From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #395 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, July 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 395 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:41:39 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Kent HUFF, _Brigham Young's United Order_ (Review) Jeff Needle wrote: > I'm glad to know this volume is available in paperback. Thanks for the good > info. > > > BRIGHAM YOUNG'S UNITED ORDER The Joseph Smith one is too. I just came across a used copy of the hardback which was cheaper than the paperback, so that's the one I own. - -- 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:51:18 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: >I've been comparing in my mind what Darvell said to what Richard Dutcher >said about LDS filmmakers: they shouldn't waste their time making the >typical Hollywood films. Anyone can do that. They ought to make films >only LDS filmmakers can make. > >When it came out of Richard's mouth, I liked it, but when it came out of >Darvell's mouth, I didn't. So I had to figure out the cause of this >apparent contradiction. I simply said it is better to write for passion than to write for money. I see somewhat how that relates to what Richard Dutcher said. I'm sorry you didn't like it when I said it. It's kind of like this: it's better to have sex with someone whom you love as opposed to doing it in a hotel for money. It's basically the same act, but the intent and the rewards are so much different. Writing for the love of writing is so much better than prostitution writing. But with the writing market of today, even the LDS market, prostitution writing is what sells. and if you want to sell, you have to write what the masses want. I have written a number of novels, but the ideal target audience of them has been myself. That is why they have not sold yet. What I'm trying to do with my current novel is attempt to make a marriage of passion writing and prostitution writing - -- something that I feel passionate about, but will also sell to the LDS market. I've spent a long time in the learning curve and I hope it pays off soon. I first resisted the temptation to comment on what has been said since regarding my previous statements about writing for passion and mainstream writers "selling us out." To clarify what I had said that I felt was being misinterpreted. But I though my original statement was about as good as I could do. Maybe not. I think it might be helpful here to compare Richard Dutcher to Neil Labute. I recently saw that _Your Friends and Neighbors_ by Neli Labute was on my satellite dish, so I decided to see what all of the commotion was about. I watched about five minutes of the beginning and changed the channel. I didn't like it. I occasionally swtiched back to see if I had missed something, and I still didn't like it. It wasn't an LDS story and wasn't something that I considered appropriate for me to view, and I'm pretty liberal when it comes to viewing movies. Now maybe that's Neil Labute's passion, I don't know. But it was NOT the same passion that I saw in _God's Army_ or _Brigham City_, but I bet it made more money. Did Labute write and direct that movie for himself or for the movie viewers "of the world?" (I personally cannot say, but I have my opinion.) >Whereas Darvell seemed to be saying we shouldn't write to the general >market at all, but restrict ourselves to speaking to ourselves. I think my statements were misunderstood. For one thing, I was talking about myself at this particular moment of my writing career. I feel that "once I make it big" in the LDS market, that I would branch out to the mainstream market. I've always thought that would be a natural step. But tha's NOT where I want to go NOW. >Individual authors should choose for themselves which direction they >want to go: LDS, world, or both. But as a group, I would hope we do all >of it. I agree with that. That's part of the point that I was trynig to make. When I made the statement about "selling us out," I qualified it in parentheses that I wasn't trying to be critical of those who might be considered doing just that. I was meaning that _I_ didn't want to do that at this time and that I kind of felt like those who did were "selling us out," mostly because that's how I would feel about myself if I did that. >This seems to come up over and over again--people trying to restrict >wh at authors write. The only person whose writing I want to restrict is my own. I have no right to do that for others, nor would I try. That doesn't mean that I have to read what others write. >We as a group need to write ALL of it. But each individual is free to >choose which subset he will focus on--and is not free to tell someone >else what to focus on. Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. >> I don't accept Darvell's apparent suggestion that writing >> specifically to a Mormon audience is somehow nobler than writing to a >> broader national audience, but I also don't find anything wrong with >> his or any other artist's choice to write to a specific audience, >> either. > >Agreed here. I'm a bit confused at this suggestion that has been attributed to me. I can possibly see how this supposition might have been made indirectly from my post, but it certainly was not my intent to say that. Look at it this way: If Steve Young had gone to San Francisco and changed who he was by living the life of a famous football player and forgetting this LDS ideals, would he have "sold us old?" Steve remained true to who he was and let everybody know who he was. He was both an LDS icon AND an American icon, not just an American one. That's sort of what I meant. Just remembering who you are. And that may actually be a process rather than single step for someone who suceeds in the national market without doing it in the local LDS market first. >> > > It's part of being true to yourself. There are mainstream LDS writers out >> > > there who don't put any LDS material in their writing. Doesn't that kind of >> > > feel like they sold "us" out? >> > >> >Ouch! Back to dictating what other authors should write about. >> >> I'm not sure he's dictating anything; I think he's expressing an >> opinion, just like the rest of us do. We all need to be a little less >> sensitive about what other people believe. You left off my parenthetical statement about trying not to be critical of other people's writing. I'm not telling others what to write about. This is why I didn't want to respond in the first place. I felt my original post said what I wanted to say. One thing that I dislike very much is when people explain what I said, basically inerpreting my words to mean something else than what I meant. Now I suppose that some of that is my fault and wouldn't happen if I had been completely clear in the first place, but you can't always write so that everyone with a different point of view and a different experience can understand. This whole topic reminds me of the letter to the editor about me this last week in the Lehi Free Press. The person was writing in response to what I had written and was using my name, but he wasn't talking about me. He was writing about the California move-ins, which he thought I might be. He had his own axe to grind and my name served as the carrier wave for his message. If you want to know what I meant, you ask me. But don't tell me. Thanks for listening. Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:03:21 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Steed Family >And I'm still waiting for the answer, too . . . >;-) -- Ronn! :) The Steeds were characters Gerald Lund created as the fictional core family of The Work and the Glory series. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:08:04 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Steed Family At 05:39 PM 7/11/01 -0600, you wrote: >I imagine that most readers understand that the Steeds are fictional, but I >wonder how many accept the books as scripture anyway. Or as something pretty >close. Orson Scott Card said that some people thought the stories he invented for the Living Sciptures tapes were themselves scriptures. He said that those people needed to actually read the scriptures themselves so they'd know what was and wasn't in there. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:49:22 -0600 From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Kathy, The C.S. Lewis book you quote would have to be "The Magician's Nephew", just in case anyone wants to look it up. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:53:31 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Sidney B. SPERRY, _Knowledge is Power_ (Review) Review ====== Sidney B. Sperry, "Knowledge is Power" 1958, Bookcraft Hardback, 269 pages, $3.25 Out of Print Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle What a pleasure it is to find an old book by a trusted author, dust-cover intact, signed by the author while he was visiting a town just ten miles from your home! Such is "Knowledge is Power," a new title for me, perhaps not known to many. Seasoned LDS readers will recognize Sperry as one of Mormonism's most respected scholars. His work in various disciplines, especially his Book of Mormon research, were, at one time, well known among Scripture students. Alas, he is hardly known today among the new generation of Saints. "Knowledge is Power" is a collection of articles written by Dr. Sperry, covering a wide variety of subjects. A look at the Table of Contents is instructive. Chapters 1-5 deal with the Inspired Version of the Bible. Other chapters deal with the questions of whether Jesus and Paul were married, the "Isaiah problem" in the Book of Mormon, the role of ancient and modern temples, new thoughts about the Great Apostasy, the timing of the writing of the title page in Book of Mormon, and many other subjects. I don't recall ever reading one of Dr. Sperry's books that covered so much territory. It gave me a chance to re-evaluate my feelings about his writing. I have long suspected that one might separate his work into two broad categories: exposition and apologetics. Concerning the former, he is, in my opinion, generally pretty good. One chapter in this book concerns the three visitors to father Abraham, wherein he debunks the idea that one of them was the Lord. It was pretty convincing. However, I've felt, and still feel, that his apologetics lack believability and cogency. And this is based largely on my distrust of a heavily presuppositional