From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #140 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, August 25 2000 Volume 01 : Number 140 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:02:28 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction ViKimball@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/22/00 11:45:46 AM Central Daylight Time, > dmichael@wwno.com writes: > > << > In my opera about the same period in history, the villain _was_ William > Law. Yet I didn't remain true to the facts either. Nor did I insert any > footnotes 'fessing up to my sins for Jonathan. William Law was a > historically accurate villain, but William Law never fled to a Carthage > tavern and incite a drunken mob to go out and kill innocent Mormons. He > did in my opera. The difference between my and Thom's historical sin is > only a matter of degree. We both lied about historical facts for > dramatic effect. > >> > I know that William Law was JS's trusted counselor until the big fallout over > polygamy, which he could not accept. In my opinion, he was NOT a villain > because of this. Yes, he eventually turned against Joseph, but I believe he > didn't turn against the church until later. I think Mormon writers tend to > take these characters and make them villains, when they had been highly > respected until the polygamy issue arose. > Violet Kimball > Another interesting take on the validity of history wrt fiction. Obviously, if you were to write the story of Joseph Smith in a fictional context, you would chose another villain. Let's say you chose Thomas Sharp, the Editor of the _Warsaw Signal_ as the villain, and saw his incendiary editorials as leading directly to Joseph's imprisonment. Would that be any less valid than D. Michael's approach with Law being the villain? Joseph had a lot of enemies in those final days, Joseph Jackson, John C. Bennett, to name just two more. To tell a completely accurate story would so muddy up the narrative that your readers would get lost. I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:23:04 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction >*History is bunk* > >A recent post summarized why history and historians are virtually >worthless: >we can't really know all that happened, historians must constantly revise >their theories, there is no such thing as objectivity, yada yada yada. >With >all due respect, the only people who ever seem to engage in such >handwringing >are theoreticians, academics, and students asserting new-found intellectual >superiority. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're referring to one or more of my posts here. I apologize. Any dismissive attitude toward history and historians was unintended. My dismissive attitude is directed more precisely to the mindset that tends to construct a hierarchy of "truth"-reliability (i.e. history is more truthful than fiction, or vice versa). Admittedly, I do tend to fall into the "theoretician" or "academic" categories, and it is true that theory is different from practice--but I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. They inform one another, and are inextricably connected. >Historians acknowledge those problems, then shrug them off with >"So what?" Do you mean to suggest that historians (the implication being ALL of them) have no regard for philosophical/theoretical groundings? You don't want to be dismissed, yet you dismiss all theory? >Those who *do* history rather than merely talk *about* history >know we have to start somewhere, we have to account for all the (admittedly >incomplete) facts, we cannot ignore contradictory facts for the sake of a >neat theory, and above all it all has to *fit* -- there is beauty and an >order and a logic and a sense of rightness even to the chaos of history. This sounds identical to the fiction writer's predicament (to me, anyway). The attempt to make it all *fit* is what I meant by the attempt to construct narrative, to impose order. Just like a fiction writer. I'm not dismissing history/historians, I'm pointing out their relation to the fiction writer, and vice versa. >Mathematicians, all sorts of technicians and pure scientists, and even >artists of all kinds must constantly revise their theories based on their >own >growth and the ideas and discoveries of others. A recent AML-Lister wrote >that he or she could not revise stories written at age 15 because the >characters would behave differently now. Exactly so! We theorize, we >learn, >we revise, we try again. To single out historians for dismissal on these >grounds is ridiculous. No attempt to do so was intended, at least on my part. I meant to make the same parallels that you're making. >*Drama as revelator* > >It has been written here more than once recently (paraphrasing Max >Golightly?) that dramatized history must tell something new -- "otherwise >you >might as well write history." It may be no surprise that this irritates me >no end, this attitude that history is a drone who merely records the facts, >while Queen Drama, ah! she alone reveals the unknown! Precisely the sort of hierarchy I was attempting to dismiss. I agree with you. >History is pondering, discovering, recovering the lost, discovering the >new, >understanding what has never been realized before -- fiction has no >monopoly >on that. Ditto. My point exactly. >If historians merely recycled already known and accepted facts, we >might as well abandon the effort and get