someone was genuinely MOVED. He expressed emotion (always messy) and he did it in a literate form. People reacted = (as they always do to drama). And now suddenly the entire raison d'etre of = the List is in question. Are we really taking ourselves THIS seriously? Richard's right: don't like it? Delete it. You know, one day I'm arguing we should use restraint and some = moderation is good; the next day my gander is up and I'm ticked off at the people who = are ticked off and I just want to say, lighten up, live and let live and = learn to love and listen to everybody's voice, however silly it may be, what's = the harm in that? I don't know which position is right; it probably depends on the day. We have had interesting insights (through the various reactions to the Halestorm films) into how different perceptions respond to similar = stimuli. Well, I propose that Eric's post was just another stimuli. I did not agree with it all, of course, but what I saw was his dismay, = his real distress, his real emotions, and it was quite amazing. It was a performance! I was not personally insulted by his suggestion -- I don't even recall = it being very overt -- that anyone who is for this so-called "unrighteous = war" is an ingrate. I personally would fall under that definition because, = for the record, I have been wanting us to blow the living crude oil out of Sadaam's royal behind for over 10 years and was furious when we let him = stay in power the first time around! I'm oversimplifying, of course, and so = is Eric. But I'm not taking anything personally, or getting offended, or = being oh so incensed that someone characterized me as something or other by = their post! I was fascinated by this explosion of emotion and viewed it as = being true to Eric's mood, however momentarily indulgent it may have been. What of it?! Perhaps this is because I am an actor as well as a writer, I love to = watch stuff like this. It's all homework for characters I may some day play, = or some day write. But whatever. Was it that big a deal?! Yesterday I was against Richard's "zero moderator" stance. Today, I'm = with him. But not because of the posts such a stance would bring, but because = of the reactions to them! Listen, if someone is consistently a pig-headed idiot on the list, that = will very quickly become apparent to everyone, and we'll all just boo him out = of the pack. But if someone is almost always interesting and insightful, = and then has a bad day once and a while, what's wrong with a little = indulgence? Its like natural selection. I think these kinds of issue will take care = of themselves. Outside of vulgar language and directly pointed, vindictive personal attacks, where is the danger is erring on the side of a little = immoderation from time to time, if the reason we do so is not to revel in excess, but = to truly reach inside the core of ourselves and plumb or emotional and = rational depths like all good artists and thinkers should? So, I guess I've talked myself around full circle: yes, we need some moderation; but we also need a big walloping dose of = getting-over-ourselves, too! How was that for annoying? Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:04:17 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >And, while I agree with Richard D. about freedom of expression >to an extent, I know from experience that it is far to easy to >say something in the heat of the moment that can cause someone >else a lot of pain that probably wasn't necessary. But why should that be our responsibility? Shouldn't we expect the reader to exercise constraint and not jump to conclusions? This has a definite literary tie-in. Far too many beginning LDS writers spend far too much time worrying about if such and such a scene is going to offend someone, weaken another's testimony, or result in their Stake President calling them up some day. Our Mormon culture makes such a big deal out of not offending "even the little ones" that we seem to have forgotten another scriptural injunction against not finding offense but looking instead at the beam in our own eye. 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. ? And >sometime thoughts don't come across on email the way we intend >them to. The writer knows what he is saying, but the >inflection doesn't come across to the reader. So the person who may take offense has two options. Write back for clarifications or ignore the offense. > I'm also very >happy to know I can read an AML post without worrying about >getting singed by a flame war that I didn't even know was in progress. Flame wars aren't the same as real fires. You can't get singed if you don't want to be. You can always, always delete. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:12:32 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] EST To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:09:29 -0700 Subject: [AML] Re: AML-List Moderator Practices Message-ID: <20030318.210932.