From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #293 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 Wednesday, April 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 293 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:16:57 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:55:50 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >Labels tell us implicitly that good Mormons can't to good art (at least >not the art that President Kimball's vision talks about), while good >Mormons can.=20 > >Labeling is an ugly, ugly practice. Just because you or someone you know might use a label to imply that good art can't be done by inactive Mormons doesn't say anything about the usefulness or ugliness of labels. Labels *can* be used in ugly ways. = But they can also be used in ways that are informative and useful. I label myself Mormon. I label myself Religious. I label myself in a lot of = ways that are useful for people to know about me. Other people use labels to describe me, too. Usually, those labels are used to let someone who = doesn't know me know something more about me. In general, labels are just a compressed form of communication. Most = people I know are aware of the limitations of labels and don't expect too much = from them. Labels get destructive when they are used maliciously (by lying) = or when their limitations are ignored or not understood. Since the = Irreantum readership is generally knowledgable about the labels being used and the usefulness (and limitations) of labels and because the editors at = Irreantum make responsible use of labels, I appreciate the information they choose = to convey. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:37:41 -0600 From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Groups William, I belong to a critique group which has helped my manuscripts a great deal. Of course, the cavet with critique groups is that 1. they must tell you the truth 2. you must listen to what they tell you 3. you must decide if they are right and 4. they must have some basis as to why you should listen to them (writing, publishing, reading experience) just getting together with a bunch of inexperienced writers won't help you become a polished author, I'm afraid. Find a good group. Prove yourself worthy to belong with them as they must prove themselves worthy to belong with you. Come prepared to read and listen. If you don't find your writing getting better, move to another group. Even nationally published authors outseide of the world of LDS use critique groups. Gail Carson Levine (Ella Enchanted, Newbery Honor) says she will never leave her critique group because they help her so much. Jane Yolen (The Devil's Arithmetic) also swears by her group of writing friends and support system, as do many, many others. Be the kind of member your want the others in your critique group to be. By the way, my group in Spanish Fork, Utah, is looking for 1-2 more serious writers. Most of our authors have been published in magazines, newspapers, books, and other formats. If anyone out there is interested, and can commit two Wednesday evenings a month to critique, contact me via email and I'll get you in contact with our leader. Thanks and happy writing. Lu Ann Staheli - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:58:03 -0600 From: Boyd Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors on 4/2/2001 4:58 PM, Thom Duncan wrote: > We read the critique of the Church that > Nibley writes and we laud it, because he's inactive. > Labels tell us implicitly that good Mormons can't to good art (at least > not the art that President Kimball's vision talks about), while good > Mormons can. While I agree with what Thom is saying here, I am left wondering which Nibley he is referring to who is inactive. If it's Hugh the Nibley, I don't think he qualifies as inactive. I know he didn't go to church this last Sunday, but it was conference, after all. ;) Despite Thom's typo, however, I also think he may be oversimplifying the reason why people laud Hugh Nibley's social criticism and get upset about others'. The first reason they may not get upset about Hugh's is that they don't always understand it (for example, I've heard one ROTC type state that he couldn't understand how anyone could think of Hugh as anti-war!). Second, for those who do "get it" I think they know that Hugh has stated his committment so often and so forcefully that they don't see his criticism as a threat. Third, when Hugh does critique the church, he almost always uses the scriptures and sayings of prophets to make his point. It becomes quite evident that he is critiquing our culture not the gospel and is saying that we aren't living up to our own standards. These things all make a big difference in how he is received, imo. Nevertheless, I agree that we are often too eager to make judgements about people's faithfulness. I've had mine questioned simply because I have a beard. And I don't think activity is really relevant in looking at works of literature by people as diverse as Orson Scott Card or Terry Tempest Williams, Levi Peterson or Dean Hughes. Genre, style, themes, and other literary judgments are all relevant, but not Church activity. If the editors of Irreantum are taking any kind of poll here, I would vote for no statements about worthiness or activity. Unless, of course, they start doing interviews with or publishing essays by anti-Mormons. Boyd Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:32:49 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Writing for Money (was: Writing Groups) Nan McCulloch: If you are in this game for the lucre, you are in the wrong game. I don't know many writers who are THAT prosperous (as a result of their writing only). _______________ Realizing this is the exception to the rule, and not wishing to offend lawyers and brain surgeons, I still cannot resist this blurb from Orson Scott Card's www.hatrack.com in response to the question: "Why did you write the Ender Saga? Orson Scott Card September 20, 2000 There are as many true answers as you want: I wrote it for money, I wrote it because people seemed to want more books about Ender, I wrote each book because of story elements that appealed to me, I wrote each book for completely separate reasons, I wrote them because nobody would pay to see my paintings or watch me dance and I can't do brain surgery or practice law." Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:30:12 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I'm not sure church attendance is the > ultimate criteria of how worthy and faithful a person is. I think that > there are as many people sitting in church, who in their minds and practices > are as 'inactive' as many of those not attending. Does attending church > make someone believing and worthy? And some one who truly has left the > church, even with bitter feelings, may still have some valuable insight to > share-either pertaining to reasons they left or just because they are a > person living and breathing on God's green earth. Let's not pretend church attendance means nothing. Just because there are those at church who are doing it for appearances only doesn't mean that, generally speaking, there isn't a difference between those who choose to attend church and fulfill callings and those who don't. And that difference will show up in their writing. If you're worried about people judging (or shall we say pre-judging?) before reading word one, or that people won't recognize that someone who isn't active or believing can still have valuable insights (we can learn something from _everyone_), then I don't think the problem is with Irreantum's policy. The problem is with people who need to grow up and stop judging people based on superficial criteria. Instead of taking Irreantum to task, how about if we use their policy as an opportunity to rise above any habits of superficial judging we've acquired over the years? - -- 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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:06:50 -0500 From: Craig Huls Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors If a writer is writing Sunday School manuals or non-fiction, then their credentials may be of interest to me. Otherwise, it would seem to me their standing is between them and God. If the editorial board of Irreantum feels it is necessary to label, then that too is between them, God and their readership. I don't have to be troubled by it. As for me and my house, we will try not to label anyone nor judge anyone by labels assigned to them by another party. I have been labeled, I have risen above it. It was not much fun. Someone else wrote about the sometimes inappropriate comments regarding those who have gone through a disciplinary action. I believe the handbook for church leaders spells that out very well. If a Sunday School teacher were discussing such an action in my Ward, they would be sitting in the Bishops office having a serious personal interview. No one should be talking in public about any thing they know or heard about a disciplinary action. Actually the same can be said for PEC and Presidency meetings that may be discussing people in a personal way. Announcements are made in appropriate settings and that should suffice. Judging on moral issues is up to the individual, their Bishop or Stake President and God. Those in leadership have a responsibility to hold confidences and treat all with respect, whether members in good standing or not. My opinion of art, literature, music or drama is going to be based on my impression of the event not on what I do or don't know about the artist. I didn't like Van Gogh's art before I learned about his personal life. My opinion hasn't lowered the value of his art though! I also realize I may be in a minority with my feelings. But that's ok. I live in a society that allows me to evaluate art for myself. Craig Huls dcraigh@onramp.net - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:14:26 -0500 From: Craig Huls Subject: [AML] Re: Writing for Money (was: Writing Groups) > If you are in this game for the lucre, you are in the wrong game. I don't > know many writers who are THAT prosperous (as a result of their writing > only). > > Nan McCulloch Amen! Nan. But I can dream can't I? - -- Craig Huls Huls & Associates email:dcraigh@onramp.net webpage:http://rampages.onramp.net/~dcraigh - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors As a writer who is constantly striving to integrate my faith into my writing, I benefit immensely from my association with the other members of AML and from the discussions on the List. I love pondering and learning from the ways that other believing authors do or do not put their beliefs into their writing. I do not write to convert, but I feel strongly that I can and should make my writing moral and let the light of the gospel shine through it. I love to hear how others do this as well. For this reason it is absolutely relevant to me to know when an author whose work I've just read considers herself or himself a participating or non-participating Mormon. Because of the nature of Irreantum and the organization it serves, this kind of information about an author is pertinent in every way to their inclusion in