From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #410 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 Tuesday, July 31 2001 Volume 01 : Number 410 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:34:06 -0500 From: Craig Huls Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Rex Goode on 7/27/01 wrote: > John Williams brings up an interesting point, which leads me to a question. > > I agree that there is a difference between vividly portrayed sex in film and > vividly portrayed sex in literature, and that literature is a safer place > for it. > > In modern times, however, a very popular novel will likely result in a > popular film, and the sex scenes in the novel will end up in the film. > > It would reveal a bit of conceit to write a novel with a movie sale in mind, > I suppose, but if novels are the safe place for sex and movies are not, > wouldn't a Mormon author want to bear in mind that whatever sex he puts into > a novel may end up graphically portrayed in a film? > > This is an important question to me as I write about sexually-charged topics > in my novel doing my best to avoid vivid portrayals. I can succeed in the > written word, but if anyone were to make a movie out of it, I'd feel like a > pornographer. I'm not even counting on being published much less making a > movie sale, but I have decisions to make. > > Rex Goode > A question I have had several times. I am determined to handle it, if given the opportunity, by contractual arrangements with the film company, director and producers. If that cannot be negotiated to my satisfaction then I will have to find the financing and do the movie myself! I know easier said than done! Faith can move mountains, why not an investor or two. I think to a movie made by Mel Gibson "The Man without a Face" where he played the tutor with a background of assumed guilt of abuse of a student who died in a car crash while Gibsons Character was driving. Nothing was done in that movie to titilate nor agravate the situation, though the subject was discussed. I never read the book that movie was based on, I feared it would not come up to the standard of the movie. Some day perhaps. The work Gibson has done since with all the wars, detective stuff, may have thrilled the world, but "The Man without a Face" in my opinion made a strong plea for tolerance, love, stewardship and personal responsibility and without anything that could not be viewed by a 12 year old. It is still my favorite Mel Gibson Movie! Craig Huls - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:12:07 -0700 From: Terri Reid Subject: RE: [AML] Mission of Mormon Letters? Scott said: I'd just like to see more Mormons consider Mormon stories as a legitimate outlet for their creative energies. Not a demand, but a desire. Because I believe that the talent exists right now to tell the most powerful stories of Mormonness and humanity that the world has ever seen-if only our talented people will consider telling stories of Mormons as well as stories of others. I totally agree - we have the talent to share our stories and our talents. I believe that Mormon people are ready for another kind of literature, and that the Mormon market will soon provide sufficient rewards to make telling Mormon stories more than just a labor of love. Okay - in this area, I think we limit ourselves - but perhaps I'm not understanding you. Sure the Mormon people/market might be ready - but why aren't we telling our stories to the whole world? Economically, if you can sell to a national publisher, you'll make more money. But, more than that, if you want to tell powerful stories, why limit their exposure to the folks who already have the whole picture. Sure, it will uplift and rededicate, but how about those brothers and sisters of ours who are lost and have never even seen a glimpse of the joy we have. Paris wrote: . I already went on a mission. I've got kids now. Now is the time to be happy. Anything beyond "have a good time" is going to lead to preachiness, which was the downfall of Mormon literature of the 70's. Be happy! Learn to love something. Write in a way that will cause you to be happy. Even if the subject matter is dark or disturbing if you love something happiness will come from it I disagree with Paris, although I never got the chance to go on a mission, I feel that I'm on a "mission" every day of my life. We live in the Midwest, in a small rural community. Folks here know that my family is LDS and they watch. They know the "writer" who freelances for the paper and who gets involved in community projects is one of those crazy Mormons. They watch my kids and they ask questions. And if this writer, decides to write steamy bodice ripper romances (not that all romances are like that - but there are some) or exploitative sexy murder mysteries - what message does that send about who this writer really is? I can be happy - but only when the choices I'm making are ones that I can be happy with. Marilyn wrote: Somebody is STANDING FOR SOMETHING. First, an aside - did you notice who published "Standing for Something?" Not one of the usually church publishers - but Random House. I have no doubt that he could have published it with any of the LDS publishers - but he chose a national publishing house, I believe, for the exposure. He wanted to touch as many people as he could and not limit his words to the usual LDS crowd. Second, Marilyn - a sincere thank-you for your praise and comments - but I actually feel that perhaps I should have pulled out sooner. Now that I have made my decision, my husband and daughter - who read my story as I wrote it - both feel quite relieved. Hopefully, I've learned a lesson and I won't go there again. Terri Terri Reid Executive Producer - Midwest Region PIXELight www.itpnow.