From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #501 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 Thursday, November 1 2001 Volume 01 : Number 501 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:48:45 -0500 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Rewriting Hymns When our baby was one month old and constantly crying, I rewrote "How Gentle God's Command" with the following: How gentle baby's hands how soft her ears and chin how kind and loving she wants to be but little things go wrong. It actually works very well. The rewrite allowed me not to get so uptight when she was screaming WAAAAAAAAAA. Tom J. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction I'm a latecomer to this discussion and have missed a lot, so I apologize if I am asking you to repeat ground you've already covered. Here's my question: do you know of any fiction (not drama) in which God (meaning either the Father or Jesus Christ) is a character AS HIMSELF? In which he simply, with no excuse or comment, speaks or appears? Levi Peterson's Cowboy Jesus comes to mind but that's not an example of what I'm asking because of the way the story is told (from within one character's point of view) so that the Appearance seems to be a vision in his own language. What I want is an example of God as God--used as a character in a book without being described in terms of the observer or through another character's thoughts. I would like to do such a thing but I keep shying away from it. I'm not sure why--maybe deep down I feel it's inappropriate. Or maybe it goes even deeper into whether I really believe God actually talks to people in ways that are separate from Warm Fuzzy Feelings. But I need to put a conversation (in prayer) with him in a story I'm telling. I find myself wanting to change the story into a play because, for some reason, I don't have a problem with having the Lord be PLAYED by someone in a play. (It seems easier in a play to make it more clear that this REALLY HAPPENED instead of just seeming to happen, as would always be a possiblity in a story told in one character's point of view.) But having him simply speak in a story is just not working out for me--at least in a way that is comfortable. I would like to read some examples. ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:41:00 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff Um. I think there's a good chance that it is even worse than you present here. This talk sounds like a point for point rendition of a talk from my youth. It was a popular fireside sermon and talked about a group at some important college (MIT?) and a man in that group who studied the bible and came up with 15 or 23 or something points of what would be the true Church of Christ. The fireside was even accompanied by a business-card sized handout with the points in it with scripture references for where those points were to be found (the one I had was blue). Naturally, this is a conversion sermon. Since he made the same thin rhetorical arguments this fireside speaker made 20 years ago, I find it likely that his "research" consisted of finding one of these cards tucked in an old box somewhere. Is this fluff? I don't know. It really bugs me, though. I dislike the blind repetition of facts, analogies and doctrines that have really weak foundations. Like the stupid footprints poem, or the old guy playing the violin, or any of a hundred other old chestnuts that crop up from time to time and bother some people terribly, but find a happy audience most of the time. I'm not sure this is really fluff, though. Unless we divide fluff into two categories. I hate this stuff because it is false. Or at the minimum, it doesn't hold up logically as Stephen points out here. So you have the fuzzy-headed nonsense that is demonstrably wrong like this stuff. On the other hand, there's the fluff that is not actively false--most stories about the three Nephites for example. I don't mind this later category because you can take it or leave it without being demonstrably wrong either way. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind giving the benefit of the doubt, but I'm really unwilling to put up with stuff I consider demonstrably wrong. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:56:00 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Romanticism in America Thanks, Annette. I think this definition is good. It's what I believed romanticism is and was. And it fits in with what I "like" about literature. Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:13:35 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction Tracie Laulusa wrote: > Maybe they are just avoiding the backlash that seems to follow any portrayal > of God in the flesh. I know that's the reason I've yet to finish the libretto to my rock opera, _War in Heaven_ where God is portrayed as a record producer and Jehovah and Lucifer do a thirties-style duet complete with top hats and canes. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 02:44:13 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > There is no supernatural being opposite to the Unmaker. Why? Second stab at the issue: Satan is not all-powerful. He has limitations. So he makes a perfectly good fictional character. God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve any conflict with a wave of the hand. So he makes a lousy fictional character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. Making him stay behind the scenes is the standard way to restrict him. Otherwise we run the risk of swerving into the dreaded deus ex machina story. