From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #334 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, May 23 2001 Volume 01 : Number 334 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:30:02 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Dutcher Joseph Smith Project > Since Dutcher has cast himself and Matthew Brown in both of his movies > so far, can we expect Matthew Brown as Joseph Smith and Dutcher as > Hyrum? This would fit well since Dutcher's character dies in _God's > Army,_ Brown's character dies in _Brigham City,_ and now both can die > in the Joseph Smith movie. > > -- > Terry Jeffress We are starting to catch on to Dutcher's tricks: the foreshadowing is that both will be baptized. Gae Lyn Henderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:30:45 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Hi Welcome Anna! > I don't think I'll ever say what the novel is though. What if it did by > some miracle get published? I might have to bear the negative > statements by > the critics on this list, for it's no great literary feat, just a story > that possessed me until I told it. > Just don't read any posts by Jeff Needle or D. Michael and you'll be okay! Seriously, the critic states an opinion so that other people can have something to dialogue with her about. The critic doesn't have the last word. As Weyland's fans have shown, the $$$$$ has the last word. Gae Lyn Henderson > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:06:42 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) D. Michael > Martindale > I'm amazed that so many people seem to be defending mediocrity. No, the > kids don't care, but their parents should. Their parents should care > that they get exposed to quality writing so the kids can grow up knowing > what the heck it is. Do you honestly want your kids to think someone who > doesn't know about POV or how to handle backstory is a good writer? I > don't. One of my sons read every Orson Scott Card book and pretty much ever other science fiction book he could get his hands on. He is an enriched soul as far as I can see. Several of my other sons don't even read (much). If they picked up Weyland I would probably be thrilled just that they were using their decoding skills. But then I can't play basketball so what can I say? (However, I admit I would hand them _Ender's Game_ a thousand times over a Weyland novel.) > > Why can't Jack Weyland tell the stories these kids like, but using basic > literary expertise? Why is that request causing such a backlash among > you supposed lovers of good literature? I don't get it! Clue me in. Everybody loves to hate a critic. And besides it is not "nice" to criticize in Mormon culture in general. Eloise Bell points that out in her essay. And she lets us know that because we are so busy being nice, we may risk becoming less than human. I agree with your critique of Weyland. Criticism is the only way to keep everything from becoming a mish-mash of mediocrity. If every novel were judged equally fine, then I'm afraid, truly afraid, that we wouldn't nurture a culture that could create the exquisite nuances of thought and perception that someone like, say, John Bennion puts into _Falling Toward Heaven_. (I've got to work on my own review of that novel . But first I have to see if you survive the critic's backlash!). > -- Gae Lyn - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:02:24 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _Wine-Dark Sea of Grass_ (Review) Morgan Adair wrote: > Brown has made an effort to make her story historically accurate, but sometimes accepts rumors that put the immigrants in a negative light. Take, for example, the rumor that the "Missouri Wildcats" poisoned a spring, resulting in the death of livestock. Proctor Robinson died after skinning one of the dead cattle, the poison supposedly being transmitted when he rubbed his eye. This rumor circulated after the massacre as an example of the outrages committed by immigrants traveling through Utah that incited the Mormon anger that was misdirected against the Fanchers. The authoritative source on the massacre, Juanita Brooks's _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_, notes that a much more likely explanation is that Robinson died of a bacterial infection from skinning a decaying carcass, and that the cattle died of natural causes. Nevertheless, Brown treats Robinson's death as if caused by the Missourians. Having read the book, I have to disagree with this characterization. Brown does not treat the death as if caused by the Missourians, nor does she accept the rumors that the Missourians poisoned a spring. Her _characters_ accept those things, which is historically true. Brown is clear in her notes that the accusations are rumors, were not proven, and gives an alternate possible explanation of the poisonings. > In depicting the Massacre, Brown could take a lesson from Spielberg's _Saving Private Ryan_. The opening scene, perhaps the most effective depiction of the horror of war ever made, succeeds by giving many details in rapid succession. In comparison, Brown has given us a wide-angle view. This is an artistic choice. It might have been interesting (and horrifying) to take