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:26:25 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN "Lady in Waiting" to be performed at Margetts Theatre: BYU Press Release 25Jul01 US UT Prov A2 "Lady in Waiting" to be performed at Margetts Theatre PROVO, UTAH -- "Lady in Waiting," an original play by Brigham Young University graduate student Melissa Larson, will be performed in the Margetts Theatre Aug. 1-4 and 7-11 as part of the 2001 Theatre Student Showcase. All shows will begin at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are $10 for the public and $8 for BYU faculty and students. For general information or tickets, call (801) 378-4322. Half-price preview performances will be Aug. 1-2. Directed by Wendy Simmerman and set in Tudor England, the play describes the love story of Meg Wyatt, a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne Boleyn. Love, friendship and betrayal are the themes of "Lady in Waiting," according to playwright Larson. "In a time when marriage is merely a matter of business, Meg finds herself torn between the possibility of love and one of the few careers a 16th century woman might pursue," said Larson. Based on the play and film "Anne of A Thousand Days," the BYU production focuses on the story of Meg and Sir Anthony Lee. Since little is known about these two historical characters, the playwright was allowed more freedom in their development. "We only know that Meg and Anthony lived and married," Larson said. "'Lady in Waiting' develops their relationship and uses Anne and Henry VIII as examples of what not to do in a relationship." George Boleyn, Anne's brother and the object of Meg's infatuation, is the "romantic ideal." In the beginning of the first act when Meg discovers he is to marry someone else, it destroys her, said Larson. Brokenhearted and terrified of spinsterhood, Meg accepts the company--and eventual proposal--of Anthony Lee. The production parallels the romance of Meg and Anthony to that of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Henry broke from the Roman Catholic Church to marry Anne, but was disappointed when she failed to bear him a son and heir. Henry VIII is a symbol of male dominance, according to Larson. "We know that he married his third wife only ten days after the execution of his second wife, Anne." The story, although set in 16th century England, has modern applications. "Meg wants to be with Anne to fulfill her duties as a lady-in-waiting while Anthony wants her to be at home. She must make decisions regarding career and marriage," according to Larson. "Lady in Waiting" is an original student work. All aspects of the production, including design and production management, were completed by students. Heidi D. Reed is Meg Wyatt, with Ryan Michael Painter as George Boleyn, Amanda Scheffer as Anne Boleyn, Benjamin Hess as King Henry VIII, Peter Briggs as Sir Anthony Lee, Ryan Flake as William Brereton, Mark Ailshie as Henry Norris and Lucy Nielson as Meredith. Scenic designer for the production is Alisha Paddock, costume designer is Annette Crismon, hair and make-up designer is Jennifer Brass Jenkins, sound designer is Loraleigh Bowyer and lighting designer is Jason Hagey. The production stage manager is Elneeta Timmons, and the production advisor is Loraine Edwards. - -###- Source: "Lady in Waiting" to be performed at Margetts Theatre BYU Press Release 25Jul01 US UT Prov A2 http://www.byu.edu/news/releases/Jul/Lady.htm >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:29:36 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN NYC's Whitney Museum Exhibit's Retrospective on Mormon Artist: Kent Larsen 29Jul01 US NY NYC A2 NYC's Whitney Museum Exhibit's Retrospective on Mormon Artist NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- One of New York City's most prestigious art museums, the Whitney Museum of Art, opened a major retrospective recently on Wayne Thiebaud, an Arizona native who grew up in a devout Mormon family. Over his career, Thiebaud has become a well-recognized artist whose reputation is ranked among the most important in Modern art and whose work is represented in major art books. The exhibit, titled "Wayne Thiebaud: A Painting Retrospective" originated with the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, where it appeared last year at San Francisco's Legion of Honor. The New York City installation has been augmented from the collections of New York Museums and private collections on the East Coast. It is the largest exhibit ever of Thiebaud's work, and the first major exhibit on the East Coast since a 1962 show at Allen Stone's gallery. Thiebaud is best known for his paintings of pies, gumball machines and other representations of everyday life. The choice of pies and gumball machines has sometimes led critics to label Thiebaud's work as pop art -- like that of Andy Warhol and Roy Liechtenstein. And while Thiebaud rejects that label, he is still considered one of the more important Modern artists. Thiebaud was