From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #412 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, August 1 2001 Volume 01 : Number 412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:51:55 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] Editing Literature Let me first say that I am delighted John Williams has finally joined a discussion. John Williams is one of the smartest people I know. I always feel smarter when I hang out with him. John Williams: > >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. Some artists will cry that people should not change their works of art around, but the fact is, once you're selling your art for money, it becomes a product, as if it were a blender or a muffin. Certainly no one has the right to barge into the Louvre (or the Met or wherever) and deface the original Mona Lisa. But if someone buys a print of it, it's his to do whatever he wants with it. It is very rare to find any work of art that does not become "edited" in some way. Movies are edited for television, books are condensed into Reader's Digest versions and/or made into movies, paintings are badly reproduced onto postcards, plays have all their "objectionable" dialogue excised by conservative theaters, songs get sampled by rap artists or used as underscore in commercials or parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic. Eventually, everything has its dignity stripped away, if not in some official capacity, then by the people who buy it and have their way with it. An author might write a book and insist it never be made into a film, never be abridged, never be put into paperback, never be translated into another language -- in other words, insist it remain exactly as he wrote it. And people can still buy it, read it, misinterpret it, misunderstand it, retell it poorly to their friends, get offended by things the author did not mean to be offensive, and place the wrong emphasis on a supporting character when the author intended for the main character to be the important one. The reader may treat the book itself like a sacred object, and revere the author -- but he has still "edited" the book, with the red pen of prejudice in the margins of his mind. (Thank you. Thank you very much.) > >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. I used to be the same way with records. There was just something cool about watching them spin around on the turntable, seeing the slight wobbliness of the needle, etc., etc. I've always hated cassettes. They're so boring. > >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. Personal agendas aside, I doubt they would make edited versions of their films available. For one thing, it would be seen by their peers as an artistic sell-out. For another thing, why should they? If people -- even millions of people -- are buying the videos and then having them edited somewhere ... well, end of story. The filmmakers see this: Millions of people are buying my videos. Wonderful! They MIGHT reason that there might be even MORE people out there who would like them edited but don't want to go to the trouble and so therefore aren't buying them at all. But I think my first point (artistic sell-out) would prevent the filmmakers from catering to this segment of the population. > (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? Apples and oranges, my good friend John Williams. We're talking about boycotting ONE particular film because it has content we object to. The parallel to your example would be boycotting an entire video store because it carries one movie we don't like, and I don't think anyone's suggesting that. > > >>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. Well, not exactly. (You really should get a DVD player.) It is easy to skip ahead to the next "chapter" (usually the next scene, typically divided up in segments of three to six minutes each). So, yes, if something comes up that is clearly a sex scene, hitting the "chapter" button would most likely get you to the "next morning" scene, or whatever comes after it. I believe on some models you actually can program it to play the movie in a particular sequence -- play chapters 1-20, then 22-30, for example, skipping the evil chapter 21 -- but I wouldn't say this is "easily" done. I'm quite the DVD snob, and I don't know how to do it on mine, or if mine even can do it. And then, we're not "editing" the movie in the way most people are talking about. With the edited videos, something has actually been physically done -- tape cut out, or portions erased, or whatever. With the DVD, the offending matter would still exist (and the kids could get to it); we'd just be skipping over it. Which is a form of "editing," I know, but different from what most people consider to be editing. Eric D. Snider - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:59:42 -0600 From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: [AML] re: Mission of Mormon Letters? I appreciate the view of the person who lives in that rural mid-west = town and writes for her local newspaper. Being one of the few Mormons = around (if I understand correctly) she feels she has to stand up and = give a good example . . . and teach if the opportunity presents itself. = I understand that feeling, and would probably do exactly the same thing = if I lived where she does. The reason I object to a "mission" or even = to the discussion of