the approach you suggest. But it doesn't fall under the classification of "ought to." Brown simply wasn't telling a "Saving Private Ryan" sort of tale, just like many World War II movies did not tell such a tale. Someone else will have to write the "Saving Private Ryan" version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I thought Brown's description was sufficiently horrifying as it was to communicate that a horrific thing was happening. > In telling the Mountain Meadows story from the Mormon point of view, Marilyn Brown has told us that this horrible thing happened, that good people did it, and somehow they continued to be good people. I'm confident that the answer to how this could happen could be found by unraveling the complexities of human nature, but I haven't found that answer yet. I felt like Brown gave us some good insight into how it happened, showing us how things escalated and why good people did a horrible thing in a horrible situation that went wrong where they had to make split-second decisions on what to do about it. You may want to argue that her answer is inaccurate. But I don't think you can argue that it was absent. - -- 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: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:49:51 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons as Flawed "R.W. Rasband" wrote: >=20 > There's a really interesting article this week in the > Salt Lake "City Weekly" (the alternative/free paper). > It's titled "Clean Cuts", by Scott Renshaw. The > subject is ostensibly "censorship in Utah" > http://www.slweekly.com Very good article. If you skipped it the first time, read it now. I find it interesting that, even though the newspaper is considered liberal, and some of you know that I am far from that, I agreed with the attitude of the article more than with squeaky-clean-murder-mystery author Ken Merrill or nasty-bits-video-editor Ray Lines. Richard Dutcher, on the other hand, was his usual rocking self. Let me entice you with a few tidbits from the article that I think will be food for thought for some of our discussions: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "I think choosing our entertainment or art based on the rating of the MPAA is ridiculous," Dutcher says. "Purely from a Mormon standpoint, I don=92t think what President Benson meant to do [with his 1986 admonition= ] was to have everyone surrender their agency to the MPAA. "Since [1986]," he adds, "the only thing that=92s been said officially by the church leadership is to avoid inappropriate films. And that lays a greater burden on the viewer." "I don=92t think you can illustrate morality without illustrating immorality," Dutcher contends. "It=92s an artistic impossibility. It=92s very possible for a well-meaning story-teller to sacrifice his integrity and tell lies in order not to offend." He also reacts bluntly to the quoted statements from the students at the anti-pornography rally. "It seems to indicate we=92re raising a generatio= n of idiots," he says. "It=92s ridiculous to claim that R-rated movies are pornography. It seems to be something that=92s just happened over the pas= t decade or so, this idea that all movies or television should be for everyone." "I hear this debate a lot, over whether to include violence at all, to include sexuality at all," Dutcher says. "I find that a strange argument to come from religious people. The perfect storyteller--God--told his stories with violence and human sexuality, and all those stories are told for a reason. "I think remaining innocent is so valuable, but I think it=92s inherently impossible to do so," he adds. "You=92re going to fail." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D All I can add to what he says is, "Amen, brother, amen!" There is also provocative information on what the Joseph Smith film may be rated, and some eyebrow-raising quotes from "Legacy" and "Testaments" filmmaker Keith Merrill, but you'll have to read the article for those. - --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths=20 Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:14:08 -0600 From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] John BENNION, _Falling Toward Heaven_ (Review) > But my >personal literary value system places verisimilitude over symbolism. If >I can't embed my symbolism in a way that feels real and honest, then I >don't think it should be in there. Otherwise I'll be calling the book a >literary golem in a review. I think that symbolism becomes evident to the writer as he or she develops the fictional piece. I don't think it works as well to invent symbolism and stick it in there as it does to write the story, then look at it to see what there is within it that functions symbolically. Your beliefs and values inevitably surface if your're writing honestly. Then you may need to do some reworking to emphasize the symbolic connections without hitting the reader over the head with them. barbara hume Barbara R. Hume Editorial Empress TechVoice, Inc. barbara@techvoice.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:42:42 -0700 From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons as Flawed Steve P. asked: >I am not disagreeing, just want to understand. How would you define what >you--with pleasing alliteration, no less!