born November 15, 1920 to a devout Mormon family in Mesa, Arizona, but grew up in Southern California and Southern Utah, working at times on family farms. As a teenager his principle activity in the arts was designing sets and lighting for high school productions. But his interest in art picked up after he broke his back playing sports and he used his time while recuperating to take up cartooning. One biographer says that Thiebaud was able to draw Popeye simultaneously with both the left and right hands. With that skill he went to work briefly in the animation department of Walt Disney Studios, but was later fired when he tried to organize a labor union there. In 1942, Thiebaud entered the US Air Force, but ended up painting murals for the Army instead of fighting in World War II, and was discharged in 1945. By 1947 he was gainfully employed as a commercial artist, working for Rexall Drug Company where he created an original comic strip for the company. It wasn't until 1950 that Thiebaud decided to study art seriously. After a year at San Jose State University, he went to study at California State University at Sacramento, from which he graduated in 1953. Along the way he had his first art show, in 1951, at Sacramento's Crocker Art Gallery. Soon after, Thiebaud took the first of several extended trips to New York City, where he met and befriended Modernist painters such as Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline. While de Kooning and Kline had their influence on Thiebaud, he never quite fit in with their abstract expressionist views, instead rejecting their taste for bombast and for grand tragic-historic themes for more modest subjects -- ribbon shops, pinball machines and, eventually, pies. "I had been put off by the churchy feeling of a lot of New York painting, and I saw de Kooning was too," Thiebaud told one interviewer. "He disabused me of it, and, as much as anyone, suggested to me that painting was a lot more important than art." He then looked around for subjects that fit his views, "I'd worked in food preparation. So I'd always seen ... the way they line up food, sort of ritualistically, and I thought, 'Oh, I'll try that.' So I started painting these ovals for the plate and then put a triangle on it. And I mixed up a pumpkin color, maybe, I'd put it on and it was so far away from pumpkin color that I though, 'oh, I've got to put other colors in there." So I added blues and other colors to see if it could enliven it, but then I realized I'd painted this row of pies and started laughing and said, 'well, that's the end of me as a serious artist. Nobody's going to take this seriously.'" But the reaction to Thiebaud's pies was just the opposite. The New York art world loved the pies, just at the time that it discovered Jasper Johns' flags and Warhol's soup cans, leading Thiebaud to be grouped with them as "pop artists." He dislikes that label, however, saying that his work is representational. Instead of making his subjects seem surreal, like Warhol or Johns, Thiebaud instead had a keen sense for seeing the surreal in everyday life -- the "goofy," odd nature of everyday "ritualism." Theibaud returned to California where he soon got a position teaching at Sacramento City College. Ten years later he joined the faculty at the University of California, Davis, where he is still on the faculty as an emeritus professor. His long time residence in California has led some critics to call him a 'California' artist. But when asked by the Sacramento Bee about that label last year, Thiebaud rejected the label, "There are aspects of California in [my] work - the landscape of San Francisco and the Sacramento River. But the food things are not more California than elsewhere." Likewise, given that he has left the LDS Church, Thiebaud would likely say that he is not a Mormon artist. But yet there are aspects of religion and Mormonism in the philosophy he uses in his art; modesty, simplicity and straightforwardness. Last year he told PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer that he doesn't really call himself an artist, saying, "Isn't it something for other people to make a decision about? I think it's just like, as I say, it's like a priest referring to himself as a saint. ... It's decided apart from you and that's the way it should be." This modesty also appears in his subject matter, where Thiebaud prefers to work with modest, everyday things, realizing that "even though you're working with everyday things, modest subject matter, that doesn't have to be minor. Those kinds of things, I think, can mean a lot to us." As a result, he sticks with the things he has experience with: teaching, raising a family, having a good life. He looks at the ritual of the everyday, "I don't know what other cultures do, but in America, the preparation and ritual of banquets and ... Mormon picnics are fascinating. Every little American cafe or restaurant or cafeteria always says they have the best hamburger in the world. I don't know how they know that. So they paint these pictures of them with gigantic pieces of meat and lettuce. Big Boy!" Thiebaud also rejects the use of irony in his work, instead preferring to show things in a straightforward way, "I've never trusted irony very much because it's very confusing. You never know where you are. It's like a big Jell-O or marshmallow world. It's hard to get a foothold. ... I