what "our' mission should be--as Mormon writers--is = that some things are important to me and others are not. The things = that are important cause me to write stories. If the idea of a mission = in our writing is even discussed, then I feel I am being told what = should be important to me. And quite frankly, some of the things I've = read on this list are, to me, very unimportant. Some of the things I've = read seem so foreign I wonder if I'm reading computer code. The = philosophies that are uniquely Mormon (or that we think are unique) are, = in my estimation, as true and comforting as they ever were. But they're = not what is important to me write now. What is important is life. What = is important is how to accomplish this thing called life. That is what = makes great literature. That is why THE BACKSLIDER and HUCK FINN are = such great books. They help readers to understand a little bit of how = to accomplish this thing called life. I believe happiness is the most = important thing in life, and that is what I want to motivate me. I've = had enough sorrow, and I know it can kill. Happiness is innocent. It = never hurt anybody. Paris Anderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:44:55 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers Anna Wight wrote: > > I believe Proffit and Wight and Hume can reach both their literary and > > their financial (read "copies sold") goals in whatever markets they > > pursue. > >Just out of curiousity (here's my geneology side kicking in) who is Wight? I was thinking of you. You write, right? Or did I get that wrong? Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:46:49 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Mission of Mormon Letters? Terry L Jeffress wrote: >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. I guess I disagree with you on this one, but only partially. I think the Mormon readership has been reluctant to accept the expose-style story that pretends to reveal what Mormons "really" think and believe, and that reluctance has led to a quick rejection of other stories that contain powerful statement of unorthodox views expressed in the name of Mormonism. But the fact that Mormons flock so readily to the morality plays offered by most of Covenant's authors and a fair number of DB's as well, suggests that it's not the presence of sin or error on the part of Mormon characters that's the problem. Mormons seem to accept that willingly enough as long as the characters recognize sin for what it is and attempt to resolve those problems. I think the issue comes back to what's being published. As you point out, the only LDS-oriented publishers who are on the average Mormon's radar screen are Signature, best known for its critical/anti stance against traditional cultural Mormonism, and a number of small or niche publishers like Cedar Fort that have a limited acceptance and impact on the total LDS market. But to me, the simple existence of a press like Cedar Fort that publishes a wide variety of explicitly LDS titles that range from pioneer adventure stories to modern spy thrillers is evidence that Mormon readers want more than they're getting from the Big 2.5 LDS publishers. Yes, many of these titles are small-run and a distressing number of them are author-subsidized, but they sell better than you might imagine. While I know it's a bad idea to assume that other people like what I like, or that what my circle of friends tell me is broadly indicative of the larger market, I just believe that the time *has* come when there are enough different kinds of Mormons to support a growing variety of niche publishers. I've talked to quite a few people who have said that they'd like to read more Mormon fiction, but that they're just not interested in the titles they're seeing. I think that number is larger than we might imagine (and no, I have no statistics or backup for that opinion; it's just a personal opinion). This is not to say that the current, vocal readership of the existing publishers will embrace other kinds of stories right out of the box. Scott Bronson's seven-year odyssey with his novel _The Whipping Boy_ is evidence that the mainstream isn't willing to pull the trigger on radically new kinds of fiction. But I think more and more readers are willing to try something outside the ordinary. Enough to support a low-distribution niche market that can slowly broaden the range of stories that are available in the Mormon market and can slowly legitimize a wider variety of Mormon experiences. The criticism Richard Dutcher has received shows that there is a vocal, intolerant segment to our culture. The fact that many Mormons have gone to see his films and anxiously await the next one is evidence that our culture may be broader and more accepting than we've given it credit for. The audiences are out there. We need to help build them by publishing a broader range of titles and types, and by providing opportunities for them to state their acceptance of those newer stories. If this sounds like a combination of wishful thinking and pseudo-manifesto building, I suppose it is. Someone has to state the challenge and/or raise the possibility to the front of our minds if it's to be realized. I just believe Mormon culture is broader and more adaptable and accepting than we've given it credit for. We shall see... Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:20:59 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] re: Artists vs. Illustrators Thom writes >To me, Greg Olsen is an illustrator, not an artist. Pardon my late response...I'd hoped someone else would respond to this comment and save me the argument , but since y'all failed me... Illustration is an art form. It involves illustrating...something. A book, for example. Or a magazine article. Greg Olsen paints, and to my knowledge, he paints without reference to book, articles, or any other written work; if I'm correct, he is not, therefore, an illustrator. But if, perchance, I'm wrong, and he does, in fact, actually illustrate, I still don't see how engaging in the art of illustration makes one something less than an artist...any more than engaging in the production of s.f.-- or tech writing, or poetry, or romance, or any other identifiable genre of writing -- makes one less than a writer. If s.f. is writing, illustration is art. FWIW, I'm looking right now at Greg Olsen's Web site , and what I see there is pretty definitively ART. One may fairly argue about the quality of his art (I happen to like it, but I'll grant you the option of disliking it), but art it is, nonetheless. - --lmg - --------- WHAT DO WE DO? We homeschool! Here's how: "Homeschool Your Child for Free." Order your copy today, from Amazon.com. - --------- . - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:21:07 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature First, regarding the "???n ??e" that appears to be my name in my email address, it's a problem with my ISP that they claim will be fixed soon. Sorry for the confusion. "???n ??e " means Rex Goode. Thanks for the great response to my questions about film versions and _The Name of the Rose_ by Umberto Eco. Rather than answer them all individually, I'll make respond to them in one message. Thom's mention of _Jaws_ was well-timed. He made a point I was going to make. When I've told people that I've seen the movie with that Hooper and Mrs. Brody had a very sleazy affair, they've asked, "Why?!" Of course, neither character in the movie seems the least inclined to such an activity. The entire affair is irrelevant to the story anyway, at least from my memory. I don't even remember the point of it. I saw the movie at least ten times before I read the book, so maybe I was just primed to not care about anything extraneous to the movie's plot. I read _Jaws 2_ before seeing the movie. _Jaws 2_ was not written by Peter Benchley. I don't recall any sex in it at all, and for me, it was a much better book. It had fascinating information about great white sharks in it as it told the story. About four years ago, I read Peter Benchley's _White Shark_ about a human mutated into a shark-like creature. It had the same kind of multiple points of view that I like in horror/suspense stories, converging plotlines, etc., but I can't recall any sex in it. I really didn't think much of the book. I enjoy anything scary like that, but it wasn't as compelling as _Jaws_. Melissa's and Scott's telling about the sex scene in _The Name of the Rose_ was interesting and really made a great point, part of what I was trying to say. I have an acquaintance who writes erotica for Playboy and such magazines. She knows my point of view about such things. Other than pornographic writing, literature and film necessarily handle sex scenes differently. What a novel would tend to say about a sex scene may not be graphic at all, but a film may have to be graphic or delete it altogether. In the novel I am writing, there will be several sex incidents in the plot, but I'm being very careful to not write them as my friend would. They are essential to the story, but it's not essential for the reader to experience the scenes personally. When I was a teenager, I read a novel called, _The Viking_. I can't remember the author. (Is there a place on the net where you can look up information on old out-of-print novels?) It was about Leif Erikson finding the new world. There were several tawdry sex scenes in it and I was looking for a cigarette after each one (even though I didn't smoke). Comments from Thom, Craig, John, and Scott were also interesting regarding what control an author might have over film decisions. I would be in such shock over even having my novel published that I probably would be bold enough to not sell the film rights. At this point, as the novel is shaping up, I'm sure I wouldn't like it as a movie, not because of sexual topics, but because I'm pridefully certain that every element of the plot is necessary and a film would have to drastically reduce it to something that doesn't really tell the story I'm trying to tell. Rex Goode - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:40:41 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: [AML] re: Editing Literature (was: Sex in Literature) When we speak of Hollywood doing rewrites for their movies, it brings to mind one of the early "Planet of the Apes" movies. The movie's premise was that man's civilization had destroyed itself with violence, allowing the apes to take over. The book, however, had the apes take over because mankind no longer was willing to fight for beliefs, having become totally pacifist. Major rewrite, because of what was the politically correct belief in Hollywood at the time. If it can happen to something like Planet, it can happen to something that we write. Karen