--refer to as "perfectly plastic >personages." Steve, Thanks for the question. I operate as a 12-step sponsor to Mormon men struggling with pornography addiction, and I also run several forums for Mormons who are either sex addicts or spouses of sex addicts. I also run a support group for LDS Family Services for men struggling with same-sex attraction. One thing I have heard often is how people in these various situations feel that they do not fit in at church, because everyone else seems to be so perfect, or to have a perfect life compared to theirs. This is true whether it is an addict, the wife of an addict, or a variety of other people in difficult circumstances. It is not uncommon for people to compare their insides to other peoples' outsides, and we often only show our outsides at church. Statistically, there are probably three percent of people in your ward who deal with some form of same-sex attraction. Perhaps they're not active, but they probably are. An even larger percent will have problems with pornography. Some of the men will beat their wives, meaning some of the wives will be victims of abuse. Many will have been abused or molested as children. Most will have problems with something, and a few will have come from ideal, wonderful families. You wouldn't be able to tell which were which by just looking at them. We all shine ourselves up very well so that we'll glow when we arrive at the chapel. I'm not saying this is all bad. I do believe the Lord deserves our best clothes and best efforts at grooming to partake of the most sacred ordinance of the sacrament. However, at the moment we partake, he also deserves the only sacrifice he finds acceptable--a broken heart and a contrite spirit. It took me a long time to get used to seeing the flawed side of Mormons, often highly respectable Mormons. When I started being a 12-step sponsor to a bishop, it was a bit of a shock to my system, because I had always been led to believe by my mother that a bishop was someone who, if he had ever had any problems, had put them well behind him. It was also difficult to have such powerful experiences with individuals and pretend to not know them if I saw them at church. One young man that a stake president asked me to mentor recently acknowledged me in a stake meeting, and I was afraid for him. People could know what knowing me usually means. I'm debating whether to go to his overdue missionary farewell. Outward appearance is very important to Mormons, from all I've seen. I remember one woman, when I was a boy, who did color analysis for women in the world. She looked at the color of their eyes and then told them what colors to wear. I remember my mother going to a seminar she gave at the home of a member in my ward. When my mother came home from that, she took us out shopping for new clothes based on her new insight into our "autumn" color orientation. I do think there is a fair amount of pressure to compete for appearances at church. In another ward, an annual Relief Society event was a home showcase, where the women in the ward with some of the best homes, gave tours for a Relief Society homemaking night. The homes were perfect, with nothing shoddy anywhere to be seen. There were no pieces missing from their china sets or silverware. I was scheduled to split with the missionaries one night. I arrived as did the other man assigned, but the missionaries were not home. We stood outside in the parking lot talking. His home was one of those shown every year. He was getting a divorce. Economic downturns had cost him his job, and the pressure of not being able to supply the "necessities" for furnishing his home had made a villain out of him in his wife's eyes. Of course, that's only his side of the story, but that's the essence of the problem. We're all potentially partially plastic. We all tend to show that side of ourselves we think people will respect more. I'm not saying that members of the church are perfectly plastic personages. I'm not even saying they're trying hard to be plastic. However, people struggling with personal issues that would cause them shame have a hard time not comparing that shame to what seems to be confident and trouble-free lives. Inside, I would hope we all have broken hearts and contrite spirits. I would also hope that whatever confidence we show on the outside comes from the virtue with which we garnish our thoughts and not from an attempt to hide our desperate need for the help of our brothers and sisters. When people here have said that they think it is equally valuable to look at people as role models who have not made bad choices, I can't help but wonder if they are looking at living fiction. I am perhaps too jaded by my experiences, but no matter how righteous a person seems, the part of him that I respect is that part that is humble, striving to improve, and setting the example of what it means to repent. The one session of conference I attended in the tabernacle was when President Kimball ended conference by saying how grateful he was to have so many talks given that showed him things he needed to improve upon. That is the kind of humility that I want to emulate, the recognition that I'm flawed now, and will always be flawed on my own merits, until the day I enter into my rest. I always want to associate with my fellow flawed friends. I just do not relate to people who are looking as if they are one success away from translation. Many believe that such people are the ones hiding the largest issues--the larger the issue, the bigger the mask. I've seen it played out too many times to discount it as a possibility. As a father, I'm finding this to be my biggest challenge, because my daughters are now of marrying age. I will be operating on the idea that if a guy looks too good to be true, he probably is. I'd be much happier seeing them marry a man with a known problem, although not too big a problem, thank you. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:51:19 GMT From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons as Flawed Scott Bronson writes in part: And I go pretty deep into the minds of my POVs. Deep enough that we find out that even the most devout people can harbor despicable thoughts and behaviors without realizing it. That would be my answer to the reader who might think there's nothing interesting about plastic too-good Mormons. 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: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:02:01 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted I don't understand why people are upset about someone asking for a female writer. Who would know better about sister missionary experiences, than a sister missionary? There are some things in this world, where sex does make a difference. Would you ask someone who has never given birth, to describe what it's like? They could try, but who would you believe more, the person who has or the person who hasn't? Within the our church there are gender based roles. So many things only men are allowed to do. Although this request does not come from the church, I see nothing wrong with a request based on gender about a subject that must come from that genders perspective. Anna Wight - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronn Blankenship" To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted > At 01:22 PM 5/21/01 -0400, you wrote: > >FEMALE WRITER WANTED. > > > >We (Zion Films / Excel Entertainment) are looking for a female, returned > >missionary writer to do a spin off novelization of "God's Army". Please me > >call ASAP 344-8764. > > > >Thanks! > >Emily Pearson > >Managing Director > >Zion Films > > > Is this legal? I'd be interested in learning how gender is a "necessary > condition of employment" for a writer . . . > > (Just curious. I guess I'm in a contrarian mood this evening . . . ) > > > -- Ronn! :) > > > > > > > - > 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 May 2001 11:09:41 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons as Flawed > Rachel > >Nunes writes mostly to Mormon women, but only Mormon certain Mormon > >women (Mormon feminists, for instance, are probably not going to like > >her books). > > Interesting. I recently twitted Rachel by telling her, "I looked at the > end of this novel of yours to see how it came out, and I find that the > heroine winds up a pregnant Mormon housewife. You call that a happy ending?" > > As a Mormon feminist, I found both of these authors worth reading. (I just > skim over the parts about how wonderful it is to stay home all day with a > houseful of kids.) As a homemaker with seven children, I can't say that I completely embrace my life at this point. I look forward to the season of my life when I can be out there in the world, not changing diapers and not cleaning up endless messes. However, I do know that many women love it. They love almost every moment of staying home. They find satisfaction in cleaning, enjoy cooking and gardening, and can't imagine anything better than nursing a baby. For some women, it's just a dream. Either they aren't married and desire to be so, or they desperately want children, or they have the husband and children and find themselves in dead end jobs trying to make ends meet. Many women want to leave their successful careers to come home and take care of their children. The point is, that there are all kinds of women out there. Being a pregnant woman can indeed be a very happy ending. As Barbara pointed out, that's what the protagonist needed. I find that both women in and out of the church want to take sides on the issue of staying home or working outside of the home. It seems to me, we need all kinds of women and should be helping each other. I like to read books of women in different circumstances. There's room for all of it. Anna Wight - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:57:47 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] Rich People (was: Standoffish Youth) On Tue, 22 May 2001 11:58:50 -0700, Frank Maxwell wrote: >Responding to me, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >> I'd be a little careful about calling our youth cliquish. I'm not >> doubting that it can happen, but from my experience, a High Schooler's >> "standoffish" tends to equate with "doesn't go to our parties" and = "isn't >> participating in our activities". In my High School, the LDS members >> weren't considered standoffish. I was. The other LDS members went >> to the parties and participated in the "activities". They were = friends >> with each other as well as friends with others. But they weren't=20 >> friends with me. Because I was "standoffish". Which is to say, I=20 >> wouldn't drink alcohol. And I wouldn't fool around. And I wouldn't=20 >> sneak out after curfew (well, except for prom night which turned out=20 >> alright but probably shouldn't have). > >I'm not sure that I'm understanding your story, Jacob. Are you saying = that >the LDS members in your high school who were *not* standoffish were = instead >participating with nonmembers in drinking alcohol and fooling around? > >In which state did you attend high school? Was it a rural, suburban or >urban area? I went to High School in an affluent suburb of Phoenix Arizona (Paradise Valley). You are correct in your interpretation of my comments. The LDS members in my ward (there was only one ward in the High School) were very friendly with non-members and joined in the partying, fooling around, and drinking of the non-members. They ostracized me, to a smaller extent my sister, and the only other person who held to his standards. I got = through by hanging with the metal-heads and theatre geeks because while they = would drink and party, they didn't expect me to if I didn't want to. Which is kind of ironic, really. >However, the reason I believed my classmate's description of LDS kids in >her high school as cliquish was because I myself had observed, and >experienced, that same phenomenon among LDS young adults in that area. = I'm >not talking about LDS YA's being standoffish toward non-members. I'm >talking about LDS YA's being cliquish and standoffish toward other LDS = who >were not from that area. I'd noticed it in 2 different wards in that >stake. I'd even talked about it in sacrament meeting in the area = singles >ward a few years before. (I'd asked the congregation to imagine an >experiment, in which for 4 weeks in a row, one would stand near the = pulpit >after sacrament meeting ended, and just watch the people in the chapel = as >they adjourned to their classes. Would one see the same groups or >"clusters" of people every week, sitting together and walking together? = =20 >[I used the word "cluster" because I thought the word "clique" was too >strong.] Would the composition of those "clusters" fluctuate, or would >they always consist of the same people? And every week would one see = the >same individuals here and there, sitting by themselves, who never seemed= to >be part of any cluster?) So I presumed that what my classmate had = observed >was real. Ah. I've heard of such things, but never seen it, myself. The rich LDS kids I've known have either been friendly and kept their standards or friendly and didn't keep their standards. They can be blind to the limitations of others (not understanding why you wouldn't be able to join them on their group date to an expensive restaurant), but they aren't = mean about it and accept it when explained. >So what should one do while talking to a nonmember, if she starts = telling >you about a disappointing or negative experience she's had with a = Mormon?=20 >My preference is to listen, and try to empathize and understand her = story, >her point of view, her emotions. If indeed she had an unnecessarily >negative experience with a Mormon -- however minor that experience was = - -- >then my act of listening, as a Mormon, to her feelings becomes a gift = that >I can give her. It's a small step toward putting things right. It's a >step toward healing, and reconciliation. (I'm not saying that I'd join = her >in criticizing or backbiting members of the Church. But it is possible = to >express sympathy and empathy without saying a judging word about = anyone.) That's interesting because I've been in that situation, myself. Most recently with my most recent ex-boss. He has a *very* bad attitude about Mormons and has had some bad experiences. My goal with him was to offer sympathy for his experiences and to provide an alternate view of Mormons. He's gone on to attacking Mormons and the Church, so we've parted ways since, still amicably I think, but I'm not a fan of his recent actions (including starting a popular anti-LDS parody web site--kind of The = Nauvoo Expositor lite). >Keeping oneself unspotted from the sins of the world (or the high = school) >is an important principle. So is loving one's neighbor. The trick is >being able to follow both principles at the same time. To be friendly >without being haughty. To be as well-known for our interpersonal >compassion, as for our non-smoking, non-drinking, and non-carousing. Yes to all that. For teens it can be a particularly tough line because = teen society is pretty hung up on the "if you like me, you do what I do" meme. It's a tough world to be a teen, but then, I think it always has been. Transitions are tough, and there is no tougher transition than from child= to adult. >Notwithstanding all of the above, I suspect that the tendency toward >"cliquishness" or "exclusivity" is a function of socio-economic status.