don't usually think [paintings that use irony are] very effective." And he feels that simple objects are the subjects he does best, "People ask my why I don't do a nice pretty Viennese cake or spaghetti. I don't know anything about it. I'd have to be Jackson Pollock to do spaghetti." The retrospective of Thiebaud's work has attracted a lot of media attention over the past year, since it first appeared in San Francisco. Major newspapers in San Francisco, Sacramento, Dallas, Washington DC and now New York have covered his work as the exhibit has gone on display in their areas, and the national PBS TV program the Newshour with Jim Lehrer also interviewed him. The exhibit is on display at the Whitney until September 23rd. Sources: Wayne Thiebaud: Wistful Joy in Soda-Fountain Dreams New York Times 29Jun01 A2 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/arts/29KIMM.html By Michael Kimmelman Whitney Show Takes the Cake New York Daily News 28Jun01 A2 http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-06-28/New_York_Now/Culture/a-116435.asp By Celia McGee: Daily News Feature Writer N.Y. embraces Western artist Wayne Thiebaud: The Painter of Pies Knows the Real Thing, Too New York Times 27Jun01 A2 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/living/27THIE.html By Regina Schrambling Wayne Thiebaud: Still Generating Art Rooted in Respect for Painting New York Times 2Jan01 A2 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/02/arts/02ARTS.html By Stephen Kinzer Gotta Be Me Dallas TX Observer 5Oct00 A2 http://www.dallasobserver.com:80/issues/2000-10-05/arts.html By Christine Biederman Through four decades of masterful painting, Wayne Thiebaud remains true to his vision The Sad and Painful Truth of Thiebaud's Art Suite101.com 1Jul00 A2 http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/artists/42559 By Tricia Dake A Feast for the Eyes PBS Newshour 30Jun00 A2 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june00/thiebaud_6-30.html Interview by Elizabeth Farnsworth Thiebaud Retrospective Captures Art's Paradoxes San Francisco Chronicle pgC1 9Jun00 A2 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/09 /DD90140.DTL By Kenneth Baker: Chronicle Art Critic Curator turns detective to reel in the years Sacramento CA Bee 4Jun00 A2 http://www.sacbee.com/ourtown/life/thiebaud2.html By Victoria Dalkey: Bee Art Correspondent Thiebaud on Thiebaud Sacramento CA Bee 4Jun00 A2 http://www.sacbee.com/ourtown/life/thiebaud1.html By Victoria Dalkey: Bee Art Correspondent Sacramento's pre-eminent painter, Wayne Thiebaud, talks about his career and a major retrospective of his work Websites: Whitney Museum of Art http://www.whitney.org/ Wayne Thiebaud Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery and Sculpture Garden http://sheldon.unl.edu/HTML/ARTIST?Thiebaud_W/SSI.html Wayne Thiebaud Artcyclopedia http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/thiebaud_wayne.html Wayne Thiebaud http://www.fi.muni.cz/~toms/PopArt/Biographies/thiebaud.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:14:20 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Mission of Mormon Letters? On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:03:51PM -0600, Scott Parkin wrote: > I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else what a Mormon > "ought" to write in the sense of telling them that this subject is > fit and that subject is not, or that this detail is authentically > Mormon where that one is not. But I do think we have a right (and a > responsibility) to be careful readers and critics and to ask why > certain kinds of stories are not being told, or why there seems to be > an over-representation of another kind of story. The original question came up as "Should we as writers write A or B?" with the implication that writing about A excludes writing about B and vice versa. If any single author wants to set out to write A, then more power to that person, but I don't think that in general writers should, as a block, decide to exclusively write about B. Each writer should make a determination about the stories, themes, and modes that personally resonate and tell those stories. To me the question limited itself to writers before the act of creation. Once a story finds its way into publication, then readers and critics have the opportunity, if not the duty, to respond. > Many authors want to shut that dialog down to a single direction--the > author may pontificate to the reader and criticize anything he wants, > but if the reader responds with criticism of their work or its > apparent messages, then some horrible moral evil has occurred and the > poor hapless author is being censored. But censoring the reader's > thoughts is somehow okay. And no one likes an elitist crybaby. I don't see this problem much in Mormon letters (yet). But I have seen this phenomenon in "literary" authors who look down their noses at all readers. I have also seen this in the film industry where producers with more money than they could ever use decide they don't need outside input. > I'd just like to see more Mormons consider Mormon stories as a > legitimate outlet for their creative energies. Not a demand, but a > desire. Because I believe that the talent exists right now to tell > the most powerful stories of Mormonness and humanity that the world > has ever seen--if only our talented people will consider telling > stories of Mormons as well as stories of others. A worthy desire, but I think our culture makes the fulfilling of that desire more difficult than in other cultures. We go to a lot of effort to appear sinless. Any literature that peeks into the dark reality of Mormonness must ultimately take on sin and imperfection. Most people don't want to face the fact that these problems exist. We judge people based on their apparent sinlessness. We make assumptions about their worthiness based on the afflictions they must endure. We wonder about the sins of the parents when the child chooses not to serve a mission. I would like to see a literature that shows real Mormons dealing with real life problems, but I think we run an uphill battle with the members that have completely joined the sinless-on-the-surface club. Also, so many of our stories have conversion as the climax, but conversion only tells a tiny fraction of the story. A heck of a lot of enduring goes on between conversion and death. We also must face the fact that our church owns the major book distribution system for our literature. I don't believe that the editorial content of Deseret Book titles could shift very far from its present course. Covenant could probably publish more interesting material, but Covenant has such a strict profit motive, that they probably wouldn't take the chance. That leaves Signature, which has published some challenging titles, but these always seem to have an anti-Mormon theme. We may have the talented people who could tell these stories, but I don't believe that we have a broad-minded enough culture willing and ready to receive these stories. I think we should tell the stories anyway, and allow history to filter out the stories that get retold. - -- Terry L Jeffress | The truth is that Simple English is no- | one's mother tongue. It has to be worked | for. -- Jacques Barzun - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:55:21 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN History News Briefs: Kent Larsen Humor on the Pioneer Trail SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- A senior librarian at the LDS Church's history library, Melvin L. Bashmore, has collected humorous tales from pioneer diaries over his 26-year career with the library. He has shared those tales with many during the past few years after he put together a collection of the stories titled, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Utah: Laughable Incidences on the Mormon Trail," for which he received an award for merit from the Utah Humanities Council last year. Utah trek also paved by smiles Deseret News 24Jul01 D6 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,295013016,00.html By Lynn Arave: Deseret News staff writer >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:22:10 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: [AML] The Mark and Mike Show We just had a T1 line installed at the office, so lately I've been watching all the streaming video I've been too impatient to watch (or unable to watch) with a 56k modem. Today, I came across the "Mark and Mike" show at zerotv.com, featuring Mark Borchardt and Mike Schank, who were the subjects of the documentary "American Movie" -- one of my favorite films, and quite possibly the best film of 1999. The "Mark and Mike" show is more of the same -- documentary footage of Mark and Mike hanging around and sometimes working: http://www.zerotv.com/shows/archive.cfm?show_id=10 The first five episodes (generally two or three minutes long) are particularly funny because they guest-star a couple of Mormon missionaries who bumped into Mark while tracting (we called it "field teaching" in my mission) and somehow got roped into helping him assemble copies of "Coven," the short film Mark made during the filming of "American Movie." The best part comes in the fifth episode when Mark is autographing a "Coven" poster for the missionaries and asks them whether "Mormon" is spelled with an "m-a-n" or an "m-o-n" -- and neither of them are too sure at first! I hear that Mark & Mike are appearing on Letterman tonight (Monday night), in case y'all want a short glimpse of what these guys are like before seeing more... Eric D. Dixon - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:15:11 -0600 From: John Williams Subject: RE: [AML] Sex in Literature >It would reveal a bit of conceit to write a novel with a movie sale in mind, >I suppose, but if novels are the safe place for sex and movies are not, >wouldn't a Mormon author want to bear in mind that whatever sex he puts into >a novel may end up graphically portrayed in a film? > >This is an important question to me as I write about sexually-charged topics >in my novel doing my best to avoid vivid portrayals. I can succeed in the >written word, but if anyone were to make a movie out of it, I'd feel like a >pornographer. I'm not even counting on being published much less making a >movie sale, but I have decisions to make. Rex, you ask an excellent question, and I'm not sure I know the answer. I guess I would say, however, that before a book is made into a film, they need the author's permission, don't they? And I suppose you could insist that the sex scenes in your book do not come out too graphic. But I think we might be dealing with an entirely different ball game here (and an entirely new thread). What do you do if the film producer alters