From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #201 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 Monday, November 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 201 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:52:30 -0700 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Robert Hughes and Stupid People I've been a pretty staunch supporter of the right of people to like what the literati considers to be worthless literature. I believe that all thought deserves expression--even if that thought is simple or its expression is simple. To criticize a work as poorly wrought or conceived is one thing (and a good thing, IMO), to carry the criticism forward into judgement and dismissal of those who like it is another. I don't care for elitism on either side of this argument, myself. It's never wrong to educate oneself to the issues, techniques, and vocabulary of criticism. And it's never right to be smug in one's lack of education on a subject--any more than I think it's right to dismiss people as persona non grata for their lack of formal training. However... There *are* stupid people who consume (or attempt to consume) art. There *are* people who are simply unable (not to be confused with unwilling) to understand (not to be confused with accept) anything outside of their own perspective. So lighten up. There are stupid people just like there are tall people. Or short ones. Or thin or fat or liberal or conservative or bearded or bald. And if that strikes anyone as a stupid thing to say, then I suppose it just proves my point... Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:02:39 -0800 (PST) From: Ruth Starkman Subject: Re: [AML] What We're Reading Right Now Chris, I found your list remarkable and tried to respond about a few of the texts listed. Didn't write anything about the classics, as I think they stand for themselves. Here's a question, while I'm at it: Is there an anthology of Mormon lit by international Mormon writers? In the interests of compression, I'll answer Renato's question as well here, by saying, I read/ write nothing during the semester outside my own profession (German lit and hx), but I have read some noteworthy things of perhaps wider interest. 1) Bernhard Schlink's The Reader 2) Hans J. Massaquoi's Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany One parenting recommendation as well: Robert Cole's the Spiritual Life of Children, worth reading for the kids drawings alone. - --Ruth Starkman On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > MARRIAGE & PARENTING > *Easton, The Ethical Slut I wonder if this isn't a deja vu of _Open marriage_. A newvo-waveo 70s manual? If it is, well, yawn... not everything from the 70s needs be recycled. > > CONTEMPORARY FICTION > Bellow, Saul, Humboldt's Gift tried right after college, thought maybe I was the wrong age-group/gender to get it. > Golden, Arthur, Memoirs of a Geisha > Kingslover, The Poisonwood Bible > Lahiri, Jhumpa, Interpreter of Maladies > *Miller, Sue, While I Was Gone Loved these > Potok, Chaim, The Chosen Read this as a child and loved it, my parents still swoon over it, though I wonder now if it doesn't border on kitsch... > Roth, Philip, Sabbath's Theater can't get through a Philip Roth book, it's interesting to me that he's so big on the list. [I think there are more interesting Jewish writers in the US and elsewhere. For me, Roth's only noteworthy for his wide reception] > MORMON NONFICTION > Brodie, Fawn M., No Man Knows My History Read this and found it very interesting as a controversial history. > Laake, Deborah, Secret Ceremonies A lot of the non-Mormon moms my mother's age (60-70) read this. I took a peak at it a few years ago, but found myself cringing, and feeling too sorry for her, so I eventually put it down unfinished. > Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview This I found interesting but somewhat tedious > MORMON FICTION > Card, Orson Scott, Saints Am very curious to read this > LaBute, Neil, Bash: Latter-day Plays Saw and liked this very much in LA > Mitchell, Alan Rex, Angel of the Danube This is my first priority after the semester ends. > Sorensen, Virginia, A Little Lower than the Angels Loved this [Ruth Starkman] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:35:27 -0600 From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism Christopher Bigelow said: "We know a believing Mormon can be a Democrat, but can a believing Mormon be a humanist? Is there such a thing as "faithful humanism," or is that an unresolvable oxymoron? The two dictionary definitions of humanism that seem most applicable to me in this setting are: "the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance," and "a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason." Can Mormons learn to simultaneously juggle intellectualism/humanism and faith?" Chris, I think that a Mormon can be a humanist and faithful believer. It really all comes down to how one defines humanist. I would suggest reading the article "The Sacred Humanist" on the Harvest Magazine website. It takes on these issues in a positive way, not falling into a trap of "either/or" thinking, but "and" thinking. Here is the link: http://www.harvestmagazine.com/september/humanist1.htm It is being published in three installments, of which the first two are available. Dallas Robbins editor@harvestmgazine.com http://www.harvestmagazine.