=20 >That was my observation after working with LDS YA's in a middle-to-lower >class area, and then moving to the upper-to-upper-middle class area I've >described. The LDS young adults in the first area were friendlier, and >more accepting of and interested in newcomers, than those in the second, >more affluent, area. I was very struck by this. I'm not sure why this >was, though I have some theories. (To their credit, though, when I = talked >about this to individuals in the second area, they did not get = defensive, >but wanted to do the right thing.) Rich people are interesting. They *are* different in some odd ways. = I've been fortunate enough to be around quite a broad spectrum of = socio-economic strata in my life and I find the differences fascinating. I think that = rich people tend to be unduly preoccupied with other rich people, but I think that the reason for it is more innocent than people want to make it. The tendency is to think the worst of their preoccupation. They must be vain= or status conscious or suffer some form of unhealthy competition (i.e. = pride). And certainly elements of those not so nice traits exist, but I don't = think they exist in any greater degree than in others of less extensive means. I think that there just isn't much in our society that can help rich folk know how they are supposed to behave. Which means that they have to take queues from each other. I mean, our media gives good examples to follow from poor and middle-class people, but our representation of rich people tends to emphasize the bad. Mel Gibson has to run the rich guy to ground after punching/blasting his way through all the minions etc (which makes sense for an action movie. I mean, a middle class villain just isn't = going to provide much of a challenge for Mel). And while our news = organizations are almost obsessed with rich people (just how much do I need to know = about the Kennedys, really?) they also tend to emphasize the eccentric. You = never hear about people like my uncle who doesn't do anything Earth shattering except run businesses well. So where do you turn for good examples of living your life if you're rich? You look to people like John Huntsman = or neighbors who are leading good, quiet, affluent lives. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:54:58 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:21:54AM -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I'm amazed that so many people seem to be defending mediocrity. No, > the kids don't care, but their parents should. Their parents should > care that they get exposed to quality writing so the kids can grow > up knowing what the heck it is. Do you honestly want your kids to > think someone who doesn't know about POV or how to handle backstory > is a good writer? I don't. >From my experience as a talk radio host, I can tell you that people will always react to criticism of a successful work as if you were attacking the American way: "Jack has the right to write anything in his fiction works. His books make a lot of money. Quit criticizing freedom of speech and capitalism. Don't try to fix what ain't broke." I believe that Jack writes the best book he knows how to write and probably couldn't write a better book if he tried. In fact, I would bet that any attempt to write a better book would turn out a worse book. In my experience, every writer has a natural style and tone. Conscious attempts to create style and tone usually fall flat. In several cases at Covenant, I tried to get authors to fix problems in their works by writing suggestions on the manuscripts and asking for a rewrite. Usually I got back the exact same manuscript with my own words incorporated in the text. Many authors could not see the problem I pointed out and tried to comply with a request they did not understand. I agree that parents should care about the quality of literature their children read, but that assumes that the parents have the skill to recognize quality literature for themselves. Most people don't have the skill to recognize classic literature from dreck. In fact, most people don't even realize that they would need to cultivate such a skill. Since most people cannot recognize or comment on style, all they can only produce commentary on a work's content. When you hear about parents who want to ban a book from the school library, you never hear, "I find that the abrupt sentence structure of _Catcher in the Rye_ demonstrates an immature approach to literature that sets a bad precedent for training our children to appreciate good literature." No instead you hear, "That book has bad words that our kids shouldn't have to read." > I let my daughter read Goosebumps, but I make no bones about what > quality of writing I think it is. In the meantime, I keep exposing > her to more challenging things, so she doesn't remain at the level > of Goosebumps for her whole life. Of course, I want my children to have the same appreciation for literature that I have, but I also have to recognize that not everyone appreciates literature. I have one son that would rather turn on the car races or football than read a book. He has a hard time reading, but decided that he likes Michael Crichton and has read just about every Crichton title. In this case, I took joy that he read something - -- no matter what quality. > Why