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:21:20 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Romance On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:04:38 -0700, Barbara Hume wrote: >A true romance is about people finding love, which is what everyone = needs=20 >and wants, but it isn't about meaningless sex. It's about creating=20 >something new that didn't exist before--a partnership, a family--and=20 >putting an end to the isolation and loneliness of the characters. It's=20 >really a confirmation of life. >But not every novel that emphasizes emotion over car chases or murders = or=20 >whatever is a romance. since a romance is a confirmation, it must have = an=20 >HEA (happily ever after) ending, which many readers dismiss as=20 >"unrealistic" or "fluff." You know *I* don't think so, Barbara! :) Actually I wanted to add to = this definition of the ending, which is not just that it's "happily ever = after" but that it's the end of the story. I have been reading Rachel Nunes's books for a while now, and it only just struck me (in reading _Bridge to =46orever_ I think) that the reason these are NOT romance novels is that = the culmination of the romance is very rarely at the end of the novel, but usually about 2/3rds of the way from the end. The romance is important, = and you can read them as romance novels, AND the emotional lives of the characters are always vital to the story, but the confirmation--the point= at which the two characters truly begin their partnership--isn't really what the book is about. I like romance in books. I like seeing, as Barbara says very well, = people creating something new that ends their isolation; two people becoming one flesh, as it were. It's only fluffy if it's unjustified, and romance = novels depend on the reader being convinced that the happy ending is justified. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:13:16 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff You know, I remembered that there was a version of High on a Mountain Top = that included badgers eating squirrels, but I couldn't remember how it = went. Many many thanks, Jacob, for this lyrical reminder. As far as Camp is concerned, I think y'all are right; camp is intentionally= funny, and most good LDS camp is so earnest it becomes unintentionally = funny. I'm very fond of the BYU performing group, the Young Ambassadors, = in this regard. (For me and my house, they will be known, for now and = forever, as the Young Embarrassors). What I really really don't want to do is flaunt my own cultural superiority= or aesthetic tastefulness. I am the guy, after all, who just finished = directing a production of My Turn on Earth. I think we did a darn good = job of it, and I think audiences genuinely enjoyed it, and I think it's a = lot better show than it's given credit for being, but if anyone there left = the theatre privately chuckling over the earnest naivete of our production,= then good for them, and I hope it lowered their blood pressure. I'm sure = I cut a ridiculous enough figure much of the time, gigantic lumbering = walrus of a pseudo-intellectual jack-donkey that I am. Why not cheerfully,= ruefully embrace our own lumbering walrus selves? Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:11:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction J. Scott Bronson wrote: > writes: > > > Actually - that's not Satan - it's the Unmaker. > > [snip] > > Maybe for the purposes of the story, but as a metaphor, clearly > the Unmaker is Satan. But, assuming I'm wrong about that, or > assuming there are rules that don't allow me to make that > connection ... Being a firm beleiver that all critical interpretations must be grounded in the text, I would say there are. There was a reason Card included the dialouge distinguishing Satan from the Unmaker, otherwise it wouldn't have been in there. > where is the > Maker? If this is an analogue of the story of the restoration, > where are all the visions of the Maker? In this universe of > Card's, there is an > Unmaker -- a supernatural (buying the premise that magic is natural in > this universe) being that can manipulate the things of Alvin's world in > an attempt to thwart him, and there are lots of people with knacks > helping Alvin along. The role of the Holy Ghost is filled by Peggy. > There is no supernatural being opposite to the Unmaker. Why? > > scott There is an opposition to teh Unmaker and his name is Alvin - that's why he's called "Alvin Maker." A lot depends on what happens in the last book of the series, but I personally beleive that Card has dropped hints that the Unmaker is not an all powerful, pervasive force, but a person like Alvin who has perverted the use of his powers. If the Unmaker were really all-pervasive, Alvin would be toast by now. There is an element of human idiocy to the Unmaker. - --Ivan Wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:24:20 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff, Camp & Kitsch My New Webster's Dictionary defines Camp as: "Something outlandish or distastefully extravagant that can be enjoyed for its artistic style." Nothing about whether it's supposed to intentional or not. Kitsch is defined as: "Pretentious, crude, mawkish, or