-838607.7.bronsonjscott@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,11-12,22-23,28-29,36-41 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Richard Dutcher: > I don't approve of censorship in any form. . . . Sure you do. We all do. We don't let our kids say anything they want = any time they want to say it. We even stop ourselves from certain kinds of behavior depending on the company we keep. As for institutional = censorship, well, that's what makes the institution an institution; the guidelines = by which it operates. In fact, most institutions are organized for the = express purpose of accomplishing a mission of some kind within a certain set of strictures. Strong institutions remain strong because they maintain = their vision, their mission. A couple years ago I had my whole family in San Diego. One day my = sister and I took my five kids (5-14 yrs.) and our other sister's three kids (9-12) to Jack-in-the-Box for lunch. Without much effort on our part, = my sister and I maintained a high level of control with a maximum amount of = fun as well. Those kids were simply very well behaved and happy. Some guy sitting across the aisle from us was amazed. He said, "You should write = a book on how to control kids." I said, "I don't need that much paper. I = can tell you in three words: Freedom within restraints." He thought that = was very funny. I couldn't have been more serious. It's one of the great secrets of the universe. Everyone gravitates to institutions that suit their level of comfort = with these restrictions. We're only censored as much as we want to be. If I didn't like the restrictions that the church placed on me, I would go somewhere else for my spiritual nourishment. Frankly, I think these restrictions promote creativity. Let me ask you this: If you had a staff of writers at Zion Films, would = you allow them to write something as dumb as "Singles Ward?" Okay, that's different than an exchange of ideas, right? Not really. Films are = ideas exchanged in the large public forum called "Entertainment."=20 You might allow bad writers to express their ideas around the Writers' Table, but if they didn't start coming up with usable ideas -- usable to Zion Films -- you'd fire them. What's that but a form of censorship? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:13:43 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:35:24 -0800 Received: from 133.5.25.203 by sea2fd.sea2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24 GMT From: "Andrew Hall" To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Bcc:=20 Subject: [AML] ADAMS, "Archipelago" (Daily Herald) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=3Dflowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=3D[93D6B880:01C2EDC8] Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Back in the U.S.S.R. ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Thursday, March 13 Last year, Brigham Young University produced LeeAnne Hill Adams' "Yellow = China Bell," an intense drama about an Armenian woman kidnapped by a Russian man and forced to be his wife. Next week, Adams' new play, "Archipelago," premieres. It is about Stalin's system = of gulags that caused the death of somewhere between 15 million and 30 = million Russians in the first half of the 20th century. Despite her subject matter, Adams herself is upbeat. "I'm really drawn to true stories, especially stories about people overcoming extraordinary hardships," said Adams, a warm and charismatic 27-year-old who recently earned her master's degree from BYU in theater history and criticism. "That's what I'm most interested in about people, = is their ability to overcome horrible things. But I don't like to make = things up, because reality tends to be so much better than fiction." "Archipelago," like "Yellow China Bell," is based on true stories. Set = in a Siberian gulag called Kolyma in 1938, all the events in the play are = taken from survivors' personal accounts. Adams' thesis paper was on the = theatrical performances prisoners put on in the camps, and she gained exposure to = their stories in the process. "I came across so many stories and so many experiences that I thought = really deserved to be told on stage," she said. Along with the drama, the play has humor, too, mostly in satirizing = Stalin and his associates. "The tone goes back and forth from this really dark, black comedy to = some pretty difficult subject matter," Adams said. "The effect is quite = jarring in the readings we've had. The audience goes back and forth from = laughing and choking." Adams attended a few rehearsals early in the process and is pleased with what she saw. "The feel they're getting is right on," she said. "They're coming up = with things that I'm just not smart enough to think of." Samuelsen said Adams is "as gifted a writer as we've produced at BYU, = and that would include Neil LaBute. She's that good." Adams now lives with her husband and 2-month-old son in California, = where she is taking a stab at screenwriting. Her first effort? A romantic = comedy. "It's so hard," she said. "I keep thinking as I'm writing, 'This really needs a death.'" Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:14:34 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] (dialup-64.157.22.32.Dial1.SaltLakeCity1.Level3.net [64.157.22.32]) by pimout2-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.3 patch/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2JAq3lM185166 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:52:12 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" To: Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:52:01 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c2ee05$964ed0b0$20169d40@MyLaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001b01c2ece8$34a631f0$0a00005a@clarklextek> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Clark Goble >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:49 PM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices > > >I don't write much anymore, but at one time I was a prolific >poster. I've had lots of posts either sent back for editing or=20 >rejected. I don't mind and I honestly think that keeping the=20 >tone is a good idea. > >I've been a member of lots of mailing lists since *way* back >in the days of Mormon-l and Morm-Ant at BYU. (Actually I=20 >believe there is a list with the name Mormon-l still around -=20 >but I'm speaking of the original one run at BYU) It is still around, surviving independently on another server. > One thing >I've noticed is that with email it is easy to not realize what=20 >your tone is. Further I recognize that some subjects always=20 >cause heated debate without much light. The biggest problem=20 >for a list is either too much mean-spirited speech or too much=20 >noise relative to information. A moderated mailing list=20 >avoids that. =20 I'm on half a dozen LDS lists and this is the only moderated one. I understood the need to moderate when the list was on a school server but = I don't understand it anymore. But I stay on because well, it's the only = list about this subject out there. And I like it. >Having been on many unmoderated mailing lists I >can assure you that this is a much better format. It is easy=20 >to not realize how others would take your words or not realize=20 >how some subthread leads the discussion. Honestly, I prefer the rough-and-tumble approach to a moderated list. Moderated lists occasionally morph into something else but they usually = come back to their own identity. What Jonathan is doing is, imo, a waste of time. Because the moderation doesn't really accomplish what it's said to accomplish. It may prevent Brother A from being offended = by the remarks of Brother B, but what about Brother B? He's required to = suck it up and allow his posting to go through edited for inoffensiveness, or = not be posted. As a person to whom this has happened on numerous occasions, = I can tell you it can be offensive to Brother B? So Brother B should be = the more Christ-like person, and not be offended about being censored but Brother A should be protected? It's a slippery slope, this moderation idea, that's going to offend = someone, no matter what Jonathan may do. Why not just throw open all the stops = and let us self-govern, in the grand principle taught by Joseph. What's = likely to happen if no moderation occurs? Some people will post things that my offend others. The person being offended has two options. They = respond, or they shut up and, feelings hurt, ultimately leave the list. Sister C = enters the fray, tells Brothers A and B to grow up and get back on topic and = either they do, or one or both of them gets offended and leaves the list. And = then we're back on topic. =20 I have been on Mormon oriented mailing lists since 1988. I have never = met most of the people I have been sharing ideas with. Some of those people = I don't agree with. I have also met some people in real life that I = haven't always agreed with in the past. I've yet to meet anyone in real life, = with whom I've disagreed, who I didn't otherwise appreciate being around. = What I'm saying is that I've seen no evidence that publically disagreeing = with someone on a list has done permanent damage to my relationships. =20 I prefer self-regulated lists, but this isn't my list, and the AML apparently prefers that it be moderated (they're paying the server = bills, so they have that right), so I'll abide by the list constraints as much as = I can. Jonathan will make sure of that. =20 >To those who want more freedom I can just say one thing: >private email. I get lots of private responses to things I've=20 >said. Some supportive. Others more "flame bait." =20 > >So I'd just suggest that a little moderation may seem >confining, but it is definitely better than the alternatives. =20 >You really have to see the ebb and flow of lists to realize this. =20 Self-regulated freedom is better than imposed freedom, in my libertarian world-view, so we disagree on this issue. And, just to make my case, Clark and I have disagreed over the years on = tons o' stuff, but I don't get offended and I don't think he does. If he = doesn't like what I've said on the various lists where we swapped electrons, he = just offers up a reasoned response like this one, the discussion continues, = and eventually we move on to other subjects. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:28:10 -0700 From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male The attempt to neuter the "Mormon Male" is just a part of a larger trend that's been going on an awful long time. The skirts around tables in Victorian times are my favorite example--wouldn't want a man to see a table-leg and instantly become a ravening beast, now would we? In literature this model has been growing everywhere, and if anything it's fairly minor in Mormon literature. As usual (an thankfully) we're behind the curve on progressive thought. On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 17:49 America/Phoenix, Knudsen family wrote: > Oh, I hate, abhor, find disgusting, these types of models. My 22 > year-old son, returned missionary, came home yesterday from his > Single's Ward. He was livid. He said that the Sunday School teacher, > apparently a wife of one of the Bishopric, talked about how men and > women are so different, how men are