From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1022 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, March 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:40:10 -0800 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Role of LDS Writers First, a quote from a posting different to the one I'm responding to: From: "Jongiorgi Enos" > Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > And isn't that a fascinating piece of irony, that the restored gospel > uses culture [19th Century American Puritanical Conservatism] > derived from apostate theology as the basis for its own culture? > > Yes, and sad, too, but that's not the LDS culture I choose to live in. It > intersects and crosses paths with where I want to live, and that's quite > frustrating, but I mostly ignore it and go about my own thing. Ya know, I'm convinced that the reason God didn't send me to be born to a member family was because if he had, I'd've chucked up the gospel by the age of 13; not because the gospel sucks (it doesn't!), but because all the crap that surrounds it sucks. Fortunately, God had the good sense to send me to a non-member family that meant well but nonetheless provided fertile ground for various weaknesses that I guess I'm now expected to turn into strengths (Ether 12:27, one of the very few scriptures I have memorised). So when I found the gospel at age 17, it was sufficiently new, and my introduction to the culture sufficiently inadequate, that I could actually accept it. When I ran into cultural crap, I was able to separate it from the gospel. Thank heavens! Now, for the post I'm *really* responding to.... From: Kim Madsen > Subject: RE: [AML] Role of LDS Writers > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > "Someone in authority says "appropriate," and the statement they use the > word in is reasonable. But because "appropriate" is not defined--indeed > cannot be institutionally since everyone has their own definition--those > who waive their right to think automatically assume their own personal > definition, then demand that everyone accept it as the official > definition." > > Ok, I've probably posted too much today, but I have to share this real > life example. > > Last week in Sacrament meeting we had wheat bread in the trays. I was > mildly surprise, as this is not something we see often. I wondered if > someone had made a special dietary request or something. When I started attending sacrament meetings in Saskatoon SK (first year of post-sec at the U. of Saskatchewan), it was always whole wheat bread.* Having been a confirmed white bread eater throughout my youth, I thought "Oh no, they're health freaks into roughage!" Fortunately, following weeks dispelled that concern. ObFootnote: * What, your white bread in the US isn't made with wheat? "White or wheat?" I always have to process that mentally for a few seconds every time I'm in a restaurant south of the border. %-) > > 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 my friend > questioned why that was, where the tradition comes from, he was told > that it's a matter of approaching a "Celestial" form of being. > Conforming, he was told, was the end result of everyone having their > intentions aligned with that of God. Remember, all you AML folks, I live > in Utah. Ya know, on the one hand, I appreciated a lot of things in the talk Elder Packer once made about "The Unwritten Order of Things" (one link to it is http://www.zionsbest.com/unwritten.html). OTOH, I'm concerned that some may have interpreted his talk to mean "Oh, so it's OK to keep on with stupid little traditions that have nothing to do with the gospel. If we've always done it that way, it doesn't matter what the handbook says!" Grrrrr.... > > My friend and I are having a hard time with the bishop's line of > reasoning. I am choosing to "wu-wei" it (be the rock in the stream and > let the chaos flow around me). My friend is still chewing on it. > > Ain't human beings fascinating. Bet God is up there laughing, shaking > his head, trying not to cry, all at once. I have determined that one of the key axioms upon which our universe is predicated is that God not only has a sense of humour, but that it is totally bent. One of the evidences I have for this is my belief that if it were not so, he would have zapped us all into ashes long ago. May I learn to have the same patience and sense of humour that He does. Robert - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Look, could I have egg, bacon, Spam and sausage without the Spam? - Monty Python's Flying Circus - --- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:36:14 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Eric >R. Samuelsen >construed. The Book of Mormon first of all, functions as >proof text. Incorrectly, in my view. Because, like it or not, we are only one (though the largest) of several churches that believe the Book of Mormon to be true. There is the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), the Churches of Christ, including its breakoffs (Temple Lot) and (With the Elijah Message). Then you have the TLC, and the other polygamous sects. The rest of your post goes on to buttress this understanding. The BofM proves only one thing to the sincere reader: its own inherent truth, completely and utterly unaffiliated with any church, or, for that matter, without any outside physical proof. It, like the Bible, and any other holy book, stands alone, its own witness. It needs no other proof but that of the spirit. But, being the natural men that we are, we seek for outward evidence of our inward feelings, much as we did in High School about whether Sally was really "the One." If our buddies in the locker room thought Sally was great, than she was. If they didn't, then maybe we better move on. Entirely understandable