apologetic method. Perhaps an example will clarify my meaning. Chapter 15 is titled "Hebrew Idioms in the Book of Mormon." He then proceeds to offer numerous examples of Hebrew idioms in the BOM, followed by comparative cites from the Old Testament. His conclusion: this proves the Book of Mormon to be of Hebrew origin. One can only reach such a conclusion if one is already convinced of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. It may be that Sperry is preaching to the choir here, but he doesn't succeed in giving the reader any objective basis for acceptance of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document. Regardless of one's feelings about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, one must be troubled by Sperry's methodology. He doesn't acknowledge alternative explanations for such idioms. Why couldn't one simply say that Joseph Smith just copied these phrases from the Bible? Why wouldn't it be just as valid to say that Joseph Smith, having read and heard the Bible from an early age, supplied phrases that were familiar to him? Sperry doesn't address this at all in this chapter. In a later chapter, he does address this issue, but from a different standpoint, irrelevant to the conclusion-jumping in this chapter. I had hoped for more than this, but was not rewarded. (Note: I am not expressing my own convictions on the subject, only raising the question of whether Sperry's methodology is effective.) On the other hand, the expositional chapters, as noted, are very good. His reasons for entertaining the possibility that Jesus and Paul were married are thought-provoking, but he draws no conclusions, leaving this to the reader. Another chapter, "The Meaning of Peter's Confession," offers some good historical views on how the Christian Church has understood this account. I'm glad to have this book. If you stumble across a copy, by all means, buy it. But be prepared to be alternately delighted and disappointed. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:59:53 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Morality and Art I was out of town last week so I apologize for the lateness of this post. - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > I didn't say that. I said that I have never known an artist > who created anything intending to do evil in the world. > Obviously artists are as capable of sin as any mortals. But > I have never once known an artist who has said "I know, I'll > write this play/novel/poem/song or create this > painting/film/sculpture in order to promote evil in the > world." They say "this is a fun little dance tune." They > say "this may not be the best show on television, but it's > fun and people will find it amusing." They say "by shocking > the audience, we'll free from their bourgeois conventionality > and allow they to experience the world as it really is, in > all its ugliness and violence." In general, I tend to agree with you, Eric, though from an entirely different perspective. But I think that this paragraph is the point where we differ most. I think the key here is the phrase "intending to do evil in the world". What does that mean? The problem is in defining evil. If you let everyone define evil for themselves, then it is impossible for anyone to ever intend to do evil. But if you define evil even so loosely as "actively harms another for personal gain" then I think that there are artists who intend to do evil in the world. Some "artists" really do think "by providing the vile images some people crave, I can get money". How about that Neil Labute play you enjoyed in England? Did the artist character intend to do evil? I think she knew that she was actively harming the young man for no other purpose than her selfish project. I think that she was evil, but that she didn't care. I think the existence of evil art is an important question and one that we had better be very careful about tossing a negative at too carelessly. The thing is, while I don't know anyone personally who has evil intentions, I know they exist. I know that our world includes child pornographers. I was going to make a list of other evil, vile things I know exist, but even the list was, well, icky, and not something I want to dwell on too long. Bottomline, there are people who intend to do evil in the world. And part of the problem is that we *don't* know who they are because they hide (sometimes physically, sometimes by using their art to cloak their intent). There are people who know that what they are doing is wrong, even evil, and they do it anyway. You yourself tend to focus on those motivated by greed. Others are motivated by lust, or pride, or power. How else do you explain the disconnect with network executives who release press statements that "of *course* our album/sit com/movie couldn't motivate a youngster to do evil--where *are* his/her parents, anyway?" and then spend the rest of their career convincing other businesses to give them lots of money so that they can motivate youngsters to buy products with his album/sit com/movie? Or is it just businessmen who actually intend to do evil in the world? Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:47:17 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: [AML] Being a Town Historian Last night (Thursday) at the Saratoga Springs town meeting, the city council officially appointed as the town historian. I'm excited about this new position, even though I don't know much about what I'm going to be doing. Has anyone ever been appointed town historian? I'd appreciate any comments from anyone who has experience doing this. I'm going to be taking pictures, clipping newspaper articles (some of them my own), writing about the people of the city, and doing other such "history-keeping" activities. I'd love to hear what anybody has to say about this. Thanks Darvell Hunt _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:53:04 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Mormonism and Truth in Literature (was: Sex in Literature) [MOD: I've chosen a new subject line for this part of the thread because it's clearly moving in different directions from the original thread. In particular, I'd like to stress the "in Literature" part of my thread title. This discussion is on-topic for our List only to the degree that we keep the primary focus on literature and literary depictions.] - ---Original Message From: Amelia Parkin > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > But you see, we *aren't* just like the rest of the world. We may be > > part of the world every bit as much as others are, and we certainly > > are as human as others are, but we have something that none of the > > others have (the Gospel). And if that doesn't make a difference in > > your story, then your story will be abandoned by Mormon readers. > > Jacob, you have struck the core of my argument. And you have struck a raw > nerve with me. So here goes. Since when do Mormons have the Gospel and, > let's say, Baptists do not? Last time I checked, there were still more > copies of the Bible sold than any other book, worldwide. And if the Bible > doesn't contain the Gospel of Christ, what does? It's time to take off > our blinders. There are people who will never, in this life time, be > Mormon. And they are every bit as good as you and me. And they have as > much access to the Gospel as they need in order to be good people. It's > time for Mormons to recognize that we in no way have the corner on the > market of Gospel truth. Sure, we have some knowledge that other religions > don't. That's important. That's very important. But, as I > discovered one hot summer afternoon in a Baptist church, they have some > knowledge that unfortunately we seem to not have--not because we *can't* > have it but because we remain culturally blindfolded to it. It's time for > Mormons to begin to understand that other people are not to be pitied > because they don't have the Gospel. I know, this isn't much about Mormon > lit but it's important. I agree that it is important, and this is my nerve too, so I suppose we'll have to see if we can't stay civilized and I'll try to explain why I say what I do because I couldn't disagree with you more. Other Churches have the gospel available to them, but not one of them has the whole Gospel. We do. The Bible is not enough because many plain and precious truths were removed and many key doctrines are cloudy. But that just delays the question, really. Other Churches have the Book of Mormon, too, and even they don't have the whole Gospel because they lack the priesthood of God to give the Gospel life. Like I said, yes others can be good. People in other religions can be better than me (not that hard, really). But without the Church and the Gospel, they lack things that are essential to salvation. And while someone may be better than me and not have the fullness of the Gospel, they are *not* as good as *they* could be if they had the Gospel. And they won't be able to get as close to God as they are capable until they *do* have it. People from other religions may have everything they need to be good people, but they will never reach their potential, or enjoy eternal happiness until they get the fullness. And that, to me, means that we do, in fact, have a corner on the market of Gospel Truth. Others may have a little truth squirreled away here and there, and they may have something that I personally need to learn (in fact, Article of Faith 13 tells me that that is certainly true), but we have *everything* needed to return to God and none of the others do. Let me put it on the most personal level I can: if we don't have anything unique--if we aren't better off for having the fullness of the Gospel--then what they heck am I doing wasting my time being a Mormon? I'd certainly find it easier being Baptist. > Jacob wrote: > > > > You can't be sinning and Christlike at the same time. Christlike is > > by definition without sin. I think you could show someone who *has* > > sinned and is Christlike. You could probably show that someone is > > Christlike and still sins, but you'll have to show how that sin > > affects your characters because fundamental to LDS theology is that > > sin carries damage. > > If this is true, than we may as well all give up. Why? Damage doesn't equal irreparable. Thanks to the atonement, there is very little that is irreparable sin-wise. > We certainly *can* be > sinning and be Christlike. If not then everyone alive is > hopeless. No one, ever, with the exception of Jesus