Tippets - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:57:41 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Re: Editing Literature (was: Sex in Literature) John Williams wrote: > >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? No. That right is usually bought by the publisher. > And I suppose you could insist that the > sex scenes in your book do not come out too graphic. Few writers can insist on anything. Even name ones. The ending to Stephen King's _Cujo_ was changed (for the better, imo) and he could do nothing about it. Anne Rice had no control at all over Tom Cruise being cast as her hero in the film adaptation of her novel. > 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? The only thing an author can do is ask for enough money up front and hope that the rape of his/her novel is somehow mitigated thereby. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:04:16 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Melissa Proffitt wrote: > 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. Hands-down the best example of a sex (actually, nudity) scene that shows how the characater is feeling is the scene in _The Graduate_ where Mrs. Robinson tries to seduce the Dustin Hoffman character. Director Nichols cuts back and forth from Mrs. Robinson to Hoffman, and does it so fast that there is no opportunity to dwell on the erotic nature of the scene. Instead we see Hoffman's panic. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:09:06 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers REWIGHT wrote: > > > > 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? > > Honestly, no. I don't think writers "sell out" if they don't put their > religion in their writing. Sometimes being LDS has nothing to do with the > story. For instance if your writing a fantasy that takes place on another > world, you may use LDS elements subliminally put in, but you won't have LDS > characters. And why not? Suppose Thomas Covenant had been a Mormon. He gets transported to a fantasy world. There are all kinds of other ways to transplant LDS characters via fantasy. > If you write a crime drama, you might not have any LDS > reference in it. It's not selling out because most of the world isn't LDS. But what would it hurt to have the murderer, let's say, visit an LDS Bishop, instead of a Catholic Priest, for penitance. > I would consider it a sell out if an LDS person put graphic sex, swearing or > used ideas that were against LDS belief. What if those ideas were used to set up the final repentence of the main character? > That's not to say that you're > Catholic cop can't express his personal beliefs. I'm talking about taking > our religion and making it look like a cult. Which is precisely WHY I think faithful Mormon writers writing for the larger market should almost feel it a mission from God to use Mormon characters wherever they can. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:26:49 -0600 From: Steve Subject: [AML] re: Sex in Literature Hi Listers, Regarding sex in literature; Barbara Kingsolver has an interesting essay in the new book "Writers on Writing, collected essays from the New York Times," edited by John Darnton. Her essay, "A Forbidden Territory Familiar to All," is 6 pages on the difficulty of writing intimate scenes--a problem she has often solved with "space breaks." Example; one character notices a cellophane crackle in the other's shirt pocket and declares that if he has a condom in there, this is her lucky day. (now the sex scene:) He did. It was. (Space break and then on to next section.) However, when she felt the necessity of writing in more detail (and at more length) about sexual relationships, she discovered that the available words for description have been taken by pornographers, consumerism, and the medical profession. So most descriptions either sound clinical, like they were written by Larry Flynt, or would make 6th grade boys giggle. She has more to say, but I'll quote just one paragraph; "We live in a strange land where marketers can display teenage models in the receptive lordotic posture (look it up) to sell jeans or liquor, but the basics of human procreation can't be discussed in a middle-school science class without sparking parental ire." Steve - -- skperry@mac.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:54:14 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Literature On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:38:28PM -0600, John Williams wrote: > 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 realize that my aversion to writing in books represents an extreme position that I do not necessarily want to enforce upon others. (Just don't dog ear or write in any book you borrow from me. And you sure better not breake the spine on the paperback. . . .) > 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 don't think your analogy fits quite right. When you follow a recipe, you end up with some kind of culinary creation. When you read a book, you end up with some kind of mental image. If you make choices to remove an ingredient from a receipe, you change the end product, but you do not change the recipe for the next person who reads the book. The next person has the same freedom to omit any of the ingredients. When you read a book, you have the choice to skip any of the content of that book. Although your mind will not have