your plot? Or leaves out an important character? Or changes one of the scenes? I think Roland Barthes's idea in "Image--Music--Text" (1977) is valuable here. He argues that "a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination," and that "It is not that the Author may not 'come back' in the Text, in his text, but he then does so as a 'guest.' If he is a novelist, he is inscribed in the novel like one of his characters, figured in the carpet; no longer privileged, paternal, aletheological, his inscription is ludic. He becomes, as it were, a paper-author: his life is no longer the origin of his fictions but a fiction contributing to his work." This may seem like a rather frustrating injunction for an author trying to control how the film version of his book goes, but I think Barthes is right. Even if you did prevent the sex scenes from becoming pornographic, you would still have little control over how the rest of the scenes are produced, or how talented the actors are, in much the same way that you can hardly dictate how one interprets (or misinterprets) your text once it's been published. Once your work becomes available for public consumption, you float out there with the rest of us, detached and foreign. - --John Williams - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:38:28 -0600 From: John Williams Subject: RE: [AML] Editing Literature (was: Sex in Literature) >To me the artistic integrity argument takes on a very different tone >when you apply the same editing techniques to a book. Say I want my >kids to read _Catcher in the Rye_ but without all those nasty words. >So I take my copy of _Catcher_ to my local book doctor, who for a fee >will use a razor blade to cut out all the objectionable words and >scenes. How vile to treat a book in such a way. Actually, I think it's pretty much the same. The real problem with editing a work of art is not whether editing is good or bad, but rather WHO is doing the editing. If someone else thinks it's either bad or too mature for me to read, and they eliminate certain portions without my consent, then, yes, you have a kind of Orwellian nightmare emerging. But if I decide to expurgate part of a text, for my own reading, then I certainly have a right to do so. The distinction is that I can't force that expurgation onto someone else. In fact, I would argue that there is probably something wrong with a reader who doesn't make ANY sort of editorial decisions while he or she reads, whether it's deciding when that portion of the text is no longer interesting or valuable, or else just blindly accepting everything one reads. >I cannot stand to see a book mutilated. When I get a book out of the >library, I flip through all the pages and set all the bent corners >straight. You people who bend the pages instead of using a bookmark >make me sick. Heck, I can barely stand to write in a book. I even >have two sets of scriptures. The expensive leather bound edition just >for reading and the cheap simulated leather covered edition in which I >can make marks so I can simulate the proper image of the well-read >Elders Quorum instructor. I too am enchanted by what John Updike called "the charming little clothy box of the thing." But I've grown somewhat weary of hearing about the "sacredness" of books. I'd rather use and abuse my texts than to have immaculately bound copies of Shakespeare and Dickens on my mantle where they collect dust, symbols of the time I DON'T have to read. I agree that dog-earing and cutting one's books is generally a bad idea, but there is certainly nothing morally wrong with either. And it's probably a GOOD idea to write in one's book, as it nearly always ignites one's critical faculties, dramatizing the important interaction one has with a text. However, there IS something morally wrong with dog-earing, cutting, or writing in a LIBRARY book, in which case one is forcing one's own editing on someone else (and, let's not forget, committing a crime). >When I apply my distaste of book mutilation to the practice of >modifying films for the taste of the reader, I get the same bad taste >in my mouth. Do you get the same bad taste in your mouth when you apply this logic to, say, the culinary arts? Ex: the Chef wrote this recipe with green pepper in it. You don't like green peppers, or you're allergic to them? Well, then, you shouldn't be allowed to have the soup at all. Either you get it EXACTLY as the menu describes it or else you don't get it at all (this is starting to sound like the Soup Nazi on Seinfield). >I know many people who freely admit to skipping over >boring sections of books -- they flip past a few pages until they get >past the "council of war" scene and get back to the real action. Why >not use the remote control and just skip over the objectionable scene >-- or wait until the movie comes out on network television. This is exactly my point. There is nothing MORALLY (or artistically) wrong with this. On the surface, it may seem like a rather weak intellectual cop-out to skip the parts you don't like, but, let's face it, everyone does this to a certain extent. We do this on a much smaller scale all the time by giving certain portions of a text more attention than other portions. It seems rather quixotic--even impossible--to argue that everyone must give equal attention to every part of every work of art. I'm even editing your post as I respond to it