so insensitive, have only one > thing in mind (and it wasn't food), and how they will do just about > anything to manipulate a woman to get what they want. (snip)... > > What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our brothers and > sisters, our culture, and what are we saying to others, when we make > statements such as this? Can't both sexes be strong, be independent, > be emotional, be appreciated? Why do we always have to put down one > sex to make the other look good? Why does one have to look bad, weak, > stupid in order for the other to look strong, good, smart? > It often amazes me how cruel women will be while accusing men of insensitivity. Ronda notes it above, and I applaud her for it. Why is such arrant cruelty such a matter of course? I remember reading in _Becoming_ by the Yorgason brothers about a study done at BYU. They asked the boys and girls what their own and the opposite sex's greatest challenge was. The boys said their own challenge was sexual thoughts, and that the girl's was jealousy. The girls said that their own challenge was jealousy, and that the boy's was cruelty. I thought it was very funny that while it is a universally accepted "fact" that men don't understand women, these young fellers understood so well, but the opposite was not true. I have really only once been roughed up by a girl where I actually felt hurt, and in that case a few dozen truly horrible poems made it all better. Many of my contemporaries had been far more cruelly used and this is something that appears in literature constantly down through the ages. It's the source of virtually all poetry (written by men, of course) and dates all the way back to Homer. My best friend in High School was going out with a girl a couple of years older than he was. One fine day they were having a bit of ice cream at Dairy Queen and she told him that she had been seeing somebody else for the past 8 months and she was going to marry him. On my friend's birthday, no less. Do you suppose he reacted insensitively? Do you suppose he laughed and started chasing the nearest skirt? If so you would suppose wrong. In the English sense of the word young men are HORRIBLY GRUESOMELY romantic. I've seen it time and again. I'm the sort of person that everybody asks for advice, and I've heard the same stories dozens of times. Girls are brutal and heartless to boys so frequently that it's a wonder it hasn't appeared in more of the famous studies that appear every year or two about the "battle" between the sexes. If a boy were to treat a girl with such callous and malicious cruelty he would be universally excoriated, but the female side gets barely a mention, much less a censure. Women generally deem that the boys (or men) only get what they deserve, since they have no feelings to hurt. There is no difference in the content or scope of feeling or emotion. The difference is not that men are less emotional than women, but only that they hide and control emotion more easily. And learn they must, because after being scorned, humiliated and insulted (and usually in some public place) the boys can't cry, they've got to just take it and not do what they want to (which is break her neck often as not). This restraint is admirable, and ought to be celebrated, since men who cannot control or hide their emotions are what we call murderers, thieves and rapists. Since they are not demonstrative, however, far too many women make the assumption that there's nothing to harm, and that any cruelty is justified by her own feelings. Some may think I'm giving something away here, but this is plainly obvious to anybody who troubles to look. Mothers with teenaged boys know it better than I do, and it isn't hard for anybody to find out. All those endless forlorn poems written over centuries ought to be a clue. A little reported story that's occurring right now is how many men are killing themselves after a one-sided divorce. Wifey suddenly decides she's not happy, takes the kids, 3/4 of his income, and won't let him see the kids anymore. There was one a few months ago where a despairing dad shot himself with a shotgun on the steps of the state capital of Florida. Obviously because he had no feelings to wound. Drawing this back to literature, in my own case I gave many of my miserable poems to the girl in question. Turns out they read them out loud in her English class. Her teacher said they were quite good. Jim Wilson aka TheLairdJim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:16:25 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] - -0800 X-Sent: 19 Mar 2003 08:17:10 GMT From: "Jacob Proffitt" To: Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:17:40 -0700 Message-ID: <004401c2edf0$029a8450$20c0fe0c@TVaio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list - ---Original Message From: Gae Lyn Henderson > I think the AML mission should be separate from the mission of the=20 >church. I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression=20 >that is HONEST. How could you make that a policy? It's unenforceable. It means that = you have *no* guidelines. I hate having to put up with outrageous claims = that are "honest" and yet turn out surprisingly self-serving. And really, = there is no way to "honestly" attack people. Attacking church leaders and disputing official church doctrine doesn't have anything to do with honesty... > A particular artist might be full > of testimony and faith or a particular