Irreantum. We are not simply a literary group. We are a literary group interested in discussing our faith in relation to our work. It's what defines us. - -Darlene Young ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:46:25 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] _Anne Frank_ Performance Yeah, sure I'd box Scott Tarbet's ears--he gets enough boxing in the play! And he's SO GOOD! The perfect Mr. Van Daan! I'm serious! And Marie the perfect Petronella! Thanks, Scott, for responding, as I am sometimes out of commission some days. Thanks for asking, LuAnn, and may I say that if you miss this play, you will be sad someday! It is really outstanding. When Sharlee said that one of the special features of this production was the exact ages of the players, I wanted to cheer. And we were just lucky enough to find absolutely wonderful talent in these young people. I saw Erica Glenn again last night, and she was superb. Even carried a book on her head in a surprising moment! Come and cheer! Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:02:06 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors This is such a great post. I vote for the handle: Standing for Something! Marilyn Brown, Standing up (Unwinding) for Something Cheery, Jacob Proffitt, Standing up for Something, Sometimes Screaming, Michael Martindale, Standing up for Something, Mind, Body and Soul, Thom Duncan, Standing for Something, Mainly Freedom from any Past, Present or Future, Margaret Young, Standing for Compassionate Unidentification, Levi Peterson, Standing Up while Backsliding. Anyone else want to join in? Marilyn B. - ----- Original Message ----- From: D. Michael Martindale > I'm torn on which way I feel about it. On the one hand, I want to know > what standing an author has. For one thing, I'm nosy. But a more > relevant reason is, I strongly adhere to the unofficial definition of > LDS literature as someone who is LDS--mind, body, and soul. [snip] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:56:03 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Schedules You haven't seen me unwind in the morning. Marilyn - ----- Original Message ----- > Brown wrote: > > > And now that we are bent over old "fuddie duddies," it's working > > pretty well. > > I disagree with this characterization. You're not bent over. > > -- > D. Michael Martindale > dmichael@wwno.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:42:59 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Anne Frank_ Performance Having not seen this production of Anne Frank, but having acted in several = other productions of the play, both as Mr. Van Daan and (back when I was = skinny) as Mr. Frank, I have one tiny question: how do you deal with the = smoking? I smoked as Mr. Van Daan, and I think it's essential to the = play. (I got the props people to make me some good non-tobacco cigs that = looked and smelled real.) But nowadays lot of stage actors (not just LDS) = won't smoke on-stage, and power to them. How'd y'all deal with it? Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:47:30 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] CARD, _Saints_ (was: _Ender's Game_)) At 04:01 PM 4/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >Did they give any reasons for such an odd reaction? By "odd" I assume you mean a different reaction than you had? Usually when a man tells me I need to come to my senses, he means that I need to see things the same way he does. I particularly enjoyed the first part of the book--it showed excellent research into the Industrial Revolution in England. I could handle the bit about her having sex with Joseph--he was quite attractive, after all, and had a marvelous personality. But with Brigham? No, no. And I, too, am ambivalent about the whole polygamy thing, expecially since it turned into polygyny in practice. Scott is a wonderful storyteller, and this book kept me involved all the way through. I think I like his single-volume stories better than the multiple-book ones, because he forgets or abandons what he started out to do and the ending just peters out. Ender's death, for example, seemed to me anti-climactic and buried in the story. And what happened in the last two books of the Homecoming series disappointed me very much. But I could read the first two or three volumes over and over. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:29:01 -0600 From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] _Anne Frank_ Performance Marilyn Brown said: > Yeah, sure I'd box Scott Tarbet's ears--he gets enough boxing in the play! Ain't it just the truth! Besides the several times I get smacked in the normal course of this production, one night another character was trying hard not to fall down the stairs and pounded me good in the process of covering the stumble, and I've about had my eye put out twice, one by each Anne, as they tried to poke my pipe in my mouth. > I saw Erica Glenn again last night, and she was superb. Erica is mature beyond her 14 years in the way she has taken this character, wrapped it around her, and is creating a synthesis that surpasses both. I predict that as she gains the tools of the craft she will be a force to be reconned with outside our local arena. She already has the heart. In spades. - -- Scott Tarbet - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:39:52 GMT From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Writing for Money (was: Writing Groups) > > > > > > If you are in this game for the lucre, you are in the wrong game. I don't > > know many writers who are THAT prosperous (as a result of their writing > > only). > > > > Nan