gaudy literature or art intended to appeal to a mass market." That is us all over. Ain't it great? I always thought one of the popular definitions of camp & kitsch was something that was so bad it's good. Siskel & Ebert used to have a movie category they called, "Movies we're ashamed to admit we like." "Zorro, the Gay Blade" fits that one for me. Obviously our Eternal Salvation doesn't depend on whether we wear a CTR ring or not, but they're fun to wear and I suppose the good intention being a reminder for kids and adults to be good people and something that can be a conversation starter. More silly perhaps is when we all like lemmings get into certain symbols and crafts that give people the idea it has some real Gospel significance to it-Like the old story about a lady asking the Relief Society President what was the Gospel meaning of all the glass grapes every sister had on her coffee table! And BTW what are Mormons doing with coffee tables in their home anyway? We are a "Peculiar People" aren't we? We ought to say "Thank Heavens We Are!" I guess if we're really worried about fluff we can always turn to the Scriptures-lots of sex, violence, sloth and mendacity in there. Lots of goodness and inspiration too. Something for everyone, from serious scholars to us sentimental fools. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:39:40 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Creating a Second, Unmoderated List I had promised to share my thoughts about having a second, moderated list. I'll throw in as well my thoughts regarding some of the other proposals for having an "open soapbox" ummoderated time with the existing list. First, I need to make the point that despite the advisory discussion we have been having about AML-List policies and procedures, we are not in fact a subscriber-owned or subscriber-governed list. As moderator, I pretty much have my own way in the day-to-day running of the List--though I should point out here that I have actually adhered pretty closely to Ben's original, tried-and-true policies for AML-List, with some differences in individual interpretation, style, and emphasis, but no real deviations of policy. Ultimately, though, the list is paid for and governed by the Association for Mormon Letters; in my capacity of moderator, I'm officially an AML staff member. I feel comfortable experimenting with areas such as how many items to post in a day, or exactly how strictly to interpret the List guidelines (though both these ideas were bounced around behind the scenes before I put them before the List for comment). But creating a second, unmoderated list, or giving over a certain period of time to unmoderated discussion, is something that I would feel the need to submit to the AML Board. Based on Ben's experience as moderator, unmoderated discussion is something that the AML Board is unlikely to approve, at least in any formal connection with AML or the AML-List. And I must say I can see their point. The Association for Mormon Letters has a pretty good name right now among the various players in Mormon letters; that good name is worth protecting. Unmoderated discussion under the AML aegis runs a serious risk, in my view, of opening the way to posts--quite likely from people not currently subscribed to the List--that are so seriously off-topic, immoderate, or just plain bizarre that they wind up reflecting negatively on perceptions of AML. Such perceptions, once damaged, are difficult to repair. I don't think an unmoderated period on AML-List would work well anyway, in terms of the dynamics of List discussion. If held on a weekend--or any other time, for that matter--there's the potential for a dramatic upsurge in List volume, which List members would be able to protect against only by frequently subscribing and unsubscribing. Additionally, ongoing discussions of AML-List topics would be interspersed with the "open forum" posts, to the potential confusion of both. Okay, that could probably be handled by careful use of thread titles (though that itself presupposes a certain degree of self-moderation difficult or impossible to guarantee). But what I envision here is the potential for two entirely different types of conversation going on in the same room at once, with no clear way of taking part in one without listening to the other as well. And I think it impossible that the tone and content of the open forum discussions would not spill over and affect the interaction during the rest of the time. For those who choose not to read the open forum, there's the problem of carrying on in ignorance of what others may have said on similar topics. For those who do choose to read, there's the problem of wanting to carry on off-topic or heated discussions in ways not appropriate for the main list. I also think it unlikely that emotions raised during the open forum would cool down automatically for the main discussion periods/threads. It's hard enough to keep our cools while talking about things that matter to us under the existing rules; I'm reluctant to do anything that would make this less likely (or require more active moderation on my part to guarantee). A separate list is a less clear-cut case, in my view. I've already outlined reasons why I think the AML Board would be unwilling to have such a list exist under the AML label. If it did, I think Terry Jeffress makes a good analysis of the kind of confusion that would like