right now, addressing certain parts and neglecting others. >Heck, if you find the scene that objectionable, then don't buy the >film in the first place. Even if you edit out the scene, you still >know the scene existis. Here you have an interesting argument. I would add only two things: (1) The simple rule of supply and demand indicates that if enough people were editing their films, and if producers knew about it, then they would make edited versions. Or, one could argue, these people have a personal agenda to make immoral films, in which case, they will keep making bad films, whether you buy them or not, and your personal boycott makes no difference anyway. (2) How far does one carry this boycott? You don't like the fact that Barnes and Nobles sells books on abortion, so you don't ever shop there? (Once, while working at Deseret Book I heard an even wackier version of this argument: an irate shopper approached me and argued that Deseret Book should not sell Colin Powell's biography because he supports abortion, as if there were some logical connection between Abortion--Colin Powell--Deseret Book--The Church). I don't like the fact that Martin Luther King committed adultery so I don't celebrate Human Rights Day? Don't even turn on the TV because, even if you change the channel, you still know the objectionable scene exists on the other channel? If another church doesn't have the entire truth, then ignore it entirely? I much prefer your "personal integrity" argument below. >Within a few >years, you will only find DVDs on the shelves. And a few more years >after that, theaters will have digital projectors that no longer use >easily editable films. How will you then edit out the scenes? Pay >someone to burn a new DVD one for you? I don't own a DVD player, but as I understand it, you can quite easily program your DVD player to skip whatever parts you don't like (please correct me if I'm wrong here). In fact, it might even be EASIER to edit with DVD than VHS, since you don't have to actually cut anything. >The only successful long-term >solution -- for any medium -- becomes personal integrity. What will >we as individuals allow into our minds? Here I think we agree. If my mom decides to edit her DVD movies, then great. I'm not going to tell her she can't watch the movie at all because she didn't like that one part. And, likewise, I won=92t insist that she order her artichoke saute with parsley in it, even if she misses out on the WHOLE saute. - --John Williams - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:10:42 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 29Jul01 X1 News Briefs 1. LDS Filmmaker Groberg Recognized with Pioneer Day Award OGDEN, UTAH -- Film maker Lee B. Groberg, a native of Farr West, Utah, was given one of five 2001 Utah Pioneers of Progress awards Tuesday as part of the "Days of '47" celebration. The awards honor outstanding Utah citizens who have, in their own areas of endeavor, carried on the pioneering spirit of the original pioneers who first settled Utah. Grobert is the owner of Groberg Communications, a film production company, and has produced two highly acclaimed documentaries for PBS, "Trail of Hope: The Story of the Mormon Trail," and "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith." Groberg was born in 1951 and now resides in Bountiful, Utah with his wife, Jeanene and seven children. In addition to "Trail of Hope" and "American Prophet" Groberg also wrote and directed "American Gunmaker: The John M. Browning Story," two other documentaries and three educational films. He is currently working on a film about Nauvoo. PBS docu-films earn Farr West native award for 'pioneering' Ogden UT Standard-Examiner 26Jul01 A2 http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=000107251905180392 20+cat=community+template=news1.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:30:07 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:17:34 -0700, ???n ??e wrote: > Another film=20 >with a very graphic, if distant sex scene that I did see was _The Name = of=20 >the Rose_ from the novel by Umberto Eco. I did not read the novel, but = have=20 >to believe that the scene in the movie must have come from the book, = given=20 >the importance of the scene to the title. The scene in the book is presented in a highly metaphorical sense, in = which sex becomes the realization of all the young protagonist's ideals of = beauty and love. The scene in the movie is a lot of grunting and moaning. The = two couldn't be more different. It's an important scene (that is, the fact = of his having sex at that time with that person in that way) because of who = the protagonist and the woman are, and because of the things the protagonist = is struggling with. And there was never any way they could film it the way = it was written because it's a long string of images free-associating in the = way such things do inside one's head. But in the movie, it comes across as--well, as watching someone have non-pornographic sex (that is, the = real thing, not erotic choreography with a sleazy soundtrack). It misses the whole point of how the protagonist (whose name I just can't remember = right now) felt about the incident, which is every bit as important as the fact that it occurred at all. I was annoyed by it. Melissa 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 #410 ******************************