From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #560 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, January 3 2002 Volume 01 : Number 560 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:26:05 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Salt Lake Trib Article on Utah's Rel. Divide Chris wrote: "And I don't trust people's attempts to translate their emotions and earthbound understanding into fact." [I hope everyone will put up with my posts today, as I am going nuts just having found out how to copy from one post to an answer! I have always been a bit slow in the techy field] This was a terrific post, Chris, and I just wanted to let you know that you're onto something. And so are the Mormons. WE are a computer! And the "fact" that it works for so many of us who resonate to goodness keeps us close to it. But as far as I'm concerned, the answers all reside in learning to "translate" as you mention, until we can all "translate" accurately. There are many levels to the actual. But when it comes right down to it there are a few basic things, like the scientific development of a child, that can be very steady, and the "translations" still keep us sticking to the fact--a child needs love, attention, discipline, etc. (And hopefully from its own righteous parents, grandparents and great grandparents.) Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:49:12 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Other Side of Heaven >And all evidence indicates that the movie will be a financial >success, right? ' Depends on what you call a success. It cost $7 million to make, and there's not a snowball's chance in H-E-double hockey sticks it will make that back in theaters. (By comparison, "God's Army" made about $2 million in theaters, and another $2 million or so with video/DVD.) Box office combined with video sales MAYBE, but not for a long, long, long, long time. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:04:38 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of YA Lit Marilyn Brown wrote: > Will someone knowledgeable define YA literature for us? No, I'm not volunteering. :-) I'm not sure you'll be able to find anyone knowledgeable enough to adequately define YA literature. Madeleine L'Engle said that the only difference between an adult book and a children's book was the age of the protagonist, but I think that is a gross over-simplification. There are many, many novels featuring young protagonists that are clearly not "children's books": _White Oleander_, _Delta Wedding_, _The Heart is a Lonely Hunter_, _Prayer for Owen Meany_, etc. On the other hand, there are a great many books that defy such easy categorization--books that are read with equal passion and loyalty by both children and adults: _To Kill a Mockingbird_, _Ender's Game_, _A Tree Grows in Brooklyn_, Great Expectations_, _A Separate Peace_, and so on. I think books just find their own audiences. Look at _Harry Potter_. These books were written for children, but they're being devoured everywhere by adults as well. Of course, the way a book is marketed makes a difference too. But no, Marilyn, I don't think your books are YA. At least not _House on the Sound_. It is far too sophisticated, both stylistically and thematically. That is not to say that a mature young adult reader couldn't enjoy it, but I think it would be a mistake to *market* the book as YA. Most young readers simply wouldn't get it. > think one of my serious problems is that my writing is neither adult nor YA, > Mormon nor national. It's on a bridge, and the bridge is beginning to sway > in the wind. Marilyn Brown About whether your writing is "Mormon" or "national," I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. I don't think you should worry about it. I think you should just write. Write as honestly and passionately and artfully as you can, and don't side-step your Mormonism. As I told you before, I found that to be a problem in _House on the Sound_ (a book that I LOVE, as evidenced by my effusive blurb on the back cover). Suddenly, toward the end, the Mormon element is thrown in. I think you should have either left it out entirely or made much more out of it throughout the story. At any rate, if your writing is on a bridge, that's a good place to be. And if the bridge is beginning to sway in the wind, enjoy the ride! :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:29:05 -0700 From: Eileen Stringer Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists _A Very Long Engagement, by Sebastien Japrisot_ "January 1917: five French soldiers are marched to their own front li= nes where they will be tossed out into no man's land with their hands tie= d behind their backs and left for the Germans to shoot. They were, in c= ivilian life, variously a pimp, a mechanic, a farmer, a carpenter, and a fish= erman; now they are condemned because each had sought to leave the war by sh= ooting himself in the hand. Taken to a godforsaken trench nicknamed Bingo Cr=E9puscule, the five are reluctantly sent out into the darkness; da= ys later, five bodies are recovered and the families are notified, merely, that= the men died in the line of duty." August 1919: Mathilde Donnay receives a letter from a dying man. In i= t, the former soldier tells her that he met her beloved fianc=E9, the fisher= man Manech, shortly before he died. Mathilde goes to meet Sergeant Daniel Esperanza at his hospital and there hears the story of the execution.