can't Jack Weyland tell the stories these kids like, but using > basic literary expertise? Why is that request causing such a > backlash among you supposed lovers of good literature? I don't get > it! Clue me in. As I said, Jack probably uses every bit of literary expertise he has and probably doesn't recognize a need for anything beyond what he already has. He writes the works that feel right for him, and he gets positive feedback (good sales, fan letters, etc.). Personally, I can't stomach a Jack Weyland book, but I have also found that I can't stomach many of the books that I read as a young reader. As an adult, I have gone back and read some of the great works that I remembered from by first years of reading, and I now wonder what quality I ever saw in such monstrous prose. I think kids want something fundamentally different from fiction than adults, and I think that most of us trained to appreciate literature (whether self- or university taught) look for something different from literature than the rest of the adult populace. My nine-year-old son doesn't come to tell me about the marvelous alliteration and chiasmic structure of _Captain Underpants_. No, he wants to tell me about the scene where the bad guy ends up covered in snot. My wife cannot stand Shakespeare and would rather watch _Air Force One_ or _Stargate_. In my youth, I read a lot of speculative fiction. Some authors have lost their appeal for me (Alan Dean Foster, Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks), and others gain higher esteem when I realize the multiple levels available in the text that provide for adult and juvenile reading (C. S. Lewis, Ursula K. Le Guin, J. R. R. Tolkien). (Does having initials in your pen name have any relationship to literary quality?) We should not defend mediocrity. I think we should call for the highest standard of literature, but we must also recognize that not everyone can produce such literature and not everyone wants to read the same thing. Heck, I like to luncheon at the literary buffet. Some days I want Anne Rice, and others I want Umberto Eco. (There, good authors without initials.) - -- Terry Jeffress | Wherever they burn books they will also, | in the end, burn human beings. AML Webmaster and | -- Heinrich Heine AML-List Review Archivist | - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:03:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Child-Appropriate Art (was: Mormons as Flawed) It's been a long time since I've last stood and borne an AML-List posting. This thread has recently intrigued me with the references to Kieth Merrill's attempts to make the crucifixion scene appropriate for all ages and to the reference to a Utah produced movie about a serial killer that's rated "G" (did I read that right?). I sat through Primary last Sunday (as a substitute teacher--they've been tempted to send me back there for some remedial lessons, however). The Primary President told the kids a story about a family that didn't follow the Prophet and proceeded to use a flannel board to tell the story about Haun's Mill Massacre. I'm not making this up. She said the people there were killed because they didn't follow Joseph Smith's advice and gather with the other saints. I was especially glad when she didn't have any cut-outs of mobster figures waiving guns on horseback or any corpses visibly buried in the well. If my own children hadn't been in the room with me (I wanted to put my hands over their ears) I might have thought I was watching a very black comedy satirical treatment of Primary lessons on Saturday Night Live. After opening exercises someone leaned over to me and said: "I think next week she's covering the Adam-God Theory." Two questions: 1. Aren't some topics/depictions just too graphic and complicated for children who are younger than, say, 8 years old? Sure you should teach kids that Jesus died for them, that concept is essential, but the details require extraordinary techniques to make it work for adults and children. Now, on the other hand, I guess a movie about serial killers would be appropriate for a "G" rating, so long as no major dismemberments are depicted. You know, just have non-bloody dead bodies gently fall out of closets, like on "Murder She Wrote." Maybe you could even make it as an animated feature film, but only if the killer had certain endearing qualities, clever songs, funny mannerisms, and a cute sidekick animal for comic relief. Say ... maybe a Disney version of Jack the Ripper, with a full musical score, etc. I'm sure Jack had some good qualities and that he was probably just misunderstood. Wait--Warner Bros. has already done this with Rasputin, didn't it, in "Anastasia"? 2. Since when did the standard Haun's Mill Massacre narrative get changed from a story about Mormon persecutions to a story about not following the prophet? Did I miss a General Conference session? Talk about blaming the victims. Ed ===== Read the reviews of _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851368/o/qid=985231547/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/107-2205516-8183765 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - 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 #334 ******************************