an easier job on some other >assembly >line. >We've discussed at length the legitimacy of genre in fiction, and of not >misjudging one genre by the conventions of another. May I suggest the >obvious? Fiction and history are as different from each other as literary >fiction is from the police procedural. We can't pretend they are the same. But you just did such a fine job of demonstrating their similarities! True, they are not the *same*. But they do the same thing. They are different, but only as different _modes_ of knowing or understanding. In the end, the goal is to construct a narrative (a myth--and I don't mean myth in the sense that it isn't true, but in the classic sense of a story that explains) that is a means of knowing, understanding, etc. Neither is "better" or "more true" than the other. >Someone who is qualified to judge fiction is not necessarily qualified to >judge history. I'll go back to biting my tongue when list members are >unintentionally dismissive of the achievements of historians and the value >of >history, but I would also ask that you remember there are writers of every >stripe on this list. Again, apologies for any misunderstanding. I felt history was being privileged over art (as something "more true" than art, that must be adhered to), so I was attempting to dismiss that hierarchy--not to dismiss history itself. When the privileging of art over history occurs (as it has on this list), I have attempted to dismiss that hierarchy also... Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:50:36 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:58:23 Thom Duncan writes: > Katrina Duvalois wrote: >> I find it disconcerting when a piece is presented as a piece >> of "history" i.e., Pocahontas, the point of not even being >> recognizable as the real story except for the names, or location. Thom replied: > Let's not underestimate the power of such myth. For instance, > George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree, but > it's still a good story to tell your kids to teach them about honesty. I never tell that story except to make fun of it. ("Well then, George, we'd better move to Virginia. If you cannot tell a lie there's no place for you in Texas.") Its only value to me is that it's part of shared American culture. The story's only value in teaching honesty is if it's a true story, true to the facts of American history--otherwise, why attach it to someone revered as "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen"? I remember when I found out the story was a lie. We were back in DC on vacation. We were visiting one of my father's colleagues who was on sabbatical, perhaps even staying with them, and my father's friend told me that when we went out to Mt. Vernon the next morning we wouldn't find a stump for that cherry tree and no one ever had. There had never been one. Knowing that the story is a lie, does it have any power to motivate your action? (I'm using _your_ as direct address, not in a generic, rhetorical sense.) By contrast, Thom has spoken a few times about how _A Chorus Line_ affected his attitudes towards homosexuals. I suspect that the story's power to do that comes from the fact that it doesn't pretend it needs to be attached to a historical figure to be worth telling. Parson Weems story pretends just that. It's no small thing to chop down a tree that's going to generate income for your family. Any child who lived on a farm with an orchard and had to work them would have understood that, and likely not have believed a made-up story about a boy doing something he's surely going to be punished for, but his father doesn't punish him just because he tells the truth. Parson Weems knew this, so he did something to give the story credibility, he created a historical lie. It's a rich irony, creating a lie to teach people to tell the truth. And I know someone's going to say, 'Well, isn't that what art is, a lie that tells the truth?' I love Marvin Bell's response to that at the 1983 Duke U. Writers' Conference. I'm sure he knew it was Picasso's statement, but he ignored that and simply said, "Whoever said 'Art is a lie that tells the truth' had no regard either for art or for the truth.'" Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:52:22 -0400 From: Merlyn J Clarke Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction At 10:30 AM 8/22/00 PDT, you wrote: >You agree with me, then contradict that agreement in one sentence. If >there's no absolute truth in history, then what truth are we "getting as >close as possible" to? Incidentally, my sister has a roommate from Georgia. >They are students at BYU. The roommate told my sister that the first time >she EVER heard that the Civil War had ANYTHING to do with slavery was at >BYU. In the South (where she grew up, at any rate) there is no connection >drawn between the War and the slavery issue, whatsoever. Sounds like a >different historical fiction to me. Different from the historical fiction, >that is, that the War was closely (inextricably?) linked to slavery issues. >Is one true, the other not true? Or are they both fictions--attempts to >explain an event (the War) whose historicity cannot be disputed, but whose >history is subject to constant interpretation and reinterpretation? >Jason >=============================================== While you may not intend it, your argument could be interpreted to suggest that the whole enterprise of doing history is pointless. I