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: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:32:21 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism >Intellectualism is a real problem for Mormons, because so often it >starts resembling humanism, which looks like it's antithetical to >the gospel. "Looks like" is the operative phrase. Humanism, truly understood, is no more anthithetical to the Gospel than Evolution, properly understood is. >Recently I received a subscription offer from Free Inquiry, a >magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism that >"answers only to men and women who want to think for themselves >instead of being bamboozled by appeals to tradition, authority, or >blind faith." I see this is as completely in line with the Restored Gospel. Section 9 tells us we must think things out for ourselves. Brigham Young makes numerous statements against blindly following our leaders. And as far as appeals to tradition -- well, we all know how God feels about putting the traditions of men above appeals to modern revelation. >We know a believing Mormon can be a Democrat, but can a believing >Mormon be a humanist? Is there such a thing as "faithful >humanism," Yes. I'll explain more later in this post. > or is that an unresolvable oxymoron? The two dictionary >definitions of humanism that seem most applicable to me in this >setting are: "the revival of classical letters, individualistic >and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns >characteristic of the Renaissance," Don't we consider the Renaissance as the gateway to the Restoration? The Renaissance gave us Protestantism, which then lay the groundwork for the Restoration. What is the Dark Ages if it isn't mankind lost in the mire of religion tradition, with reason taking a back seat, if at all. >and "a philosophy that usually >rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and >worth and capacity for self-realization through reason." To make this fit within the ideals of the Restoration, I'm going to redefine supernaturalism from what the writer of this definition probably intended. I'm going to say that supernaturalism is differnt than sprituality. I'm suggesting that supernaturalism involves a governing belief in ghosts, witches, and miracles -- in the case of the latter miracles are defined as occcurences that fly in the face of known science. Notice I also said a "governing belief." We LDS do believe in witchcraft as a Satanic imitation of real Priesthood power, but it doesn't govern our lives. We believe in the afterlife but we don't typically visit mediums. We believe in miracles but miracles that exist within the framework of science (either known or unknown.) >In considering that question, it would be interesting and fruitful >to compare the mission statement of the main Mormon intellectual >bastian--the Sunstone Foundation--with the statement of purpose of >Free Inquiry: > >Sunstone > The mission of the Sunstone Foundation is to sponsor open >forums of Mormon thought and experience. Under the motto "Faith >Seeking Understanding," we examine and express the rich spiritual, >intellectual, social, and artistic qualities of Mormon history and >contemporary life. We encourage humanitarian service, honest >inquiry, and responsible interchange of ideas that is respectful >of all people and what they hold sacred. > >Free Inquiry > Our best guide to truth is free and rational inquiry; we >should therefore not be found by the dictates of arbitrary >authority, Neither should good LDS, imo. Again, what does arbitrary authority mean? I suggest within the Restoration, it means not basing any belief merely on the word of another living human, be he Prophet or poet. We should, instead, seek knowledge *for ourselves.* The prophetic words then act as a catalyst, not the end in themselves. >comfortable superstition, In Mormonism, these would be Three Nephite stories, or "faith-promoting rumors." >stifling tradition, You mention one of Utah Mormonisms stifling tradition, the idea that a good Mormon can be a Democrat. Even though our leaders tell us differently, many of us still believe this. There are other stifling traditions, which I won't enumerate. >or >suffocating orthodoxy. Orthodxy is anathema to the Restored Gospel and always will be. It implies a closed canon, and ours is open. >We should defer to no dogma--neither >religious nor secular--and never be afraid to ask, "How do you >know?" We should be concerned with the here and now, with solving >human problems with the best resources of human minds and hearts. "Man should be anxiously engaged in a good cause of their own free will and choice." >I admire Sunstone's idealized goals, but I think most educated >Mormons would say the Free Inquiry statement applies more to >Sunstone than Sunstone's statement does, which highlights the >difficulties and pitfalls of the whole endeavor. Educated, perhaps. But certainly uninformed. >The spiritual dangers I see intellectuals facing are