result over which is the "real" AML-List, and problems over which list carries on the worthwhile conversations. In particular, I think any kind of automatic spillover from one list to another for "bounced" posts would be unwise. As List moderator, I wouldn't be willing to take responsibility for such a system; as a List member, I don't think I would be willing to participate on those grounds. (When I submit a post, I want to control where it goes.) Even without such a system, I think that two officially sponsored lists of this sort would tend to interfere with each other, in some of the ways I mentioned above for an unmoderated time period or thread on the main AML-List (though to a probably lesser degree). In theory, I have no problem with competition between different email lists in the Mormon literary community. Let the best list prevail! Or better still, let all lists exist together, and serve their various audiences and purposes. But I think it would have to be a list with no formal connection to AML-List--and therefore not something either I or AML Board would have anything to say about, one way or another. The notion of other lists related to Mormon letters where discussions could be continued or parallel discussions could be run is a good one, I think. In fact, two such lists (at least) already exist: LDSF, AML-Lists's "sister list," lightly moderated by Thom Duncan, on the subject of LDS-related science fiction and fantasy; and eLDSewhere (spelling?), a list created, I think, by Ronn Blankenship to allow for continuing discussion of topics deemed off-topic on AML-List (or elsewhere). I haven't seen much traffic on that list, but I think it still exists. And I think there are several writing-group type lists out there, including one moderated by Michael Martindale. I have no objection to such separate lists, and will always be willing to run posts informing people about their existence. For that matter, if anyone wants to set up a list that directly competes with AML-List in terms of subject matter and approach, more power to them. I might well subscribe. Note, however, as I stated above, that this is not something I, or the AML Board, would have any say in or responsibility for. There's been some discussion (in the past, and behind the scenes) of splitting up AML-List to deal with different topics: one list for the more academic discussions, another list for writing craft discussions, etc. I don't think such a division is likely to occur at this point: many have praised the cross-pollination that occurs on the existing list, and besides, we're really not equipped at this point to expand the size of the AML-List(s) moderation task. But it's certainly an option for the future, if volume continues to expand and people feel there isn't enough scope for their particular area of interest on the List. Let me clarify that although these are my views, I'd be willing to present any and all of the above proposals to the AML Board if there's a large outcry on AML-List for these changes. So far, I haven't seen that sort of broad approval for the unmoderated/second list options. Thoughts on the original proposals for revising AML-List will come later... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:32:26 -0700 From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 02:44:13 -0700 "D. Michael Martindale" writes: > God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve > any > conflict with a wave of the hand. So he makes a lousy fictional > character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. Making > him > stay behind the scenes is the standard way to restrict him. > Otherwise we > run the risk of swerving into the dreaded deus ex machina story. Maybe I'm just naive to the ways of this, but... it never struck me as hard to restrict God's ability to solve every problem. He doesn't do it in real life, and for very good reasons. If those same reasons, or eternal laws that God follows (or he would cease to be God) were carried over into fiction, the task would be easy, IMO. I find it harder to restrict Satan -- he follows almost no laws, other than what God imposes, and fights hard to avoid those as well. This questoin about God figuring in LDS fiction brings to mind one of Steve Perry's lyrics from _From Cumorah's Hill_. "How can we hope to see His face, if we never could see His hand?" In real life, those who have eyes to see are aware of God's hand in all things, from the obvious sky and birds and trees, to the less obvious coincidences, the little graces of daily living including extra added strength beyond one's own to accomplish an otherwise impossible task, even an airplane flying safely to it's destination which happens thousands of times a day. In our doctrine only those who have paid the price of the Refiner's Fire and whose heart has softened to pure gold, and whose determination to be faithful at all costs has become hardened enough to build with (to refer to another of Perry's lyrics, this one from _Polly_) -- these are the only ones who literally are given the gift of the Second Comforter, visits from the Savior, from time to time. I think we hesitate to put a face on God in our fiction because we know he has one, and to see it is such a sacred event. Including it in our fiction would require that same story to reach a depth of spirituality I rarely see outside of non-fiction books. Kathy Fowkes Mesa, Arizona ________________________________________________________________ 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/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:44:31 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction - --- "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > > > There is no supernatural being opposite to the Unmaker. Why? > > Second stab at the issue: > > Satan is not all-powerful. He has limitations. So he makes a perfectly > good fictional character. > > God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve any > conflict with a wave of the hand. So he makes a lousy fictional > character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. Making him > stay behind the scenes is the standard way to restrict him. Otherwise we > run the risk of swerving into the dreaded deus ex machina story. > I think there's something to D. Michael's argument here. I think that this is why stories that have rightous humans battling Satan are much more interesting---because they are restricted. This is a peripheral issue, but I recently read W.H. Auden's NY Times review of Tolkien's "The Return of the King" and he brings up an interesting point, one that shows why good can be more interesting or plot-worthy or I'm not sure how to put it than evil: "Evil, that is, has every advantage but one-it is inferior in imagination. Good can imagine the possibility of becoming evil-hence the refusal of Gandalf and Aragorn to use the Ring-but Evil, defiantly chosen, can no longer imagine anything but itself. Sauron cannot imagine any motives except lust for domination and fear so that, when he has learned that his enemies have the Ring, the thought that they might try to destroy it never enters his head, and his eye is kept toward Gondor and away from Mordor and the Mount of Doom." So perhaps the non-absent God that would work in fiction would be one that is focused on the knoweledge of the possibility of becoming evil rather than on omnipotence. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:20:11 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Um. I think there's a good chance that it is even worse than you > present here. This talk sounds like a point for point rendition of a > talk from my youth. It was a popular fireside sermon and talked about a > group at some important college (MIT?) and a man in that group who > studied the bible and came up with 15 or 23 or something points of what > would be the true Church of Christ. The fireside was even accompanied > by a business-card sized handout with the points in it with scripture > references for where those points were to be found (the one I had was > blue). Naturally, this is a conversion sermon. Since he made the same > thin rhetorical arguments this fireside speaker made 20 years ago, I > find it likely that his "research" consisted of finding one of these > cards tucked in an old box somewhere. > Which, by the way, turned out to never have happened. I think Morgan Adair may have the information on how Floyd Weston (the gentelman to whom you are referring, I believe) had a lot of fun tweaking the noses of fluff-addicted Saints. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:25:44 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction D. Michael Martindale wrote: > "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > > >> There is no supernatural being opposite to the Unmaker. Why? > > > Second stab at the issue: > > Satan is not all-powerful. He has limitations. So he makes a perfectly > good fictional character. > > God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve any > conflict with a wave of the hand. Can he? All powerful may mean nothing more than that God KNOWS how to do more things than we do. A wave of the hand MAY be the way he causes miracles to happen but he could use another method. Maybe he uses a form of Physics we don't yet understand which causes miraculous things to happen through a series of well-timed coincidences, in which case he would be directly involved (like a magician). > So he makes a lousy fictional > character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. Making him > stay behind the scenes is the standard way to restrict him. Otherwise we > run the risk of swerving into the dreaded deus ex machina story. Not necessarily. God seems to be bound by Man's freedom of choice. We know he won't force anyone to do the right thing. So, at least in that sense, he can't do everything. I could see a fictional God character wanting to intervene in a fictional LDS character's life but being restrained by Free Will. God seems to abide by Star Trek's Prime Directive most of the time. Thom Duncan Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:25:55 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] Credit/Blame in Drama, Movies When you read a book, you know who gets all the credit and all the blame. Excepting typographic problems, the author has total responsibility for the content. We know on whom to pin the award or toward whom we should target our criticism. In the case of movies or plays, you don't have such a clear distinction. Ever since the discussion about _The Testaments: Of one Fold and One Shepherd_, I have wondered about how you determine whom should receive the praise or blame. So when you watch a movie (or a play), how do determine to whom you should give the credit? When a scene really works and you can't help