Christ himself, has > lived a sinless life. And I would argue that it's not even done in brief > stretches for most people. You are talking as if we are always our totality. We aren't. We sin, we repent, we approach Christ, we move away. But I can see how I wasn't very clear, here. I've taken kind of a dim view of people claiming that this thing or that thing is Christlike and it is something of a reflex to challenge the claim. As you say, with the exception of Christ himself, we all fall short. I hung up on the term and didn't address your concern which you reiterate below. > I can, and have, simultaneously loved my family dearly > (Christlike) and hurt my family (sin). Just a small example; > there are other larger ones. The point is that we constantly struggle > to become more Christlike. But the fact that we sin does not mean that we > are in not at all Christlike. I have many friends who are sinning but who somehow > manage to love selflessly, to serve others, to seek truth, to be honest, > and on and on. If that is not a combination of Christlike behavior with > sinful behavior, then I'm not sure what it is. Of course sin affects us. > Of course this must be represented. But it must be represented > accurately, or I'd rather not have it represented at all. It affects us > in infinite gradations, not just in black and white. I understand. I certainly agree that people are mixtures of all kinds of elements. I'm a little concerned, though, that your examples of good tend to be internal and the bad is external. One of the things I find so repulsive is the modern trend to excuse the harm done to others just because it is accompanied by good intentions. You love your family but hurt them. Well, which is more important to your family? We are mixtures of a number of influences, true, but some of those influences are more immediately important than others. A feeling of benevolent kindness is not enough to make up for harm you may be doing to those around you. Just as treating someone with kindness is more important than your internal desire to take them off and have your way with them. > And it's about time > that we represented this accurately enough that we begin to truly > understand the principle of non-judgment. Non-judgment? That's a good thing, right? The thing is, we've lost the meaning of a word here, somewhere. Judge not lest ye be judged. To some is given a spirit of discernment. Judgment is bad and Discernment is good? I think there are two concepts that really need to be treated separately though we tend to conflate them into the word judge. In one, you set yourself above another and presume to pass judgment on them, essentially usurping the role of God. In the other, you recognize that an action (or even motivation) is wrong and requires correction, condemnation, and censure. Love the sinner but hate the sin. It's a tough line to draw, but an important one. > So that we don't see a "sinner" > who suffers the consequences of sin so completely that we utterly condemn > them. And so that we aren't scared to death of sinning ourselves, so > scared that we transfer the condemnation of other sinners onto ourselves. > Sure we need to be wary of sinning. And yes, we need to be able to > condemn sin when we commit it. But we don't need the kind of paralyzing > condemnation that results from a black and white understanding of the > nature of sin. We need to condemn sin. And we need to love the sinner. And we need to recognize that the sinner needs help and do what we can to offer it. That's a tough task, but one central to the gospel. The thing is that separating the sinner from the sin is a line that is hard to draw in real life even with the Spirit to help us (when we think to ask). It's harder still when you are creating the lines in a novel or play. What you seem to be saying is that you want a lighter touch, and I agree that we should strive to be realistic, I'm no fan of revolving-door literature. But I won't be able to accept a story where someone can sin and suffer no consequences. Not that consequences have to be heavy or eternal. They just have to exist. Between sin and reconciliation is a period of estrangement. If you show sin and reconciliation without any of the estrangement, then I'm not going to be able to follow you in your story. > and on the same subject to Chris Grant: > > I said I want the latitude to represent the actuality that > joy and sin can be conflated in the same act or set of acts. I want to be > able to represent complex reality. As with anything, sin or sinful acts > are complex sites of intersection. Sometimes sexual sin is not purely > lascivious gratification of desire. Sometimes it actually has to do with > love. And as such it can be an expression of love, just like it is > between a husband and wife. The fact that it happens outside of the bonds > of marriage may make it sinful but it does not negate the fact that it is > a loving act, one which may and probably does bring joy. That creates a > whole new situation than that of the situation of depraved sexual sin. A > sinner who experiences joy in conjunction with their sin will have a very > different struggle than he or she who does not. And I believe that there > are those out there who face that situation. Why