pride, >stiff-neckedness, and relying on the arm of flesh (in other words, >humanism stated in orthodox Mormon terms). Like these can't happen among non-intellectual Mormons? >But I see room for >using god-given intellectual talents to openly explore Mormon >experience, scholarship, issues, and art in a way that is at least >not unfaithful, although the institutional Church and those who >fully cleave unto it intellectually and culturally (not just >spiritually and doctrinally) will rarely be satisfied with it. Such is the plight of the LDS artist. It is our cross to bear. >I look to intellectuals to continue finding sensitive, careful ways >to break the following cultural taboos identified by Free Inquiry >magazine and certainly applicable to Mormonism: >The question for me is, is it possible to do so in a more >inclusive, less polarizing way? That isn't so much the question as: Will others see our efforts as being inclusive in a less polarizing way? If, for instance, a reader or viewer of our offerings confuses cultural comments with religious criticism, then we're dead before we start. >Can Mormons learn to >simultaneously juggle intellectualism/humanism and faith? We can only hope and pray that this will be the case. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:36:18 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ >The speculative genre seems to be what's really broken out >in the larger Christian market, so maybe Mormonism will follow that trend. It's already there. Started in the 80's with Lund, Hiemerdinger, and has continued unabated through today. My own novel was of that genre, published in 1990. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:58:59 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] What We're Reading Right Now Just finished Kent Harup's _Plainsong_. For a book that the San Francisco Chronicle calls "haunting, virtuosic, inimitable," I found it a little disappointing. Gotta love those McPheron brothers though! Too bad they didn't get the movie made while Richard Farnsworth was still alive. But who could have played the other brother? _The Book of Ruth_, by Jane Hamilton. An amazing book--especially considering that it was Hamilton's first. One of the most compelling voices I've read in a very long time. _Poisonwood Bible_, Barbara Kingsolver. I loved the first two thirds of this book, but then it really started to drag for me. I almost got the feeling that Kingsolver was trying too hard in this novel. In terms of writing, I think _Pigs in Heaven_ is better. _Traveling Mercies_, Anne Lamott. Wow! I love Lamott for her freshness, her gutsy humor, and her unflinching honesty. After I finished reading the copy I checked out from the library, I immediately went out and bought my own. Then I sat down and read it again, this time with pen in hand so that I could underline passages and carry on a dialogue with Lamott in the margins. Then I bought another copy to send to a friend who has been experiencing a crisis of her faith. She claims that this book saved her. _Bird by Bird_, Anne Lamott. _Rosie_, Anne Lamott After _Traveling Mercies_ I wanted to read everything Lamott had ever written. _Bird by Bird_ was fun. Probably one of the best books about writing on the market. _Rosie_, an early novel, was less satisfying. I think Lamott has found her niche in the personal essay/memoir genre. Otherwise, I have mainly been reading children's and YA fiction including some really great stuff by Joan Bauer (_Rules of the Road_, _Backwater_, _Squashed_, _Thwonk_), Richard Peck (__A Long Way From Chicago_), and Louis Sachar (_Holes_). Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:40:58 -0800 From: "lynn gardner" Subject: [AML] Regretfully Resigning We're up to our ears getting ready for our mission and I simply don't have time to read all these wonderful posts, (228 in my in box!) since my eighth book is now in process of final editing, then I have to condense it for book on tape before we leave. (Merry Christmas! I swore I'd never have another book to get ready for publication over the holidays!) So I'm signing off for the next 18 months till we get back from wherever we're going. I will come on one last time when we get our call to tell "y'all" where we get to serve. It's been marvelous having this window on the LDS world of literature and letters since my writer's group are all non-member. I will be back! Thank you all for sharing your insights ...Lynn Gardner - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:56:37 -0500 (EST) From: David Allred Subject: [AML] Review of WHITLEY, ed. _Worth Their Salt, Too_ Colleen Whitley, ed. _Worth Their Salt, Too: More Notable But Often Unnoted Women of Utah._ Logan: Utah State University Press, 2000. Soft cover, 322 pp. Reviewed by David Allred. A follow-up to Whitley's first book of Utah women biographies, Worth Their Salt, Too follows the same pattern in presenting the lives of a handful of women who have distinguished themselves in some manner. This volume include= s sixteen biographies that memorialize and recount the experiences of social activists and religious leaders, poets and royalty, scholars and lobbyists. The biographies are arranged in chronological order