but laugh or cry or both, do you give the credit to the scriptwriter, the director, or the actors. In the ideal world, you have a superb script, insightful directors, and awe-inspiring actors, but we all know that in the real world we often have to work with what we have rather than with ideals. So then when a work fails, where do you place the blame? Let me give an example where I think I can properly identify the source of the success. In the film _Hearts in Atlantis_, Anthony Hopkin's character has some really awful lines. The scriptwriter, Oscar-winner William Goldman, really does know his stuff, so he probably transcribed those lines verbatim from Stephen King's book. In the mouth of just about any other actor, these lines would have had a campy feeling, but Hopkins transforms the lines into statements filled with mystery and philosophical wonder. In this case, the actor clearly makes all the difference. When you consider movies or even particular scenes that just don't work, where you point the finger. In some movies the all the lines seem awful, so you could blame the scriptwriter, but then wouldn't the director and the actors know that the lines suck? Why would they agree to make a piece based on an awful script. So then, perhaps the director lacks sufficient vision for transforming a good script into a good movie? Or perhaps the director has a good vision but doesn't have a sufficient budget to get actors that can properly realize the script. How do you recognize the influence of the director separately from the actor's skill at portraying a character? How do you tell the difference between bad lines written by the scriptwriter and just bad acting? And how do you tell when the director just didn't really understand the script? - -- Terry Jeffress | Perhaps in time the so-called Dark Ages | will be thought of as including our own. AML Webmaster and | -- G. C. Lichtenberg AML-List Review Archivist | - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:47:42 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 02:44:13 -0700 "D. Michael Martindale" writes: > Satan is not all-powerful. He has limitations. So he makes a > perfectly good fictional character. > > God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve any > conflict with a wave of the hand. So he makes a lousy fictional > character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. Which is why He's perfect for Mormon fiction. He *can't* make anything happen. There are several places in the LDS canon where God mentions that certain things will bind Him or cause Him to cease to be God. So there are restrictions. And because God is a god of body, parts and *passions* He is a god who -- within those restraints can only do what He *wants* to do. We don't have to treat God (in our literature or in reality) as a being who will automatically perform a prescribed (by mere mortals no less!) function just because it seems that's the way things ought to be. This last Sunday night, on the TV show, "The Education of Max Bickford," Max was discussing the question of the existence of God with a friend. The friend said, "You don't believe in God because he didn't keep your wife from being killed by a drunk driver." To this Max shouted, "Well, shouldn't he have?" Max's friend stared at him as though he had just said a very ridiculous thing. In fact, he had. I think we can -- maybe ought to -- tell stories that debunk this notion of a *fair* god. scott bronson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:06:37 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dave EGGERS, _A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius_ (Review) (Pt. 2) At 10:41 PM 10/30/01, you wrote: >Perhaps I've abused this list by posting a review of a book that has no >direct connection to even the most liberal definitions of Mormon literature >used here. But the book so moved me, so impressed me with its style, wit, >and honesty, that I want to see my own people's reaction to it. Scott, I'd like to know if the author will have the opportunity to read your thoughtful review. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:56:29 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction J. Scott Bronson wrote: > > The Alvin Maker series may use Jospeh Smith as a starting > > off point, but it's mystical universe is not traditional Christian > > or LDS - it's very Manachein in that evil and good are true > > opposites. But the Unmaker is not Satan - Card makes that > > very clear. > > ... where is the Maker? If this is an analogue of the story of the > restoration, where are all the visions of the Maker?... > There is no supernatural being opposite to the Unmaker. Why? I'm also troubled by the lack of an evident presence of the Maker in this series. Acouple of thoughts. First, it's possible (though I think unlikely) that Card doesn't want to put words in the mouths of either God or of his angels. Having one of those characters come onscreen and speak directly is arguably a presumption to know not only the mind and will of God, but also his hidden thoughts and inner considerations. I know I have a problem using God as a speaking character for these reasons. Second, it's quite arguable that in ordinary life the presence of the Maker is often evident but rarely explicit. I experience any number of things that I attribute to influences of the spirit, but that doesn't mean that anyone else would