for adolescent minds, but, imo, not at all acceptable for the mature mind. This is not to say that we should ignore all outside influences, it is to say that we shouldn't base our entire opinion of a book, a person, or a church, on what someone else, or some ancient artifact says. We give the book power that it never claims to have. (What are "these things" that Moroni 10:4 talks about? Read backward in the text to find the antecedent to "these things" and you'll find nothing about our or anyone else's church, or President Hinckley, or whether BYU is the Lord's university.) Can such an understanding affect our writing? I believe it can. If we write something we feel is inspired, we may also feel that those who don't like what we wrote just aren't "in tune" enough to understand our words. Or we may incorrectly attribute the wonderfulness of our words to our own near-perfected status with God, a la Salieri, the patron Saint of Bad Mormon Artists. (Salieri couldn't figure out why he, the righteous one, couldn't write music as well as that sinner Mozart). Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:45:59 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] News from Center Street Theatre: "Stones" Opens A change to our ticket policy was made after I sent the above-referenced announcement: Wednesdays and Thursdays are half-price nights: all ticket five dollars. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:51:48 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) - ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter >=20 > >Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At=20 > least by us. =20 > >How can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all=20 > that his=20 > >soul is on the line? >=20 > I'm not sure why you say this. Is disrespecting one's=20 > religious community only=20 > a sin if it's the "true" religious community? What does disrespect have to do with anything I said? Being = excommunicated from his tradition doesn't translate into losing his shot at heaven. = That doesn't mean I can't respect his tradition (and him too, if it comes to that). Whether disrespect is a sin, well, that probably depends on the disrespect. Blasting people for belonging to a community is probably a = sin with regards to most communities (some communities deserve no respect, = of course, but they're remarkably few). But it seems to me that in your example he didn't disrespect it so much as he left it. Breaking with = his community and disregarding its closely held beliefs isn't a sin. = Unless, of course, the community is our church and the beliefs are the gospel. = That wouldn't so much be a sin as it would be a tragedy in the truest sense = of the term. Eternity is on the line for someone who leaves the LDS = church. It is not for people leaving other churches. > To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as presented, bear in > >mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred and presented=20 > >beauty and truth for our edification. It'd be something=20 > else entirely=20 > >if he had been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I=20 > firmly believe=20 > >that my doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the=20 > >markings between heaven and hell >=20 > My question is a roundabout way to talk about our own=20 > interaction with our=20 > religious community. I was asking, was it worth his while to=20 > enter into such=20 > charged territory (points of doctrine and culture that seem=20 > inextricable) and=20 > be ostracized by his community for the sake of great art?=20 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. > Jesus did that. Jesus did that to a corrupt religious community. Jesus would *not* have alienated the True church if it had existed in his day--offended certain people in it, sure, but antagonized it to the point of official action? = I don't think so. 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. With regards to the story at hand, I could very well be sympathetic to people growing away from their religious tradition and I can see it as a potentially growing experience. If the story were altered to be *my* church, though, the story changes fundamentally. Leaving *my* church = means leaving God. I'm not going to be sympathetic or see it as a growing experience no matter what you do to set it up. > To=20 > me it's one of the great disservices we do to our=20 > understanding of Christ to=20 > say that he entered a totally false community and brought a=20 > packaged truth.=20 > Judaism was his community, and he played the part of the=20 > artist, entering into=20 > the most explosive of places (sabbath keeping, the identity=20 > of God, the=20 > Messiahship) and trying to cast some light on it. IF you=20 > think about it, the=20 > people who have done the most good for the world and religion=20 > have entered=20 > 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. > >And frankly, from my stand-point, you couldn't even really ask him=20 > >because I wouldn't trust his answer. His doctrine is wrong,=20 > you see. =20 > >It's a function of believing that you belong to a True=20 > church that is=20 > >lead by prophets... >=20 >=20 > It seems that you are taking a position that excludes you=20 > from being able to=20 > partake of great contemporay religious art. If nothing anyone=20 > from an "untrue"=20 > religious community does is worthy of note because their doctrine is=20 > incorrect, then it would seem that true art cannot exist=20 > outside the Mormon=20 > community. Being untrustworthy is hardly the same as unworthy of note. Just = because I wouldn't trust his answer to "was it worth it to alienate your = community" doesn't mean I believe he has nothing of interest to say. Just that I = don't really have much interest in that