= She also receives a package with a photograph of the men and copies of th= eir last letters. As Mathilde reads and rereads the letters and goes over Esperanza's tale, she begins to suspect that perhaps the story didn't= end quite so neatly. And so begins her very long investigation into the mysterious circumstances surrounding the deaths of five condemned prisoners--one of whom, at least, might not really be dead. In Mathilde Donnay, Sebastien Japrisot has created one of the most compelling and delightful heroines in modern fiction. But she is by n= o means the only vibrant personality leaping off Japrisot's pages. This autho= r has a remarkable ability to draw even minor characters in three dimensions = with economy and wit. And even the characters we meet only through other p= eople's memories--the condemned men--are so fully realized that you find your= self torn over which one you hope may have survived. As Mathilde comes eve= r closer to solving the mystery of what happened at Bingo Cr=E9puscule = that January morning in 1917, Sebastien Japrisot proves himself a master s= torytel ler and A Very Long Engagement a near perfect novel. --Alix Wilber" This is one of the most well-crafted novels I have ever read. I recom= mend to any and all who ask and even some who don't as for a reading recommen= dation. I found it intriguing and compelling from the opening sentence to the= final. This book has even been compared to Tolstoy's _War and Peace_ althoug= h it is shorter to read. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:41:15 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] re: _Fellowship of the Ring_ (Movie) Eric Snider gave an excellent review of the movie (where he gave it one of his rare As) as such so I won't go into too much detail of the finer qualities of this wonderful movie. I did, however, want to mention two things that impressed the heck out of me, one of which is a direct LDS (or at least religion in art) tie-in. The first (and non-LDS) thing I wanted to mention is how Peter Jackson managed to do something even better than the books did. It struck me as I left the theater that I hate that ring. I want to see it destroyed. Peter Jackson and the excellent cast managed to make the ring a character in its own right. It was malevolent and corrupting and everything that it should have been. There weren't any weird cinematic tricks used--it didn't sing or dance or move, or even change appearance outside of showing the characters written on the side--it was just solid acting and some excellent juxtaposition and imagery. A strong part of this is the very cool thing he did with Galadriel. Her temptation was real, her power terrible and it was one of the outstanding moments of the film. Galadriel is such a tricky character to depict, and Jackson managed to nail the aloof purity and still make her power very scarily real--and he did so while still editing a large part of that section of the book out. Ah, heck, I'd better throw in a third thing here in the middle. Another thing that Jackson (with the talented help of Sean Astin) did well was he got the character of Sam. That's another of those tough translations because Sam depended very much on the English notion of social station where fawning devotion is a way to show love. The Sam character managed to be exactly correct with the love, devotion, and good heart and still not rely on English structures most Americans will overlook, be too sappy, or stupid (not that he's any great shakes intellectually, he's just, um, pure). Sam is so easy to overlook in the story, but his character is crucial as a) a kind of unaltered base line to measure Frodo's heart sickness, b) a character study for devotion and incorruptible purity, and c) (and most important) to provide the strength to get to Mt. Doom--a kind of Christ character that doesn't seek its own aggrandizement but instead strengthens the hand of those suffering the slings and arrows of evil's greatest temptations. But what I liked most about the movie is how the moral of the story was so well drawn without being preachy at all. There's the regular themes of devotion and being steadfast in the opposition of evil. But even more, Jackson pulled out a theme for that first book that is present in the series, but not as pronounced. In effect, Jackson chose to make it the theme of this first movie that you can't choose the hand fate deals you, you can only chose what to do with it. This theme is expertly woven through this movie in a way that starts subtly, but takes on growing significance until you leave the movie knowing that these characters have been dealt a cruel hand by fate, but they are determined to do the very best they can with it. Gandalf's character and sacrifice are the most obvious manifestation of this theme, but the power of Gandalf's sacrifice is tied so well to Frodo's sacrifice that you see, really understand, that Frodo is doing the exact same thing that Gandalf did--throwing himself into the shadow to save the ones he loves. Gandalf is an obvious Christ figure and I'm sure it is no mistake his posture as he falls with the Balrog. Frodo is much less obvious, but is a needed extension as the one who must continue his toil in the face of overwhelming opposition. I think that Peter Jackson has shown us the power that these very LDS themes can have in a story--and concentrating on a single theme like that for the movie was a beautiful, powerful touch. Steven Walker has been teaching about the Christian message of Tolkien's books for years. Jackson's treatment is a powerful depiction of how you can translate those themes to a new medium and a modern audience. He had great source material to work with, but this movie is not just a worthy translation. It is a powerful work of art in its own right and every bit a master work as the original books are. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:03:39 -0700 From: Bruce Young Subject: Re: [AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? On the issues of Lewis, Tolkien, and "allegory": Tolkien denied that his fiction was allegorical, but suggested nevertheless that it has "applicability" of diverse kinds for diverse readers. Lewis also denied that his fiction was allegorical, but again he qualified that denial by saying that what he meant is that particular characters or events do not simply "stand for" or "symbolize" characters or events in real life. Lewis liked to call some of his works "supposals," meaning that they indicated what Christ or the atonement (or other realities) might be like on the supposition that they appeared or took place in another world. _Perelandra_, for instance, is not an allegory of Adam and Eve in the Garden, but rather shows what Satan's temptation might be like in another world (in this case the supposedly inhabited planet Venus). Aslan is what Christ might be like in Narnia, and _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ imagines what the atonement and resurrection might have been like there. Lewis also denied that he deliberately, at least at first, put Christianity into the Narnia books. "It all started with pictures," he said. But given who he was and what he believed, the Christianity inevitably came in-- and in fact he saw that this imaginative way of presenting it might get past the barriers that many, including Christians, put up because of the "churchy" associations of the New Testament stories and the paralyzing obligation many feel to respond "spiritually" to these stories. In "On Three Ways of Writing for Children," Lewis says it's dangerous to deliberately plan a work of fiction as a vehicle for communicating a message or moral. "Let the pictures tell you their own moral. For the moral inherent in them will rise from whatever spiritual roots you have succeeded in striking during the whole course of your life. But if they don't show you any moral, don't put one in. For the moral you put in is likely to be a platitiude, or even a falsehood, skimmed from the surface of your consciousness. . . . The only moral that is of any value is that which rises inevitably from the whole cast of the author's mind." Lewis is probably simplifying a bit how he went about writing the Narnia books. But this is, at any rate, what he said he was doing. He certainly didn't think of the books as examples of simple, deliberate allegory. But he did acknowledge that they were deeply Christian. Bruce Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 12:36:04 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Unusual Christmas Cards Don Marshall has a section in _Frost in the Orchard_ consisting of Christmas letters. I thought y'all might enjoy what we Youngs do for our Christmas letter. It definitely qualifies as fiction/history. (Jonathan, sorry it's such a long post.) Young Family Christmas Quiz 2001 Once again--though a little later, even, than usual--we offer you our annual quiz, along with our best wishes and love. We hope we've made this hard enough to stump everyone, but if you get all of them right, let us know, and we'll try to figure out how you cheated. No matter how you do, though, thank you for being the wonderful people you are. 1. Robert had a device semi-permanently attached to his body. It is: (a) A "Body Guard," produced by the same folks who invented "The Guardian" for censoring swearwords from televisions sets. The "Body Guard" is surgically implanted in both ears. When anyone within hearing distance swears, the "Body Guard" supplants the bad words with a short rendition of "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words." (b) An Artificial Intelligence chip, successfully implanted into his brain. This allows Rob to connect to the internet just by thinking about it. (c) A jaw expansion device, orthodontically implanted in his mouth. It will expand his palate over the next year. Though it has slurred his speech somewhat, we find that his smile has been enhanced. (d) A small metal "spring rivet," replacing one bone segment in his femur which was smashed during his skiing accident last February. 