McCulloch 'Course if you're writing for OTHERS for money, you won't get rich, but you might survive. "What kind of writing do you do?" people ask me when I tell them I'm a writer. "Prostitutional writing," I joke. "I do it for other people, for money." That's the way I start out my entry on http://www.bizymoms.com/ideas/ghost.html, a page on a website for mothers with businesses--bizymoms.com. For some unknown blessed reason, when AOL members do a search for a ghostwriter, they find my link first or second. Before I started teaching college, I was doing a decent business editing and ghostwriting. I'm doing less now, but still do some. Cathy Wilson - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:39:34 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Publishers Weekly Article on SF&F Something to watch for: A feature in the April 16 issue of Publishers Weekly looks at the spiritual and religious aspects of science fiction and fantasy. Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:03:13 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Rejection Slips For those of you feeling down about rejection slips, pay a visit to this site: http://www.rejectionslips.com/index.html It contains a list of rejection slips received by famous writers (my favorite is one to Margaret Mitchell about her novel _Gone With the Wind_. "The public doesn't like Civil War stories. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - -------------------------- Shameless Plug - ------------------------------- Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:28:04 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors This discussion while different in some ways, still reminds me of the tussle of the early 90's over the requirement of a 'Mormon essence' for Mormon literature. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:17:40 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors I think Irreantum could do a service to the Mormon community by taking an idealistic high road in not discussing an author's activity in the church. Would we introduce a speaker at the conference in this way? I think we would find it insensitive and embarrassing to apply the label in person-so why would we want to do it in print? Let's face it, one of the worst tendencies in Mormon culture is that of judging others. Its twin sin is committing good acts for the purpose of impressing others-I call it competitive righteousness. I know people who attend the temple every week and make darn sure they mention it to everyone they know--frequently. Sometimes people go to the temple on ward temple night so that everyone else knows they are there. We carry our scriptures. We dress according to the rules. In my sister's stake the members wear a certain badge to church each Sunday if they have studied the scriptures for an hour every day. My sister said that she has studied the scriptures for years, but when this new rule came about she suddenly didn't have much desire to participate. If someone is seen in his yard without his temple garments on, how soon does that get reported to another neighbor? I know a man who left activity in the church because he got fed up with his neighbors who weren't dutiful enough in observing the Sabbath day. He felt that the ward was just too lax and found a fundamentalist group that was more letter-of-the-law. When I lapse into judging others (based on superficial or pretty evidence), I'm ashamed of myself. I've undoubtedly been guilty of it and I need to repent. I think it contradicts Jesus's teachings. Literature can illustrate just how insidious unrighteous judgment can become. So often the work that literature does is social critique. Because AML is grounded in a common Mormon heritage, it is clear that the issue of participation versus nonparticipation in church activity and belief is important. Many of us might agree that an author's philosophical position relative to church activity and belief is a part of the rhetorical package we may use in evaluating their arguments. The "outsider" or "insider" status does say a great deal. But if one of the social norms that literati often critique is the very notion of the insider versus the outsider, then the whole situation becomes more complicated. Suppose a writer wants to challenge the notion that inner goodness is represented by outer conformity to rules. However, Sue Shmoe, a reader says, "oh, this is written by so-and-so inactive Mormon, therefore I can't give much credibility to what he is saying." Sue Shmoe, who could possibly learn something about not judging by outward appearances, does not have the chance to learn from inactive Mormon because she won't even consider his ideas. I see a tendency in Mormon culture to dismiss ideas and voices-in advance-based on conformity. Gae Lyn Henderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:44:06 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] _Anne Frank_ Performance On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:42:59 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > nowadays lot of stage actors (not just LDS) won't smoke on-stage, > and power to them. How'd y'all deal with it? Saw a show once where there was a program note that said something like, "For the health, safety and comfort of the actors as well as the audience, the smoking of cigarettes in this production will be pantomimed." It took all of two seconds to buy into the convention. Let's face it, when we're in a theatre to see a play, our willingness to suspend disbelief can encompass quite a lot sometimes. scott - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:36:54 