think what you (and maybe others (I have not been following this thread)) are overlooking is the difference between good history and bad history, or that all history cannot be somehow dichotomized into one view on the one hand, or the other view, on the otherhand. The example you use is a case in point. To suggest that the Civil War is/was either about slavery or not (presumably the nature of the union), is an oversimplification (something most Mormons are notorious for). Good history is about complexity. No historical phenomena, or periods of time, can be reduced to single factors or either/or's. The skilled historian is one who brings forth the complexities in a comprehensive manner. And of course the skilled reader of history is one who looks for them, and refuses to accept simplistic explanations. The reading of history also requires an ability to think critically, to balance and evaluate the variables. All this presupposes that one has read a lot of history. To suggest that all history is bunk, or that we can't know a lot about the past which is essential to our understanding of the present, or that the historical enterprise is a waste of time or frivolous approaches nihilism. Merlyn Clarke > >________________________________________________________________________ >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 > > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:18:25 GMT From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ Telecast According to the latest issue of "TV Guide" BYU alum Neil Labute's set of short dramas, "bash: latterday plays", is going to be shown on the cable TV channel Showtime on Monday, August 28 at 9:00 p.m. MDT. This production stars the original New York cast of Calista Flockhart, Paul, Rudd, and Ron Eldard, and was directed by LaBute himself. The "TV Guide" critic gave it a strongly positive review, for what that's worth. There is also a site on Amazon.com devoted exclusively to LaBute's new movie, "Nurse Betty", which opens in theaters September 8. It's the first tie-in between a new movie and Amazon, and is worth checking out. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:16:32 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction In a message dated 8/23/00 3:39:30 PM Central Daylight Time, tduncan@zfiction.com writes: << I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. >> In most cases truth to one would not to truth to another. Yes, I think the editorials in the paper would lead more to a direct confrontation, but why can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many villains? I believe John C. Bennett would be more of a realistic person to portray as an enemy. I think historians have also contributed to this "villain" mania. Even poor Emma has been the villain at times. She was no where to be seen in Legacy as I recall. Plays and movies don't always have to beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a hero. Violet Kimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:52:09 EDT From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of Faith) (Review) Cathy wrote: << them so often that we too had them memorized. But as I recall there was plenty to engage an older listener--lots of humor only grownups might get. As an adult listener I loved them, songs and all. >> I remember being on my mission in the late 80's when this series came out. Steve and my mom would send them to me, but I found it interesting that all the missionaries in the office enjoy listening to them, and we anxious awaited each new episode. John Perry - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:15:25 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction In a message dated 8/23/2000 2:39:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, tduncan@zfiction.com writes: << I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. >> I think that our objections have less to do with a dramatist failing to INCLUDE all that is known, and more to do with CHANGING something that is known. Leave out "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" if it clutters the scene, but don't change history to have John Taylor sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow". Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:10:08 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction <> No. I mean that we we don't let the possible validity of some theoretical shortcomings paralyze us into postponing our work until those shortcomings can be overcome. We do history anyway. I acknowledge that this isn't your intent, but let me explain what I hear when someone catalogs the theoretical faults of historians and the historical process: "Hello. Your life's work is invalid and shall remain so until you overcome the following faults. Although I have never actually done any original research myself, I am qualified to catalog your errors." I repeat, I know this is NOT your intent, and that I am hypersensitive. You have to understand, however, that I hear this same philosophy very often, and always by those whose names I never read on the sign-in sheets of any archive, and whom I never meet knocking on doors or poking into sheds and barns and attics and basements on field trips. <order and a logic and a sense of rightness even to the chaos of history. This sounds identical to the fiction writer's predicament (to me, anyway). The attempt to make it all *fit* is what I meant by the attempt to construct narrative, to