from Patricia Lyn Scott (born in 1808) to Emma Lou Thayne (born in 1924), and each has a different author (of which all but one are female). With the different authors comes variation in the length, depth, and tone of the biographies; some of the biographies seem more professional than others. Still, throughout the book, the lives of these women unfold to the reader=92s amazement. There are important stories that are seldom told about Utah women. I see merit in this book for several reasons. First, the basic concept of book gives it significance. The past, as it appears in history, tends to focus on the radical, the public, the leaders, and the controversies. Often the voice of the common people doesn=92t find its way into "history." While the histories that focus on the Smiths, the Youngs, the Snows, the McKays are valuable, there should also be a place for the everyday, run-of-the-mil= l people, the type of people memorialized by J. Rueben Clark. Whitley's book does well in focusing on the "notable but unnoted." If the book gives the democratic perspective, it also gives the marginal perspective. By this I mean, the book does well in presenting Utah history in complex form. Minority views (racial, religious, social, etc.) come out in the biographies of these women. While several of the women in the book are Mormon, many are not. Those that are more have various shades of "activity." For most readers, Worth Their Salt, Too will tell new stories o= f Utah history. For example, the biography of Sarah Ann Sutton Cooke tells the story of a legal battle between herself and Governor and President Brigham Young. Cook= e became "the first person to win a civil judgment against Brigham Young" (19). The biography of Verla Gean Miller FarmanFarmaian hints at the perceptions of Utah from the outside world (in the early twentieth century)= . FarmanFarmaian was surprised to see her Iranian boyfriend had a picture in his apartment of "an enormous bed filled with weeping women." The wreath by the women had the words "=92In memory of our beloved husband, Brigham Young= .=92" Questioned about the picture, her boyfriend explained that he bought the image in a Parisian flea market because it "reminded him of his own family" (229). Worth Their Salt, Too has application to Mormon literature studies in a couple of ways. First, the biographies of Emma Lou Thayne and Virginia Sorensen, while being short, give insight into the writers. Mary Lythgoe Bradford=92s biography of Virginia Sorenson helps track her life after she wrote her classic Mormon novels. The byline of Bradford also points out the future complete biography being written by herself and Susan Howe. The book also helps contextualize the Lost Generation of Mormon writers. For example= , the Ester Eggertson Peterson=92s biography complements Virginia Sorenson=92= s by showing how non-writers were also part of the same "generation" of Mormons. On the whole, the book is easy to read and very engaging. There is a diversity of experience in the book that gives it a wide appeal. The book does have limitations as well. Some of the biographies are too romanticized in telling the life story of their subjects. These overly dramatic accounts point to the fact that biography is a cross between history and creative writing or that there is a poetics which informs the rhetoric of presenting fact. Furthermore, in several places the biographies seem sketchy or incomplete. I=92m sure part of this is due to the lack of primary sources, especially about the women who have died. However, important issues come up in some of the biographies that are not addressed. Ada Duhigg hints at conflict betwee= n her Methodist worldview and the dominant Mormon perspective (166). Alberta Mae Hill Gooch Henry is heavily involved in the African-American community in Utah, but her biography doesn=92t detail social conflicts that arose ove= r the Mormon policy of blacks being ineligible for the priesthood. There are also personal details that are glossed over. We see that Verla Gean Miller FarmanFarmaian=92s marriage falls apart, but there are few indications of w= hy. Still, as I point these areas out, I wonder what business is it of mine. Reading biography is a sort of imposition on the lives of others, and, in the end, it may not be the reader=92s place to dictate what stories are tol= d. These are biographies, but they are not tell-all biographies. Bruce Jorgensen=92s criticism may apply here. These biographies are the stories o= f "strangers," and the stories have something to contribute to the conversation about Mormon and Utah culture. - --David Allred ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=3Dsignup - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:07:36 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ Linda Adams wrote: > One of my other daydreams is to succeed OSC, but well . . . > that's quite a long way off yet, if I can do it at all. :-) One can always try. If there is a God, you'll eventually have to change your dream to succeeding Orson Scott Card and D. Michael Martindale. - -- 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: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:05:24 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] LAAKE, _Secret Cermonies_ (was: What We're Reading Right Now) Kathleen Meredith said, "Laake, Deborah, Secret Ceremonies: Interesting choice=20 for =93LDS=94 lit. Sad story about someone trying to live the gospel without an understanding of its=20 principles. Terribly sad how her story ended this=20 last year." I am so curious. How DID her story end? ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:57:57 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism Christopher Bigelow wrote: > The spiritual dangers I see intellectuals facing are pride, stiff-neckedness, and relying on the arm of flesh (in other words, humanism stated in orthodox Mormon terms). But I see room for using god-given intellectual talents to openly explore Mormon experience, scholarship, issues, and art in a way that is at least not unfaithful, although the institutional Church and those who fully cleave unto it intellectually and culturally (not just spiritually and doctrinally) will rarely be satisfied with it. Here's how I look at it: We have the Standard Works. They are called "Standard Works" because they are meant to be our standard for eternal truths. Haven't General Authorities said that we should measure anything they say against the Standard Works? But aren't the prophets speaking new scripture when they speak as a prophet, and therefore adding to the Standard Works? I would say no, because I think there's a fine but critical difference between scripture--a prophet speaking by the Spirit--and Standard Works--that which has been accepted unanimously by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and presented before the General Conference of the Church for an approving vote to become part of the official canon. The Prophet has the authority to add to, modify, or supercede, any part of the Standard Works. But not every utterance, or even every inspired utterance, of the prophet constitutes such a change. When polygamy was abolished, when the Pearl of Great Price was included as part of the LDS canon, when the Word of Wisdom was made binding upon the membership of the church, when blacks were given the priesthood, when certain historical records of revelations were added to the Doctrine and Covenants as new sections--all these things went through the proper procedures to become a part of the Standard Works. When a General Authority speaks--even in General Conference--we ought to consider them as divinely inspired guidance for us at that time, but not additions to the Standard Works. If a General Authority says something seemingly contradictory to the Standard Works, it ought to be suspect and given the acid test of seeking verification through personal revelation. By the way, that doesn't mean saying, "I don't like what he said, so I'm going to assume he was speaking as a man, not a prophet." It means really seeking through the Spirit to find out from God--from the source--whether it was divinely inspired. If LDS theology is looked at in the proper perspective (as I described above), there is a whole lot of room for intellectual analysis. What's Gospel and what's folk doctrine? What's divinely required procedure and what's culturally developed tradition? What does this and that passage in the Standard Works mean, considering every word of it was written in different cultures and time periods from our own? How does placing a passage of scripture in its historical context alter its meaning from the face-value interpretation we give it filtered through our cultural eyes? The danger in intellectualism comes when we "reject the supernaturalism" that is the greatest blessing of our theology. LDS intellectuals, I believe, have earned a bad reputation in part because they seem to reject this supernatural heritage. They rely solely on the arm of flesh, in the form of their own intellect and reason. They believe they are liberating themselves to find real truth, but in reality they are blocking an entire source of truth that can keep them on the right track: the guidance of the Spirit. On the other hand, anti-intellectuals are committing the same sin from the other direction. They are blocking an entire source of truth themselves, just a different one: the God-given intellect we all possess. They think their approach is superior because it includes the Spirit, forgetting that the famous passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that tells us to study it out in our mind, then pray for confirmation, is telling us that _both_ sources of truth are critical to our spiritual progress. The most famous passage in the Book of Mormon says the same thing: we are not told merely to pray about the Book of Mormon and receive a witness from the Spirit; we are first instructed to read the thing and ponder what we read. The pattern is clear: use your intellect to achieve the best approximation of truth you are capable of, then receive confirmation from the Spirit to keep you on the right track. The first step is trivialized if we don't use intellectualism (reasoning, critical examination, questioning, etc.) to give it meaning. But intellectuals get their bad rep by excluding the second step. That would include denying