experienced the book's entire contents, the next reader still has the opportunity to experience the book as printed by the publisher. In the 1980s, Better Homes and Gardens released a new edition of their popular cookbook. Because of the sodium scare at that time, the editors decided to remove salt from almost every recipe in the book. If you compare recipes from the new and previous editions, often you would find that only the salt changed -- no other compensation for the change in flavor made by the omission of salt. To me, the editors should have printed a "no salt" icon next to every recipe where the reader could choose to optionally eliminate the salt from the recipe, but instead, the editors decided that everyone would eliminiate salt from their diet. I chafe at any such universal judgement that eliminates my opportunity to choose for myself. I look at the MPAA ratings in the same way, especially PG-13. Could they have picked an age where development varies more widely. I know thirteen year olds that stil hold hand with their mommy and others that could move out and successfully live on their own. I much prefer being told something substantive about the content of the movie: adult-subjects, nudity, violence, excessive profanity. With this information, I can make a better decision about what I choose to experience. Perahps I know that nudity puts me in an incorrect frame of mind but that violence does not. It still comes down to a personal choice I make for myself, and not a choice that I allow a community to make for me. > 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. I think we mostly agree. I don't care if people skip parts of a movie that they don't like. In fact, I believe that what people do with a book or movie for personal use should not have any limitations under the law. But if you have purchased a movie that contains scenes to which you object, then you really shouldn't complain when the producer makes the next movie with two "objectionable" scenes. In most cases, movies and books exist as an opportunity for the publishers/producers to make a return on their investment. Sure you can write letters asking for "cleaner" products, but in the end, the producer will listen to his accountant and not the public at large. We also have to consider that the Mormon culture must accept an apoclyptic frame of reference. We believe that the world at large and even a good portion of the saints will devolve into a culture more corrupt and vile than Sodom and Gomorrah. So we have to consider how much a Mormon literature really should stand on its own versus drawing from contemporary literature. - --=20 Terry L Jeffress | Why do people always expect authors to | answer questions? I am an author | because I want to ask questions. If I | had answers I'd be a politician. | -- Eugene Ionesco - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:24:56 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] Brigham Young (was: Sex in Literature) Alan writes about enjoying reading Brigham Young. I also love to read him--for his fascinating and specific pragmatism. Alan says: "Also, I like him because Brigham was a man who was not dominated by his sexual desires." Hmmm. . . I think that is impossible for moderns with only one wife to know anything about. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Valerie Holladay Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _The River Path_ (Review) Jeff Needle wrote: > > >There are some points of discontinuity that are > puzzling. One > > >that comes to mind involves Matt's decision to > purchase cell > > >phones for himself and for Dana. Having > delivered the phone to > > >her, she soon finds herself needing to make a > call. She runs to > > >a phone booth, finds it busy, and goes looking > for another one. > > >No explanation is given as to why she couldn't > just use her cell > > >phone. Matt and Dana are having communication problems and he buys the cell phones since she is staying at the hospital to be near their son and he can't be with her because he's needed at work. When he comes to the hospital with the new phones, he finds her asleep and rather than wake her, he leaves a phone with her and a note that tells her not to use it in the hospital since it can affect the hospital's electronic equipment. Most hospitals have signs asking that visitors turn off their cell phones when they enter the hospital. Valerie Holladay __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:00:53 -0600 From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: [AML] Gary ROE, _Mormons against the MOB?_ (Review) Gary G. Roe: _Mormons against the MOB?