one specific question. Alienating his community is fundamentally different from alienating mine so no matter = how insightful, it just isn't going to apply. > This is an attitude that I think _can_ hold religious people=20 > back from=20 > creating really great art. It's an attitude I've had for most=20 > of my life. The=20 > attitude that because something doesn't matter to us, it=20 > doesn't matter. It=20 > makes us incapable of negative capability (remember Keats=20 > said Shakspeare had=20 > it because he was able to enter into ambiguity without=20 > reaching out for=20 > reason), we can't really explore a question brought up by=20 > someone with "false=20 > doctrine" because we don't give it any validity. >=20 > That ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its=20 > veracity as our's=20 > is, perhaps even more so because they're not nearly as=20 > amenable to letting=20 > people in. The question I asked is one worth us asking, I=20 > think, because the=20 > director's position can be analogous to ours. Not taking his position=20 > seriously is akin to not taking ours seriously. Now you're extending beyond my statement or intent. I didn't say it = doesn't matter and I didn't say it has no validity just because it comes from = other traditions. I just said that equating the experiences isn't going to = work or carry the same weight. You're asking if it isn't worth alienating = your religious community to present valuable art. The answer to your = question is that being true to your artistic vision *cannot* be worth alienating the = LDS community to the point of excommunication. It doesn't matter that the ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its veracity as ours is = (an inherently improvable statement, BTW). What matters is which community truly holds the authority to act on behalf of God. Which has actual priesthood authority? If we don't then sure, you could translate the experience of the director just fine. But we do. So while I take the directors position seriously, I cannot translate it = to my own position. To do so is to imagine it being worth alienating God = to tell a story. No story, no matter how convinced I am of its power and truth, is worth losing eternity. 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. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:10:57 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen >=20 > But see, there's actually fourth place where the Book of=20 > Mormon applies to our culture. We don't like to talk about=20 > it much, but fact is, Mormon saw our day and wasn't impressed=20 > by it. And that includes us'ns. The extraordinary parallels=20 > between his failed society and our sensationally successful=20 > one are the basic subject of the entire book. All is not, in=20 > fact, well in Zion, and our eating drinking and merry making=20 > are, to his mind, dances on graves. The historicity of Book=20 > of Mormon wouldn't matter worth a hill of beans, if the book=20 > didn't have content, profundity and relevance. So that's=20 > what I'm wondering. Trotting about an imagined Zarahemla in=20 > our Nikes can be jolly fun. But isn't there room for a=20 > literature which blasts us out of our Nikes entirely? That=20 > seems, after all, to be part of Mormon's project. Let our=20 > wild beasts roar us into charity. I'd like to see it, but so far it hasn't been done very well. For some reasons, our artists don't want to break out the wild beasts unless they = are rampaging. You see, to work and carry meaning, exploring that fourth = place isn't going to do a lick of good if it invalidates the other three. = Break out the beasts, but it won't knock us at all if we can't relate to it. Violating those other three places brings it outside our experience and relevance. I'll take the accusing finger, the call to repentance, and = the faults in Zion, but not if there's no basis to believe that it's = anything more than sour grapes or didactic polemics. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:29:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: [AML] KZION Radio I was attempting to listen to zkion this morning in yet another attempt t= o find LDS contemporary music pleasing to my ears and on the website found = the survey of the day asking: =0D Should KZION censor music with lyrics that do not reflect LDS teachings?=0D with a total of 236 votes the results are that 194 numbnuts said yes and = 42 really intelligent people said no. I was one of the really intelligent. =0D Somehow, this must reflect on what is happening at DB right now. Sinc= e I live in Ohio and the buffering is usually useless and I can only catch th= ree or four words of a song at any given time, I have never heard anything wo= rth censoring. Of course, if there was any song that had to be considered for censoring, I would like to hear it, as it might actually be interesting t= o listen to. =0D Yes, I am harsh on LDS contemporary music. And yes, I buy it. I have = a few cds of every LDS genre and very few I actually like. I should write a review on some of them! And in advance I apologize to Steve Perry who jus= t yesterday I asked if he ever considered writing any hand clapping foot stomping praise and worship music. I don't own any of his, but in a few d= ays my order from Cedar Fort should be here where a few of his were on the scratch and dent table and I got a cd and two tapes of his for $2. =0D Debbie Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:03:06 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Sugar Beet Readership We got a statistical report recently on The Sugar Beet readership, and apparently most of our readers come from Virginia, with 6,727 sessions during February originating there, for 39.54% of the month's total. In comparison, only 1,080 sessions originated in Utah during Feb., for 6.35% of the month's total traffic. This blows our mind. 