impose order. >> You misunderstand me. I do not advocate imposing an artificial order. I mean that an honest historian cannot turn the world upside down without sufficient evidence. For example, everything we know suggests that human parents generally feel responsible for taking care of their children. If somebody suggests that this basic human trait was somehow different in 1950s San Francisco -- that it was there and then common for parents to eat their young -- that historian had better present some darn convincing evidence. Otherwise, it just doesn't *fit*. <> Great. All activities that lead to understanding the world or ourselves have similarities. But the approach is different, so the criteria for judging the result is different: A critic who judges a work of genre fiction by the conventions of so-called literary fiction is no fair judge. I believe we (the list) have agreed on that. A critic who misunderstands the nature of the historical process (by assuming, perhaps, that a history is invalid if it does not present an impossibly omniscient panorama of the past) is no fair judge. Jason, thanks for responding to my post in such detail, even on those points which were not specifically provoked by something you wrote. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:20:49 -0600 From: "mcnandon" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction I agree with Violet and I cringe when anyone makes William Law out to be a villain. He was a highly respected, faithful member of the church who took issue with polygamy. Nan McCulloch [MOD: Folks, a warning: Details of LDS history are appropriate as they relate to literary treatment, but we don't want to get into a discussion that focuses on issues of Mormon history per se.] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:45:38 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Violet Kimball: > I know that William Law was JS's trusted counselor until the big fallout over > polygamy, which he could not accept. In my opinion, he was NOT a villain > because of this. Yes, he eventually turned against Joseph, but I believe he > didn't turn against the church until later. I think Mormon writers tend to > take these characters and make them villains, when they had been highly > respected until the polygamy issue arose. William Law plotted to have Joseph Smith assassinated. That makes him a villain in my book, no matter how pure as the "driven snow" he started out. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:27:28 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Scott Parkin wrote: > But I don't believe that any story is ever anything but didactic propaganda. Since we keep going back and forth debating whether art is or should be didactic, I want to clarify what I mean when I make the distinction between didactic and nondidactic art. I agree that all art teaches us something. I don't necessarily agree that all artists _intend_ to teach us something. Sometimes they just want to create a thing of beauty or an entertaining story. That doesn't preclude the resulting art from having something to teach. Nor do I believe that an artist who does have something to teach automatically produces bad art. The critical difference in my mind is, how honest is the artist to truth? Since our interest here is primarily literary, I'll speak from the perspective of a writer. We have two writers, both of whom have a story to tell because they have something they want to convey--teach--persuade us to believe--whatever. The first artist sets up characters and plot situations that will do a good job exploring the theme he is interested in. He then sets everything in motion and lets the characters act in harmony with their characterization, lets the plot events unfold as believable results of the situations that came before, and virtually explores the theme as he writes along with the reader. He may not even be sure what the outcome will be, because he's teaching himself as he writes. The second author has a point to make, an opinion to sell. He makes sure the characters do the "right" thing to sell that opinion, manipulating them like puppets on a string to do what he needs them to do. The events of the plot must occur, whether they are contrived or arise naturally from preceding events, because they are required to sell the opinion. I consider the first story to be nondidactic, and the second to be didactic, even though they may both teach us something about a theme that the author consciously wanted us to learn about. The difference is that the second one is _primarily_ didactic: everything about the story becomes subservient to selling the opinion. Consistent characterization, plausibility in the plot events--all this is secondary to selling the point. Both authors are trying to be honest to the truth. The first tries to be truthful in the integrity of his characters and plot events. The second is trying to be truthful because he's working hard to convince us of an opinion that he firmly believes is the truth. The paradox is that the second author uses lies to sell truth. His characters are a lie, his plot events are a lie. They wouldn't really happen or act that way in "real life." That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. Any artist can be didactic--can deliberately, manipulatively try to persuade us to a point of view--and still create good art, as long as he tells the truth in the process of selling us on the truth. He doesn't shortchange the truthfulness of his story elements in his effort to sell the truthfulness of his message. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:39:10 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction ViKimball@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/23/00 3:39:30 PM Central Daylight Time, > tduncan@zfiction.com writes: > > << I think those writers on the list who complain > about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events > ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is > to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a > compelling story. > >> > > In most cases truth to one would not to truth to another. Yes, I think the > editorials in the paper would lead more to a direct confrontation, but why > can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many > villains? I believe John C. Bennett would be more of a realistic person to > portray as an enemy. Though this could be done, you have a problem dramatically, I feel. It is pretty well uncontested by historians that the publication of the Expositor by William Law, his brother, and others, was the inciting incident that lead directly to Carthage. It is what we call in playwriting the point of no return, where the outcome is pre-determined and must move inevitably to its conclusion. > I think historians have also contributed to this > "villain" mania. Even poor Emma has been the villain at times. She was no > where to be seen in Legacy as I recall. Plays and movies don't always have to > beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a > hero. Without conflict, you have no drama. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:52:28 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Villains (was: History and Fiction) Violet Kimball wrote: > why can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many > villains? > Plays and movies don't always have to > beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a > hero. I think you may be reacting to the strong word "villain." How about anti-hero? Antagonist? The fact is, the protagonist has to have something to strive against for a plot to happen, and in those stories where the opposition is represented by people, having a bunch of weak antagonists (because they dilute one another's presence) rather than one strong antagonist for the protagonist to strive against, just doesn't WORK dramatically! - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:37:16 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction mcnandon wrote: > > I agree with Violet and I cringe when anyone makes William Law out to be a > villain. He was a highly respected, faithful member of the church who took > issue with polygamy. Law is an excellent villain for a story of the last days of Nauvoo precisely because he was intensely loyal to Joseph Smith up until Joseph reportedly proposed to his wife. He becomes a tragic, Judas Iscariot figure at that point, feeling driven to fight against a man whom he once loved and practically worshiped. Bennett, OTOH, was pretty much a louse through and through with few redeeming qualities. The best villains (another tidbit from Max Golightly) are those who have some redeeming qualities so that the audience doesn't automatically hate them, and who may they actually come to understand, though they don't have to agree with them. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:51:47 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Didactic Literature (was: History and Fiction) "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the > expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an > inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. We've seen the emergence in recent years of films and plays that use a new technique to teach us something, by appearing on the outside to glorify what they actually decry. I'm thinking of _Saving Private Ryan_ and _Reservoir Dogs_ (which list member Scott Parkin rightly identifies as a violent anti-violence movie). In both films, the viewer is dragged kicking and screaming through scenes of horrible violence, shown in as much detail as any exploitation film may do, but in such realistic or creative ways so as to give the exact opposite meaning as would otherwise be given. To tie this to LDS literature: I believe this is what occurs in our sacred writings. The Bible's and the Book of Mormon's graphic descriptions of violence are meant not to numb us to the violence but to show us how real the consequences of violence can be. John Taylor's bullet-by-bullet description of the attack on Carthage is not meant to exploit the horror of the martyrdom but to help the reader understand how truly obscene and cruel the whole assassination was. One of my favorite plays is _Death of a Salesman_. I like the play precisely because it is a tragedy. Willie Loman's suicide tells me volumes about how people ought NOT to live their lives. I learn a great deal from Willie's failures. Arthur Miller teaches us about the joys of life by showing us one very unhappy life that ends in suicide. It's like using only black ink and yet drawing a beautiful sunset in all its colors. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:44:06 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Didactic Literature (was: History and Fiction) D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Since we keep going back and forth debating whether art is or should be >didactic, I want to clarify what I mean when I make the distinction >between didactic and nondidactic art. [SNIP] >The first artist sets up characters and plot situations that will do a >good job exploring the theme he is interested in. He then sets >everything in motion and lets the characters act in harmony with their >characterization, lets the plot events unfold as believable results of >the situations that came before, and virtually explores the theme as he >writes along with the reader. He may not even be sure what the outcome >will be, because he's teaching himself as he writes. > >The second author has a point to make, an opinion to sell. He makes sure >the characters do the "right" thing to sell that opinion, manipulating >them like puppets on a string to do what he needs them to do. The events >of the plot must occur, whether they are contrived or arise naturally >from preceding events, because they are required to sell the opinion. [SNIP] >That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the >expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an >inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. Any artist >can be didactic--can deliberately, manipulatively try to persuade us to >a point of view--and still create good art, as long as he tells the >truth in the process of selling us on the truth. He doesn't shortchange >the truthfulness of his story elements in his effort to sell the >truthfulness of his message. I accept your example but resist your conclusion, because you still require me to accept that your opinion of the difference between honestly drawn characters and situations and manipulatively presented ones is both absolute, and correctly placed. Let me insert here that part of my argument is that a great deal of what some writers decry as artificial, contrived, or dishonest is, in fact, the author's honest effort to tell the truth as they understand it, illustrated by characters and situations that they believe are honest, real, and natural. The problem I have is that when we as readers (and, by definition, critics) like the choices the characters make, we label that as "honest;" if we dislike the choices, or think they make too obviously "right" choices, we label the author and character as dishonest toadies to a cynical effort to propagandize. I believe that's both unfair and artistically self-limiting. I don't think any of us is qualified to judge the author's intent, honesty, or integrity in telling a story, drawing characters, or elaborating situations. Some people see the world as more clearly delineated into good and bad choices than others of us do. For those people, a story where characters simply choose to do a "right" thing is as good and honest a story as they can possibly conceptualize, and contains no intentional manipulation to make those characters act that particular way. To say that such an author is dishonest or writes with cynically didactic intent assumes true knowledge of the author's intent, and a fair and unbiased judgement of that intent. I don't think there's any such thing--at least not on this planet. Which is not to say that I think all fiction has equal value. By and large, I suspect our tastes converge more than they diverge. I agree whole-heartedly that much fiction is too simplistic, too pat for my tastes, filled with internally inconsistent characters whose motivations seem contrived and/or fitted to a particular outcome. I find such stories unsatisfying and of little personal value, and I reject them as failing to meet my criteria for successful art. If asked, I will recommend against them. I will even say that I think the author cheated intentionally if I believe that's true. But I'm not ready to say that what I like represents an absolute standard of honesty on the part of the author, and what I dislike must therefore be dishonest, contrived, or cynically didactic. In this case, the finger points both ways. As artists we tend to want to point outward at the alleged errors of other artists, but tend not to recognize that our own work can be decried using our own critical methods. My "realistic" may well be another good and honest person's "cynical and fuzzy-minded." Likewise, my "simplistic" may be another's "deeply held truth." I'm not advocating any particular aesthetic (such as spelling "esthetic" with an "a" at the start), but I do believe that the vast majority of authors really are honest in their attempts to create art. Most of them aren't very good at it, but I think they're honestly trying--even when their assumptions about the basis of artistic quality differ from mine. That's what I'm objecting to--the assumption that any line is the one and only right and true one. Reject art to your heart's content; just accept that it's possible for someone to believe--and act--differently without being dishonest or intentionally manipulative. In this case, I don't think there's an absolute line between here and there. (Not to mention the completely separate question about what constitutes "real" and whether realism is either a necessary--or even desirable--trait in fiction.) Scott Parkin (Who's off to the World Science Fiction Convention in Chicago for most of the next two weeks. Talk to y'all when I get back.) [MOD: You lucky dog... Wave a hand in my direction as you pass by western Wisconsin.] - - 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 #140 ******************************