artist might be full of=20 > doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be disallusioned and=20 > disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means to be=20 > part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely=20 > necessary for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an=20 > avenue for honest self-expression, simply for reasons of mental=20 > health and to allow personal growth. Depends on what you mean by self-expression. I'm not interested in = hearing an artist (or anyone else for that matter) spout off about how the = church is wrong and I'm an idiot to be a member. I get enough of that in other venues. Artists are perfectly free to gripe about the church all they want--but that doesn't mean I have to be there to listen. > IMHO, a culture that cannot be criticized is NOT a healthy culture=20 > and I don't think that spirituality can flourish in an arena of=20 > silence and censorship. Criticize the culture all you want. Criticism of the culture isn't = against list guidelines at all. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:17:43 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] h2J6xQmU002873 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:59:28 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E781564.6080804@vii.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:59:48 -0700 From: Deborah Wager Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com References: <192.174148b1.2ba511d5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > I was once again witnessing an interesting phenomenon in > male-written LDS fiction. Perhaps it has been identified earlier and = given a=20 > proper name by the academics, but I simply call it the "Woman/boy" = model. >=20 > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our=20 > males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent,=20 > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They = are > Women. >=20 > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially=20 > awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are = boys, no=20 > matter how old they are. This is not an LDS fiction phenomenon, nor does it only appear in=20 male-written literature. This wise woman/bumbling man characterization was pointed out to me=20 nearly 20 years ago by my husband while we were watching an episode of=20 _The Cosby Show_ in which something goes awry with the plumbing.=20 Phyllicia Rashad then had a scene in which she told the pre-teen=20 daughter not to tell her father it was broken, but that they would call=20 a plumber quickly. Well, of course he overhears them and tries to fix=20 it, and character after character walks in only to repeat the line, "Why = did you let Dad know it was broken? Now he'll really wreck it!" or some=20 close variant. After that I found it was all over the place in TV-land, especially but=20 not exclusively badly written TV-land. In TV-land all secretaries are=20 more competent than their bosses. All women are more mature and capable=20 than their husbands/boyfriends/lovers. I'm sure there are exceptions but = that is the cultural stereotype, and not just in the church (where, if=20 you want something done, ask the Relief Society to do it, right?). And most recently I came across it in _Back when We Were Grownups_ by=20 Anne Tyler, an excellent novel on trying to go back and take the other=20 road, in which the former boyfriend turns out to be bumbling and=20 immature and not really worth the Woman's time. I even recall seeing something like it in a movie once, where a=20 beautiful, intelligent Woman fell for a younger, insecure boy who=20 thought the 3 best books ever written were the scriptures. :-) Yeah, he=20 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. So yes, this is a pervasive stereotype, both in and out of the church=20 and both in and out of literature. Debbie Wager - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:18:29 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] (EST) From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:34:40 EST Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Message-ID: <179.1761675c.2ba96980@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:45:12 PM Mountain Standard Time,=20 kcmadsen@utah-inter.net writes: << So how about it--can anyone come up with a male written LDS novel = that has a strong Man/Woman relationship from the get go? >> I think immediately of Levi Peterson's THE BACKSLIDER, which is by far = my=20 favorite Mormon novel to date. Peterson creates a sympathetic, complex = male=20 protagonist and a wonderfully unique, down-to-earth woman. It's an = excellent novel with full, rich characters and relationships. While I'm on the subject of Levi Peterson, I must also recommend one of = his=20 short stories, "The Third Nephite," which can be found in NIGHT SOIL. A=20 wonderfully written, and hilarious, short story with a strong, complex Mormon=20 male protagonist. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:19:06 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] (EST) From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:11:14 EST Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature, Apology, Censorship, etc. To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Message-ID: <41.2c7c0083.2ba96402@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:45:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, alan@trilobyte.net writes: << I've probably offended Dutcher beyond repair >> Alan, Believe me, I'm not offended in the least. Carry on. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:01:24 -0600 From: "Taitfam" Subject: [AML] Packaging of Fiction (was: Framing in Art) I want to ask a few questions that relate to the subject of frames, but not exactly as discussed already. These are questions I've wanted to ask for a long time, so I hope you'll oblige me and give some input. I'm very interested in what y'all might think. (Sorry, Texan moment.) I want to consider what has been called the "circumtextual frame" in relation to mormon literature. The circumtextual frame is the physical surroundings of a text--the covers, the pages, the font and type size, the front matter and back matter, titles and subtitles, footnotes and index, even the other "texts" printed alongside each other (as in a collection or anthology). The question: How does the physical presentation of a text affect our reading of it? And is the packaging of Mormon novels sufficiently different from the packaging of mainstream novels to alter our reading experience? For purposes of this discussion, I'm defining a "mormon" novel as one published by a specifically LDS publisher--particularly DB or Covenant. An obvious example of how the circumtextual frame of a novel affects our reading experience would be the cover illustration. Romance novels in particular are notorious for their covers. My starting premise, and I'm going to stop here because there's a lot more to say and I don't want to bog down yet, is that my experience reading LDS novels has been shaped by the fact that most of them are published in hard back, in books that are very artfully designed and printed on high quality paper. Even the Covenant paperbacks (e.g. Heimerdinger's books) seem to be designed according to relatively higher aesthetic standards (even if the editing isn't always up to snuff). It's a whole different experience than picking up a paperback by, say, John Grisham. Or a paperback version of Tom Sawyer or even Shakespeare. The cheap, if you will, design of these books seems to be my default expectation setting for fiction--gray paper, small print, a physically smaller book that can be tucked in my purse (or hidden behind a textbook). One of the things that got me wondering about this was reading Eric Samuelsen's novelization of his play, _Singled Out._ It was very much like a "mainstream" paperback--same size, small print, gray paper, the whole bit. It was the first LDS novel I'd seen printed like this. And it was a different reading experience than, say, Dean Hughes' Children of the Promise series books. I'm purposely not getting too specific about my reactions because I want to see what you all have to say. So, I ask. How, in your experience, are Mormon novels packaged? Does it affect the way you read them and what you expect of them before you ever turn the first page? Is there anything particularly 'mormon' or at least distinctive about the packaging of LDS fiction and is it good, bad, or indifferent? Would LDS fiction benefit from following a more mainstream design approach? Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:20:16 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] (MST) (envelope-from katie@aros.net) Received: (from webno@localhost) by venus.aros.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h2J5NNrd002614 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:23:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from spritle.dsl.aros.net (spritle.dsl.aros.net = [66.219.231.166])=20 by secure.aros.net (IMP) with HTTP=20 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:23:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:23:22 -0700 From: To: "" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Message-ID: <1048051402.3e77fecae0d18@secure.aros.net> References: <20030312.183551.-274689.7.lajackson@juno.com> <3E761FCA.9070903@wwno.com> In-Reply-To: <3E761FCA.9070903@wwno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 66.219.231.166 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > lajackson@juno.com wrote: >=20 > > Who will write this book, and will it be truth or fiction? >=20 > I'd love to, but I have a sneaking suspicion when attempting to=20 > acquire > the rights, I would be outbid by--well, everybody. Actually, in a way, I think you've already written it. Your setup in _Brother=20 Brigham_ has some striking similarities. Okay, the story's not the = same, but=20 still... - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:26:51 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male [Mod: A more in-depth exploration of Rhonda's thesis results might be appropriate to the list, particularly insofar as they relate to Mormon literature.] Rhonda, I would love to read your thesis. Perhaps, as I think there is certainly = a literary tie-in as we explore the impact of this topic on the characters = we create and portray, you should publish relevant portions of your thesis = work on the list. I'd appreciate it. Moderator? Jongiorgi - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Knudsen family" To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male > I'm finishing up my thesis right now, looking at LDS women within the=20 > culture and their relationships with their children. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1007 *******************************