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? (Maybe there is some technical reason, like some kind of big mother server there that makes it look like hits are originating from there, when in reality they come from all over?) For those who are interested, here are the SB's total numbers for February 2003: Total number of non-unique hits during February: 300,112 Total number of times people visited the site in February: 17,012 Average hits per visit in February: 17.64 With a full year of material under our belts, we're now starting to look into publishing the first year as a book, like The Onion does. Anyone have any advice or insight or referrals related to such a project? (I've already sent queries to Signature and Gibbs Smith; haven't heard back yet.) Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:42:43 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Leeanne Hill ADAMS, _Archipelago_ There's a new play by an LDS playwright which you guys should go see, if = you're close enough to Utah to get to it. But watching it is not any kind = of easy experience, and while I won't forget it for awhile, I don't think = I'm going to be sleeping much the next few days, either. Leeanne Hill Adams is a former student of mine. She wrote it in one class = I taught, and workshopped it in another class. She's a good friend, in = other words, and I'm not very objective about her play. Anyway, Archipelago tells the story of the men and women who Stalin sent = to the Gulag back in the thirties, who tried to survive Siberian winters = and insane work requirements, and who mostly didn't. The Gulag prisoners = were very often intellectuals and artists, and while in prison, some of = them wrote poetry or novels, and some of them did theatre. Specifically, = a group of them staged that classic of Russian satire, Gogol's The = Inspector General. That production provides the main structure for the = play. The approach taken to these materials is essentially Meyerholdian. The = play mixes grotesque comedy with narration and scenes that are closer to = realism. Stalin is a character, and the play satirizes the Politburo, = then it'll cut to a woman describing her rape at the hands of prison = guards. And back and forth. =20 The production is a bit flawed. The satirical scenes aren't edgy enough, = and the emotional scenes can get a bit sentimental, and overall, the play = is quite didactic, and didactic in sort of obvious ways. It uses media = elements effectively, but they have a tone that's a bit at odds with the = rest of the piece. =20 And none of that matters much. It's a shattering emotional experience, = watching this play. Watching the audience leave at the end of each = performance, there's this absolute silence, as though everyone's thinking = that even talking about it would be somehow irreverant. =20 I have to say this too. The fact that we're at war right now effects how = we view this play. I don't think it matters if you support the war or are = against it. I mean, emotionally, I have this constant maelstrom of = emotion just under the surface, a mixture of anger and anxiety and fear = and tension and worry, and I think those feelings are shared by a lot of = people. And then you watch something like this, and it ends up not = mattering much what we think of the war; what matters is what we're = feeling. And in some ways, Archipelago assaults you, bears witness to the = death and despair of the Gulag and then says 'don't you dare forget us, = don't you dare forget what happened here.' You feel almost violated by = the production, frankly. Intentionally, I think, because going to see it, = it's like being required to undergo a tiny fraction of what they went = through. So you may not want to, and nobody could blame you if you didn't. At the = same time, it's really something extraordinary. It runs through the end = of next week. Love to see you there. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:35:14 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Moderator Practices (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From glennsj@inet-1.com Tue Mar 25 22:33:30 2003 Quickly weighing in with my opinion here: The unfortunate and ironic, but almost certain, reality is that a completely unmoderated forum here would result in one of the most insidious brands of censorship--the silencing of the less strident, less confident, more tentative and humble voices in our midst. That would be a true tragedy. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - ----------------------------------- >From Paynecabin@aol.com Wed Mar 26 11:13:21 2003 I liked how Jonathan in today's post used the word "rules" in connection with this list. Suddenly the discussion seemed to me to find its correct context. There have been assertions that censorship (here costumed as moderation) is an offensive principle. And there have been assertions that moderation (seen by some as censorship) is a noble principle. Principle, schminciple. It's the rules. Just because in baseball three failed attempts at progressing means you're out doesn't mean that the correct number of failed attempts in football should be three, instead of four. The two games have different rules. Our moderator may respect and enjoy both baseball and football (and LaCrosse and Tiddlywinks), but what he's refereeing here is a game of football. Agreeing to play this particular game by its rules means nothing about our notions of free expression in general. If the following brutal expression can make it through the courtesy filter, I might just risk writing, "chill." Affectionately y'alls's, Marvin Payne - --------------------------------------------- >From Clark@lextek.com Wed Mar 26 14:34:56 