see them that way, or that I can point at an observable event and say "There it is, my evidence of contact with the divine; that's it sitting right there on the floor next to the couch." Arguably, even revelation is an inner communication, a private experience that is either hidden or incomprehensible to a general audience. The flip side, of course, is that the evil folks have such obvious communications because that's what their fevered little minds want to see. They create their own evil visions out of the products of their diseased perceptions and desires. Even if the evil manifestations are to be taken as literal, it's evil that stands up and loudly proclaims "See me, fear me, hear me!" where good (God) tends to speak quietly and circumspectly. Third, Alvin and his companions are the only necessary expressions of the Maker. Alvin functions as God's hands and good signs will only come by his acts. Is not every miracle of Making that Alvin performs an evidence of the Maker that made it possible? Or is his magic actually genetic and completely natural (certainly a component if we take Alvin's semi-unmaking of Arthur Stuart where genetic alteration led to loss of power), utterly separated from any concept of divine power? Fourth, the broader reading audience generally doesn't have any problem with expressions of a dark or evil power, but the instant you include a good or heavenly power (that isn't a silly charicature) you risk vast segments of your audience walking away shaking their head because they can't accept the concept of God in fiction. Evil has no specific denomination, and thus is safe; but God is packaged in a thousand different institutional packages. Which church does God belong to? As soon as you answer that question, you alienate some group of readers. So you have to keep God at a safe distance so he doesn't bring all the social and political baggage that's been attached to him over the years. A pure marketing issue. Like you, I would very much have liked to see Alvin experience some direct sense of communication with the Maker. He is not like the rest of us who touch the divine only shallowly; Alvin is deity's messenger, diety's direct agent who should be receiving at least some sort of instruction in an equally direct sort of way. Alvin is the prophet, and should be made more evidently so by that direct communication--at least in my specifically Mormon view. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:56:10 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction >D. Michael Martindale wrote: >God is all-powerful. He can make anything happen. He can resolve any >conflict with a wave of the hand. So he makes a lousy fictional >character, unless we can figure out a way to restrict him. >-- > I would offer that this is where MORMON literature could make a unique contribution. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others taught that God was limited by time, space and eternal natural laws. On top of that He was still progress, and was once human. The classic Mormon doctrine of Deity is a doctrine of a limited God. This would make for fascinating literature in which God is a character. Which brings to mind a parable: A rabbi asked his students,"Who is the most tragic character in the Bible?" The students responded with a list of prophets,fallen Israelite kings, etc. "No, no," said the rabbi. "The most tragic character in the Bible is the Lord God Himself." Indeed, in the Old Testament, God is a character and one with limitations. A 1998 book, BESIDE THE STILL WATERS (author's last name is Brooks, I believe) made the point that no where in the Bible does it state that God is either all-knowing or all-powerful (meaning all-controlling.) In fact, those who accept traditional orthodox Christian concepts of Deity, have a hard time reconciling these with the Biblical texts. So why not throw the concepts out altogether? The brilliance of Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders lay in the fact that they did just this.(Thus, they are the ones quoted most often in anti-Mormon literature written by traditionalists.) The "God of Mormonism" is much closer to the God of the ancient Hebrews(and thus, of the Bible) than anything presented in Christian literature.(The play GIDEON comes to mind as an exception to this rule, and that was written by a Jewish playwright.) Literary critic Harold Bloom makes this point in several of his books (not just his 1992 book THE AMERICAN RELIGION). (Bloom insists in many of his works that God is the central and most important literary character in the western tradition.) So why not present a limited, still-progressing Deity who was once human and whose work and glory is to assist struggling humanity follow in his footsteps and become more like Him? This is a view of God incorporating our unique LDS theology. Such a God IS a character. One question that could be explored is, how relevant is a God who is not all powerful but is just and loving? Another question: What does God have to offer humanity if He is not all-powerful, but has experienced everything we can or will experience? This are the types of questions a distinctly Mormon genre of literature could address--and by incorporating God as a character in the same way that the Yahwehist and other ancient Israelite writers did in their works. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #501 ******************************