_, a novel, Agreka Books, Sandy, Utah, 1998, 200pp, softbound This is a first novel by Mr. Roe, and it shows. The premise is two photo-journalists, Mike and Maggie McQuaid, befriend Millie Pestwick, the curator of the Mormon Station Museum in Genoa. It turns out that Millie's great-grandfather had been a large landowner in the area, who was accused of murder, hanged, and his property taken over by an ancestor of Teri Jackson, a friend of the McQuaid's in Sun Valley. Teri had taken the missionary discussions, had committed to baptism, but then quit her job without notice and went back to South Lake Tahoe to help with her family's business, running a casino. Millie believes her great-grandad was innocent, and the McQuaid's take up the challenge of proving him so. In the process, they make friends with Jim Benson who is with the local newspaper. It appears the murder charge was trumped up, and was, in fact, a front for a land grab. The Jackson in Teri Jackson is her mother's maiden name, her dad's is Mosconi. The Irish Mafia are attempting to break into the Nevada gambling scene, and feel the Jackson/Mosconi holdings will allow them to just that. They have an attorney contact Millie, and persuade her to allow him to represent Millie in clearing her family name, and recovering the property, after which the Irish gang will bamboozle her out of it. Of course, it all works out in the end, and, if the book was a Hopalong Cassidy movie, everyone would have a big horse laugh, and ride off into the sunset. There are a number of problems with the book. Perhaps the most irritating to me being Mr. Roe's obsession with names beginning with "M." After a while it goes from being clever to cute to confusing, to boring. Also, the style leaves much to be desired. For instance: "MAGGIE! MAGGIE?" Muttering to himself, Mike was searching vainly for the keys to the Bronco. "Maggie? Do you know where the keys to the Bronco are? I can't find them anywhere?" Also, on page 36 we are told that "He glanced at Jim's thinning brown hair . . . ," which is fine, except that we are not introduced to Jim until the next page. In fairness to Mr. Roe, he states on the back cover that he wrote this book after having a massive cerebral hemorrhage, and a near-death experience. He went from typing 90 wpm, to 90 words per day. His background is in newspaper work. It would appear that this book was written, at least in part as therapy. There are more, he says, on the way. I wish him well. I bought the book at Borders for a buck. Roy Schmidt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:37:21 -0700 From: Jerry Tyner Subject: [AML] _Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ I haven't seen this string in a while but I wanted to comment on my and my family's experience when we went to see Testaments last week. Granted it was the day before my son went into the MTC making us a little more sensitive but even with that based on the strings here I had a unique experience. I'm going to give away a little of the plot so stand warned. We went into the theater as a family with my aunt and her family. My wife and I had discussed and read the strings here and wondered what was the problem. We had not discussed this with my children or other family members. my prayer as the film started and during the film was that I would understand the message and decide for myself if it was a good film and that the Spirit would touch all of us. Making a film like this is unique in that you want to touch those who are sensitive. Anything can be picked apart if you go with that intent. I am not a film or book critic. Many of you may criticize me for that since I am uneducated in that field. I know what I like and that is all. I liked this film and felt it was worthy of replacing Legacy. Every time I asked in my heart during the film why would someone find fault in a certain part an overwhelming feeling of peace came over me to the point of tears. I felt consistently touched by the Spirit. I also noticed when it was over that all of my family and my aunt's family had tears in their eyes. Here was what I saw. The film centered on the people in the Americas and the individual testimonies of some of the members and the teachers or what could have been construed as one of the prophets at that time. He was fictional as were all of the characters except Jesus. It began with a young boy seeing the new star presumably on the night after the day and night and day which was as one day. The sign had been given of the birth of the Savior. It then jumped to that young man as a father bearing his testimony that he knew the Savior had been born because he had seen the sign of His birth and would manifest himself to them one day. He had to deal with a son who had not gained a testimony as well as those who were not believers. The timeline wasn't perfect especially when it came to the murder of the Governor but that was okay. One of the scenes that really touched me was when the young woman who the son was in love with gained her testimony of the living Savior while she was reading the sacred records. The only way to describe that scene was she had a vision of the Savior teaching in the Old World and thus gained a powerful testimony. One of the others (of many) was when the son gained his testimony as he was a captive to what could be construed to be the Gadianton band and the rescue by the father who lost his sight in an accident while rescuing his son during the great earthquake and storm at the time of the Savior's crucifixion. The bottom line to myself and my family was by going with the correct Spirit and with a prayer in our hearts we saw this totally different than had been expected. The feelings in my heart were real and powerful. But I went wanting to see a message and could not comment on the art because the message was so strong and clear. I'm not saying that what was said here was wrong but my experience was definitely much different. All my wife told me was: "I don't agree with what they said about this movie." I have to agree with her. Jerry Tyner - - 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 #412 ******************************