2003 ___ Bill ___ | As Mormon writers, I think it is our duty to show in our | plots, and subplots that censorship is alive and well in | our supposedly `Free Speech' society. There are certain | things you just don't say in certain circles, if you don't | want to become an anathema. ___ OK, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mind. I think there is a clear distinction between free speech, the right to be heard, and the right to say what you will without other reacting to you. Even in the examples you gave you have free speech. It was just that your audience not only disagreed with your comments, but disagreed with them in such a way that they didn't want to associate in discussions with you anymore. But is that censorship? In a way - but censorship only in the sense that your audience doesn't want to listen to you. But free speech is the right to speak, not be heard. I hear this confusion over and over again. Perhaps I'm reacting too strongly, but it really is a pet peeve. Yet it is one that artists in particular tend to miss. I recognize that later on you say, "we all have the right to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to express an opinion about it without the stigma of ostracism." Yet that ostracism is nothing more than people choosing not to listen. Allow me an example of this. (Hopefully avoiding political overtones) There are certain people speaking the past few weeks who have a minority view on political issues. They are issues people are very passionate about. They feel people aren't listening to them (and by and large they are likely correct). Thus they do things like block traffic, cause a fuss, and otherwise try and *force* people to listen. Yet, to me, that *force* is opposed to the very freedom of speech they claim to support. I can understand the frustration when people feel they aren't being heard. However I also think that people ought to understand *why* this happens. Clark Goble - ------------------------------------ >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Mar 26 15:09:36 2003 Scott Parkin wrote: > I believe it's critical that every last one of us tell true stories to the best > of our ability. But I also believe that no one is required to applaud that which > they find distasteful, or accept as true those ideas they see as untrue--however > honestly or artistically rendered they are. The fact is that we're lousy at > separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation. I'm > lousy at it, and I dare say most human beings and Mormons could stand to improve > as well. I've learned to get pretty good at it--or at least stifle the emotionally defensive response enough to approximate being good at it--but only as long as the condemnation truly is not personal. All audiences have the right to receive or reject a work according to their personal preferences, and have the right to express their opinions on the subject. But when they start insisting that their standards must be my standards, otherwise (and here comes the personal condemnation) I am sinning, then I take it very personally, feel justified in doing so, and react accordingly. > I put a lot of my personal thoughts (and more than a few private details) out on > this list. For the most part, people completely ignore what I post. That bothers > me to varying degrees at different times--but it hasn't bothered me enough to > make me stop. I've found this list to be relatively accomodating to those kinds > of expression--even when others have had different views. Once again I emphasize, often what looks like being ignored really means you've made your case so well there's nothing more to add. > I've found some of her observations to be a tad > overstated and maybe a bit unfair. But I've also seen no indication in her work > that she believes her portrayals to be "the one and only true" depiction of > experience or reality. > > For me, that makes all the difference. Me too. (See, I'm not ignoring you. I'm agreeing with you. And if I hadn't had something more substantial to say, I wouldn't have sent this "Me too" message at all. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - ---------------------------------------- >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Wed Mar 26 16:48:06 2003 Scott hit the nail on the head, when he said, "The fact is that we're lousy at separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation." He also alluded to the principle that we should try to write our stories with as much truth and honesty as we can, and not be offended if our critics disagree. Scott Parkin wrote: I consider my own...what do you call it...not so much *grudge* as a persistent, vaguely mistrustful sensitivity...to be a sin. I've decided that I shouldn't be bothered by that experience of the distant past. I've decided to repent of my frustration. So it bugs me that I haven't yet managed to fully embed the choices of my head into my heart. The desire is there, but sometimes the mind and body betray. Still, I think I'll get there eventually. How true! This reminds me of some of my own thoughts along these lines. There are many sins, which we all struggle with. As a great man said recently (don't ask me, who?) "We all have our own Goliath to battle." We believe in truth wherever we find it so I offer this gem of truth I found in the writings of a Toltec Indian, Don Miguel Ruiz. He shared `The Four Agreements' of his people in a book with the same title. 1. Speak Impeccably 2. Make no assumptions 3. Take nothing personally 4. Always do your best This boils down to the same thing as the Gospel - Love - I certainly hope, as you suggest, we all get there eventually. In the mean time we will just have to have faith that the atonement will take up the slack for us. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com - ---------------------------------- >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Wed Mar 26 17:45:21 2003 Melissa Proffitt wrote: Something that no one has pointed out, on the topic of list moderation, is that list volume is kept very low--to 30 posts a day--because of the restrictions of some list members' email accounts or schedules. When list volume is high, the need to keep discussions on topic becomes even more important. Throwing around words like "censorship" confuses the issue because that word is so loaded with negative connotations. Exactly! Good job Melissa! Instead of `censorship' let's call it `filtering.' Jonathan eliminates a lot of redundancy and posts that are off topic or without merit. He saves us a lot of time and effort trying to decide for ourselves if we should delete or read. That is the job he has undertaken to do for us, and I for one appreciate the work of the moderator, even if I have, at times, been the target of redirection, or filtration. If we don't like it we can offer to take it off Jonathan's hands. Any volunteers? -DEAD SILENCE- OK! lets get on with our discussion of Mormon Letters. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com - ------------------------------------- >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Thu Mar 27 00:43:01 2003 >---Original Message From: Bill Willson >> >> We all have the right >> to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to >> express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. > >I'm with you until this point. Why should I be forced to >listen to people I disagree with? How would you be forced in a list context? You can always hit the delete key. It's not that hard. I delete all my own posts, for instance. Thom Duncan - -------------------------------------- >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Thu Mar 27 10:42:05 2003 Thom Duncan wrote: > Okay, so what you do is have a semi-moderated list. That is, if a sufficient number of people think that Joe Schmo is just bloviating with no content and making every body mad, the moderator can delete the poster and make it impossible to receive or to post ever again to the list. I'm on a list where one guy was so full of himself that it soon became evident he didn't want to engage in adult conversation. The moderator ex-communicated the guy. End of story.< So it's a majority driven delete button? OR do we all just maintain control of our own delete button at the end of a filtered stream of civil e-mail posts? My motto is if it ain't broke, don't fix it! If someone wants to fight about something, let them take it outside. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com - -------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:49:39 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives 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. He's extreme, and funny, and he's a = documentarian who plays fast and loose with facts, and he's passionate, = and a man blinded by ideology, and also a great artist. In some ways, = he's a kind of liberal Rush Limbaugh. About Polanski, however, I do have = a comment. 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 I wish he hadn't won an Oscar this year, and I'm glad the LAPD didn't let = him fly back to the states to get it. At the same time, the relationships = between his own personal story, his own personally morality, and the = personal statements and ideas embedded into his art seem to me very = complex and difficult and not capable of any simple explanation. I'm = certainly not saying that because he's a Holocaust survivor, we should cut = him some slack on the pedophilia, or anything like that. I am saying = that the totality of his life experience, including serious sins he = committed and for which he may or may not have repented or tried to repent = all find some expression in his films. Just as we have to make some = connection between Wagner 's almost bizarrely compulsive adulteries and = the gorgeous sensuality of his music. =20 I'm teaching a graduate seminar these days on Strindberg, and it's been a = real struggle, trying to free ourselves from biographical criticism. You = see it a lot; he was a misogynist, and so all his female characters are = simply the expression of that misogyny, hence all these gruesome female = vampire characters in his plays; Laura in The Father, and Miss Julie, and = on and on. Well, he was a guy who married thrice, and all three marriages = were total disasters, and he did write A Madman's Defense, probably the = most savage depiction of a former spouse in the history of awful divorces. = And he was also an anti-semite and he was also a drug addict, and he did = really go nuts at one point. And he was saved, underwent a religious = conversion, and we do see peace and forgiveness and redemption in the = endings of so many of his post-Inferno plays, The Pelican, The Ghost = Sonata, The Dream Play, and so on. And then, again post-Inferno, he got = married for the third time, and it was as dreadful a marriage as the = previous two (he hadn't learned much, it seems). And those vile expression= s of misogyny, like, say, Laura and Miss Julie, are among the most sought = after roles for the very best actresses for a hundred years now. Point = is, here's a superb post-modern writer, one of the most clear-sighted and = observant writers in the canon, and also a guy utterly blinded by the most = repugnant ideologies of his day, both things together. And Polanski can = make a deeply moving and sympathetic picture depicting the damaged victim = of incest (Chinatown), and he's also a pedophile; both things together. = =20 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 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1022 *******************************