the premise that the prophets really are prophets, which I think is the one mistake that gets them into the biggest PR trouble. If you deny the reality of living prophets, your "Mormonness" becomes meaningless. > I look to intellectuals to continue finding sensitive, careful ways to break the following cultural taboos... > The question for me is, is it possible to do so in a more inclusive, less polarizing way? Can Mormons learn to simultaneously juggle intellectualism/humanism and faith? I think I've already answered this by pointing out the process we are taught by scripture to follow in our search for truth. No juggling act is necessary--step one of the process _requires_ us to analyze intellectually. Just don't skip step two. Mormons don't trust intellectuals because they do seem to skip step two. Intellectuals either need to stop skipping it, or explain more clearly in what way they are including it. If they disbelieve the reality of step two, they ought to stop calling themselves Mormon anything, let alone Mormon intellectuals. - -- 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: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:18:19 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Cracroft on BROWN and MITCHELL [compilation post] Richard Cracroft gives Marilyn Brown's new book a GLOWING review in the most recent _Brigham Young Magazine_! Cracroft calls _The Wine-Dark Sea of Grass_ Brown's "best and boldest work to date" and writes that "in many respects Marilyn Brown's fine novel matches and even excels Maurine Whipple's classic, _The Giant Joshua_." He concludes by predicting that _The Wine-Dark Sea of Grass_ "may come to be numbered among those few works of Mormon fiction we call 'classic'." Congratulations Marilyn!!! Alan Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ also got a rave review from Richard Cracroft. Cracroft calls the book "an unusual, often startling but wonderfully refreshing Mormon missionary novel." Cracroft goes on to write: "In Alan Mitchell we may have discovered our Mormon Saul Bellow." Wow! High praise indeed. Congratulations Alan. Another book to add to my Christmas list. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:22:51 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Mormon Missionaries in _Salon_ Hi all, My favorite e-zine, Salon, has a very nice story about Mormon missionaries = in Prague. The writer spent some time with a dozen or so elders and = sisters, and the article is even-handed and, I think, generally positive. = I recommend it to all. www.salon.com Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:47:23 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Robert Hughes and Stupid People Nailed me: Thom Duncan on stupid people: >>What s the definition of a stupid person? >With regard to the arts, I would hazard the following definitions: >People who think that Jerry Stringer is good TV, In a trailer park, quasi-voyeuristic, hate-yourself-for-liking-it sort of = way, Jerry Springer is, IMHO, gangbusters TV. >who believe that the stories in National Enquirer are real, Let's see, the National Enquirer who broke the Lewinsky story? =20 >who believe that the pretty ladies in Playboy are actually looking >at = them, They're actresses; they're projecting. I could make an audience-response = argument that, in a very real sense, they ARE looking at you. >who believe that politicians care more about the people than >their own = re-electtions I was in the news business long enough to know that any politician worth = his/her salt is a genuine people person, and really does care about = his/her constituents. Great car salesmen succeed because they do = genuinely care about their customers. >who think that Edgar Guest writes good poetry, Edgar Guest writes wonderful poetry, for people who like didactic rhyming = verse. I'm not Guest's audience, but for his audience, he's the best. My = mother-in-law adores his poetry. I'm flattered that you would refer to = the mother of the woman I married as 'stupid.' >who don't know what the initials PBS stand for Pretty Boring Stuff, isn't it? >people who talk to Jay Leno on his Jay Walk episodes People who probably answered thirty questions correctly, and one incorrectl= y, but which is the one Jay airs? >people who think that there is a conspiracy in Hollywood to >undermine = American morals Whereas the truth is, there's a conspiracy to make as much money as = possible, and the best way to do that is to pander to the worst human = instincts. >people who DON'T think there is a conspiracy in Hollywood to >undermine = American morals Nice rhetorical trick here. >who believe Bill Gates when he says all he really wants is to >make the = world safe for computing Well, all right. Those people are probably kinda dumb. Thom, I love you like a brother. But please, let's not do this. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:54:16 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Mormon Spec. Fiction & Mysteries Responding to B.J. Rowley: <<<>> I picked up the term from others, but my understanding is that it's = basically science ficiton and fantasy with Mormon elements (I'm sure = others could define it much better). I guess that makes Anne Perry's = _Tathea_ spec. fiction as well as most things by Orson Scott Card. I just = think that as Mormon publishing looks to expand its business, it's the = next natural genre to exploit---Mormons already read/write sci. fi. and = fantasy at higher-than-average rates, and it would be mirroring success in = other religious publishing communities. It would be interesting to hear = people's experiences with trying to get the orthodox Mormon houses to do = speculative. If they already have, it's slipped under my radar for the = most part. Another possible breakthrough genre for Mormon publishing is Mormon = mystery, which I've personally noticed more experimentation with by = DesBook and Covenant (sometimes mixed with action or romance). But does it = rub you wrong to see Deseret Book promo copy almost cavalierly talking = about murder, while the lesser sin of adultery remains so taboo? It's the = same kind of hypocrisy that allows us to view terrible violence and = killing but balk at the use of the f-word or some sex. =20 But I'm just speaking as an outside observer---let's hear from some LDS = publishing personnel and LDS-market authors, both in terms of experience = and hopes regarding these genres. Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:33:34 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism Here here. Todd is absolutely right. We're on the List because we share a love of = good literature. And we disagree on the List because we think different = sorts of literature are good. And some of us are professors and some of = us are fans and some of us are writers and some of us have Ph. D.'s and = some of us don't. What we have in common is a love for good writing, = specifically writing in a particular cultural context. We can, do and = should disagree. But we have no business judging each other. =20 Look, I'm an outspoken cuss, and I have very strong opinions, and I make a = fool of myself all the time. I may very well have offended some of you, = and if that's so, I regret it more than you can know, and I beg your = forgiveness. But I try, I really do try, not to judge anyone. And that's = what bothers me so much about so much Mormon discourse in the arts. We = are just real quick to judge our brothers and sisters. It's unworthy. =20 >These "stupid" people are often >the ones who think that a world power ought not to put any of its >own = money >into the arts, because the funding doesn't go to subsidize Alan >Jackson = concerts and NASCAR races. And Alan Jackson is one country singer with some real wit and energy. And = NASCAR is great entertainment for a whole lot of people. I'm not one of = them, but I have a brother who is. =20 And so on. And I know I'm a broken record on this. But it seems to me to be unworthy = and unrighteous to suggest that people who like stuff we don't like are, = on the one hand, gross immoralists reveling in the worst aspects of human = existence or, on the other hand, vapid sentimentalists afraid to embrace = the ugliest, but truest, aspects of human existence. Scott Card is an old = friend of mine, but I don't appreciate being told that American Beauty is = an evil movie and that I'm depraved for enjoying it. By the same token, I = don't get to sneer at folks who like Edgar Guest's poetry, or who enjoy = Rick Evans' novels. =20 And that's the problem with morally based criticism. If we declare a work = of art (which isn't sentient, after all, which hasn't agency, which is = just an artifact,a thing, that sits there on the nightstand with circular = hot chocolate mug stains on the dust cover) immoral, if we say 'that = novel/movie/poem/song/symphony/sculpture is immoral', then we must of = necessity declare those who created and/or admire it similarly immoral. = And I just don't think that's something we get to do in this life, except = perhaps in the most carefully qualified 'just-expressing-my-opinion-and-con= cern' sort of way. =20 Yesterday, my closest friend in the world, who is single, told me he was = in Priesthood, and the lesson had to do with marriage, and he's the gospel = doctrine teacher, and one of his brothers, a man who he's known for five = years said 'you know, some people can know the scriptures and know the = gospel backwards and forwards and still be too damn dumb to get married." = Bam, just like that. And so I do think that that brother did something = very wrong, and needs to repent for it. I think that its possible to = judge someone righteously for judging unrighteously. Todd Peterson again: >Also, are there >people who DO deserve ad hominem attacks? If so, please tell >me who = they are so that I can turn my guns on them. Ad >homenim is my second = favorite >fallacy after "straw man," though I am partial to slippery slope >and ad = populum.=20 Well, I reserve my ad hominem attacks for folks who judge the moral = character of their brothers and sisters based on which works of art speak = to them. I think people who judge are in a state of sin. As am I. As = are we all. But on a list like this one, that particular sin is particular= ly galling. Eric Samuelsen - - 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 #201 ******************************