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors - --- Jacob Proffitt wrote: > A person's relationship to the church is > self-determined. Each one of us > controls our relationship with the church and other > members. I think this is an important point to consider when it comes to Mormon literature and audience. I believe that the choices that we make that determine our relationship to the church color our relationships with other members in a very specific way when it comes to Mormon literature. And this belief leaves me deeply divided over the question of 'labeling.' During my cranky moments, I see the desire to avoid labels (relative to church activity) as intellectually dishonest. Why should Mormon artists that have become disenchanted with the LDS church have access to that part of the Mormon audience who is believing (or orthodox, or however you want to define it) without stating their beliefs and/or sympathies? The default position, in my opinion (and I realize that there could be room for discussion her), is to assume that, unless otherwise stated, Mormon artists are believing artists. My anecdotal evidence suggests that this part of the audience thinks that an artist's standing in relation to the church is an important factor in their decision to consume or not consume that artist's work. Much better to let them make their choices with that knowledge than to get 'burned' because that info. is not available and as a result lose a member of the audience for any Mormon art whatsoever (we also lose potential readers due to poorly crafted or edited writing but that's a separate issue). Yes, potential audience members have a responsibility to be open-minded, but artists should be forthright if they want to access an audience. During my less cranky moments, I have no desire to sanction the litmus tests and discussions of credibility that affect other artist/audience groupings (like punk rock). I also long for a believing audience that is discriminating in taste but a little less fragile---more willing to consider other points of view and struggle with some of the issues that affect their 'disaffected' brothers and sisters. Yes, let the formalist mode prevail. Let us judge texts on their own merit. I'm still thinking about this one, but right now I think that the healthiest thing is for competing, overlapping, messy codes--reinscriptions and personal definitions. If the labels get too rigidly defined or if the issue of 'activity' gets swept under the rug, I'm afraid that there won't be as much cross-reading and discussion in the Mormon lit. community---if the two sides (and what I like right now about Mormon lit. is that I don't see two definite sides) aren't interested in each other, refuse to listen to each other, then things get a lot less interesting. That's why I read _Irreantum_. I want to be exposed to a spectrum. But I also want to be shielded both from blatant attacks on my beliefs and from didactic, correlated pablum. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:56:40 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors [MOD: I am doing some preemptive moderating here. I take Jacob's "you" later in this post (in talking about activity/inactivity) not to be a comment directed at Gae Lyn, but a rhetorical question directed toward artists within the community.] On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:17:40 -0600, Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > But if one of the social norms that literati often critique is the very >notion of the insider versus the outsider, then the whole situation = becomes >more complicated. I'm kind of tired of -ati's telling me what to think or teaching me = lessons. I'm particularly tired of -ati's deciding what is acceptable and what = isn't without consulting me. I'm tired of people obfuscating their personal opinions in order to preach to me. > Suppose a writer wants to challenge the notion that inner goodness is >represented by outer conformity to rules. However, Sue Shmoe, a reader >says, "oh, this is written by so-and-so inactive Mormon, therefore I = can't >give much credibility to what he is saying." Sue Shmoe, who could = possibly >learn something about not judging by outward appearances, does not have = the >chance to learn from inactive Mormon because she won't even consider his >ideas. I see a tendency in Mormon culture to dismiss ideas and = voices-in >advance-based on conformity. If a member decides to ignore valid lessons because the lesson is given = by a non-Mormon then they will reap the rewards of their self-imposed = ignorance-- they have essentially limited their own eternal progress. It would be a = far better lesson to identify an inactive member and to point out the beauty = of their art and teach that while all things good come from God, not all = things good come from Mormons. I'm tired of the hiding. Why should we hide who= we are, active *or* inactive? Are you ashamed of your activity/inactivity? = If so, why don't you change it? And if you don't or can't change it, what interesting stories you might write that can strike chords with others experiencing similar issues? If people are pre-judging others, then the liability lies with them, not with those who gave them the information they used to pre-judge. And frankly, when it comes right down to it, an author's (in)activity will eventually find its way to the ears of the audience. Do you want that information accurate, or would you rather give full reign to rumor and speculation? Jacob Proffitt - - 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 #293 ******************************