is it that we can't talk > about such situations so that people can figure out how to deal with them > outside the isolation of actually being in the situation? You are going to have to define your use of Joy here. To me, Joy is a gift from God, a blessing. In my experience, admittedly personal and hardly representative, I am unable to feel Joy unless I am reconciled to God. I cannot imagine feeling true Joy and sinning at the same time. I might feel pleasure or satisfaction, maybe even love or happiness but not Joy. Men are that they might have Joy. That is the purpose of life. Elsewhere in the scriptures, we know that the purpose of life is to give us the chance to return to be with our Heavenly Father. Internally, to me, Joy = returning to my Heavenly Father and is something I approach as I approach God. So I won't ever buy a story where sin and joy (my definition) are conflated in the same act or set of acts. And if you bring sexual sin into the equation, the extremes magnify. I believe that sexual sin is detrimental to love. One of the reasons that sexual sin is so serious is because it undermines the very thing it is attempting to express. A part of the problem I have with the "sex is good" theme is that it tends to gloss over the "sex is powerful" reality. Including sex in your art runs the risk of overwhelming anything else you are doing--the more explicit the more overwhelming. Sex *is* good if it is held in the bounds God has given us and the power of sex can draw a married couple together in a way little else can. But outside the bounds God set, that power can destroy. Sex is a nuclear sin, you can power a city or blow it up. That is why it would be difficult to buy your original premise of a woman who is loving and happy who has an affair and is still loving and happy. It could possibly be done, but that sexual sin will become the focus of that character whether you like it to or not. You can rebuild a blown up city, and even build a nuclear plant to power it, but not without some serious effort and not a little pain. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:56:31 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Two Prophets on Novel Reading In light of a recent thread on what Prophets have to say about reading novels, I thought you'd find the following interesting: Discourses of Brigham Young, p.257 Novel reading=97is it profitable? I would rather that persons read novels than read nothing. 9:173. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.325 There is altogether too much novel reading of that class of novels which teaches nothing useful, and only tends to the excitement of the emotions. Excessive novel reading we all know is detrimental to the intellectual development of those who engage in it, and the wise and those who seek advancement might well give more time to useful, educational works=97books that would enlighten the reader on history, biography, religion, and other important subjects which all well-informed people are expected to understand. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:01:37 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: [AML] Artists vs. Illustrators (was: (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art) > > To me, Greg Olsen is an illustrator, not an artist. > > It's not all that subtle a difference, in my opinion. An artist may paint a > picture of Christ but it won't be Christ sitting on a rock, looking at > Jerusalem. The artist is likely to show us an interpretation of Christ we've > never seen before. I think of Salvador Dali and his clean-shaven Christ hanging > magnetically to a cross both of them hovering over the globe of the earth. That, > to me, is an artist's representation of Christ. > Have to disagree with you there. To me an artist is someone who celebrates the creativity God has bestowed upon him/her, and is able to produce a product at a higher degree than the average person. We may not like it. We may not agree with it. We may miss something in it (as you do with Olsen's work), but he/she is still an artist. Certainly Olsen's work would fall under this. He celebrates his talent, shares it, and lets face it, he can portray an image far better than most of us. What you have described in your definition, is your personal preference. I like to look at a peace of work and see a story. I like to see definition and detail. Olsen does that for me. Illustrators are artists. As are writers, actors, directors, chefs, musicians, singers, composers, quilters, sculpters, speakers, photographers, and others. I find joy in others achievements. I admire and praise them. To create is a part of our Godlike attributes. The problem I find with being overly critical, is that not only to we put down the creator, we put down those who like the creation. Anna Wight - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:15:15 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Artists vs. Illustrators Chris Grant wrote: > Thom Duncan writes: > > [...] > >The paintings on the cover of the Ensign are not art. They > >are illustrations. > > Why don't the _Ensign_ cover paintings qualify as art? And > does this include the cover paintings by people like Minerva > Teichert? > [MOD: Another message from Thom in today's batch of posts (Saturday) > addresses this question.] Yes, it did, but let me reiterate. Minerva, like today's Ensing artists, may have had the Church as her client, but she was able to go way beyond what the client said they wanted and gave them what they needed. In doing so, she led them to believe that they got what they originally ordered, but in reality, they got much more. Also, the church's decision hierarchy was not as intact as it is today. I talked with several Church artists (and was employed for several years as one myself in the area of audio visual production) and the hoops one has to jump through today when using the media to communicate with other Church members is herculean. On more than one occasion, while doing training material at the MTC, we would come up against some middle-management, non-GA type person who was quite certain that if "Elder So-and-So were to see this, he'd be offended." And on those same occasions, while working against the system and getting Elder So-and-So's ear, we discovered that not only was Elder So-and-So NOT offended, but he was utterly delighted about the direction we were taken. So what I'm saying is that there is a stronger layer of middle-management between the artist and the real decision making authority in the Church, and a lot of artists tend to stop asking questions when "Brother (not Elder) So-and-So" tells them that this painting of Joseph Smith with pit stains wouldn't be appropriate for the cover of the Ensign. Tom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:38:57 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Re: Artists vs. Illustrators At 08:30 PM 7/12/01 -0600, you wrote: >It's not all that subtle a difference, in my opinion. An artist may paint a >picture of Christ but it won't be Christ sitting on a rock, looking at >Jerusalem. The artist is likely to show us an interpretation of Christ we've >never seen before. I think of Salvador Dali and his clean-shaven Christ >hanging >magnetically to a cross both of them hovering over the globe of the earth. >That, >to me, is an artist's representation of Christ. Thom, your notion that art must always show us something new is just that--a notion. If you consider that important, you need to do it with your own artistic endeavors. But the fact that we're familiar with an idea or a concept does not mean it's no longer valid as a subject. I don't want to look at a surrealistic painting such as the one you describe--it would send my mind off into a variety of tangents that have nothing to do with my relationship with the Savior. It would be a distraction. I don't see how you can say it's more artistic than the other. The General Authorities tell us the same things over and over in Conference because we're still not following up on them. We need to be constantly reminded of concepts we've heard before. Conference talks are not artistic endeavors, of course, but I think you're a bit dogmatic when you say that art MUST present something in a new way. Barbara R. Hume, Editorial Empress Complete range of writing and editing services High-tech a specialty TechVoice, Inc. (801) 765-4900 barbara@techvoice.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:57:31 -0600 From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons But does good writing really every > > Kellene Adams wrote: > >> I have to be obnoxious. . . . Is Christ boring? D. Michael writes: > > Good question. I like obnoxiousness if it makes me think. > > I don't think Christ is boring, but I do think "perfect" characters are > boring. How to resolve this contradiction? > > As you say, Christ is the only sinless person who ever existed. That > means a very simple thing: when Christ is depicted as perfect, it's the > truth. When anyone else is depicted as perfect, it's a lie. I think > that's where the contradiction is resolved. > Kellene writes: I didn't think we were talking about people being portrayed as perfect. Rather, the good writing we're talking about is not trying to portray people as perfect but simply as people struggling with that natural man side of them and striving to become perfect at some point (most likely in the next life, not this one). What I'm hearing some people say (and I could very possibly be interpreting incorrectly) is that portraying this struggle--particularly in the realm of Mormondom--is boring. And that's what I can't agree with. I'm also getting the feeling that some of us feel that portraying that struggle is boring because we doubt the sincerity or credibility of these people. [Kellene Adams] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:20:53 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art If Christensen is the one who did the Parable of the Ten Virgins, he didn't do his homework very well. Although the people look exotic & Eastern, most of the peoples in the Middle East wouldn't have had a pig in their midst. Certainly the women that the Savior told about waiting for the Bridegroom wouldn't have had a pig with them. Pork is considered unclean for food, as an animal needs to have a cloven hoof AND chew its cud to be considered acceptable. Moslems won't touch pork either. Karen - - 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 #395 ******************************