2. Bruce has not been teaching at BYU this past semester. This is because: (a) He was given one semester to clean up his office, by order of BYU's Janitorial Service, who claimed they could not get inside to empty the trash or vacuum. We're pretty sure we know who reported this, but we have forgiven him. (b) In an admirably diplomatic letter from President Bateman (whom we have forgiven), Bruce was put on a one-semester probation for insisting on teaching Beatles songs in his Shakespeare class (each one paired by theme with a Shakespearean sonnet). (c) Bruce has been on leave to finish writing his book on Shakespeare and the Renaissance family. Rumor has it that finishing the book is required before he can be promoted. We think we know who made the requirement, but we have forgiven them. (d) Bruce contracted a viral infection which rendered him incoherent from September through November, and so was put on medical leave against his will. He is relatively coherent now, and we have forgiven whoever infected him. 3. Bruce and Margaret have been reading a book which has helped them immensely with forgiveness and other Christian qualities. The book is called: (a) The Power to Pardon, by C. S. Lewis. (b) Bonds that Make Us Free by C. Terry Warner. (c) Mending the Past by Malcolm Muggeridge. (d) Letting It Be by Paul McCartney. (e) It's Not About You, by three of Mick Jagger's ex-wives. 4. Julie not only performed a solo in church and went for the first time to Young Women summer camp, but has begun Middle School, turned thirteen, and taken up: (a) Hip hop dancing. (b) Hippie fashion, most of the dresses exact copies of what her mom used to wear. (c) Spear-fishing. (d) Rap singing. (e) The violin. 5. Michael experienced a few firsts this year. He: (a) Broke his fibula while skateboarding (his first broken limb). (b) Formed a rock band specializing in George Harrison songs (this after listening to every song sung or composed by George =66rom Bruce's CD collection while being driven to school in the morning). (c) Gave his first talk in sacrament meeting. (d) Had the pleasure of learning to train seals at the Hogle Zoo, an expensive but worthwhile activity. (It cost $550, which Michael "earned" himself [see question 6].) (e) Went skiing and drove a car. 6. Margaret took Mikey and Julie to Las Vegas, where she spoke at a fireside. Their favorite activity was: (a) Gambling. (Julie lost $38.25, but Michael won $589.83 in the slot machines.) (b) Seeing a full-length 3-D movie and the fake remains of a Pharoah's tomb at the Luxor. (c) Watching trapeze artists at "Circus Circus." (d) Seeing the LDS Temple. 7. As a family, we helped Grandpa and Grandma Young move to Cove Point and went on our yearly trip to see Shakespearean (and other) plays in Cedar City. Bruce and Margaret also took two wonderful trips without the children to: (a) Laie, Hawaii, and Taiwan. (b) Valencia, Spain, and Las Vegas, Nevada. (c) Tijuana, Mexico, and Siggurd, Utah. (d) Stratford-upon-Avon and New York. 8. Some time after their five-month honeymoon teaching English in Urumqi, China, Kaila and Noah got a wonderful surprise. It was: (a) Noah's call to serve as Mission President in Mongolia (not far from where they had lived). (b) The news that they're expecting a baby. (c) The news that Noah has been accepted by BYU. (d) The news that they are actually first cousins (this was a surprise to their parents too). (e) B & C. 9. Besides teaching the Spanish Institute class in our stake, Margaret continues to work with the Genesis Group, and accompanied the youth (including Julie and Michael) to: (a) Atlanta, Georgia, where they visited Ebeneezer Baptist Church and were invited to join with the choir as they sang at Sunday services. (b) A training program for Salt Lake 2002 Olympics volunteers, where they learned how to translate Utah idioms and vocabulary for visitors to the Olympics (i.e., "ign'r'nt," "fer rude," "harse," "fark," "crick" [for "creek"], etc.). (c) Island Park, Idaho, where they all stayed at the Groberg cabin before venturing into Yellowstone Park. (d) The Andromeda galaxy, where they took a special course in interstellar harmony and cosmic cooperation. 10. Rob completed two significant projects this year: (a) He read all of Les Mis=82rables (unabridged) and became an Eagle Scout. (b) He beat two incredibly difficult computer games, Endless Inane Fantasy 17 and Dark Underside of the Navel of the Universe 43. (c) He dug the hole and poured the concrete for a swimnming hole in our backyard and converted our patio into a greenhouse. (d) He finished writing two books, The Rebellion (240 pages) and Paleon's Journal (115 pages). 11. Michael had a few pet experiences--both sad and happy--this year. (a) His kitty, Simba, ran away despite Michael's great care (he sometimes still calls out, "Come home, Simba!"), but Kaila and Noah gave us a wonderful puppy dog--part black lab, part blue heeler--and Noah built "Buster" a doghouse beneath the magnificent tree house he made earlier in the year. (b) Michael was allowed to feed the blue sharks which have been transported to Utah for the soon-to-be-built biggest aquarium in the world. He found they did not care for cheesecake, but enjoyed crabcakes. Mike learned to move his hand really fast. (c) He and a number of other fourth-graders participated in training the "Mouse Bobsledding Team" (composed of four very obedient white mice) who will be part of the Opening Ceremonies for the 2002 Olympics. (d) Michael (with his daddy's encouragement) contributed all of his gambling "earnings" towards the upkeep of the new rhino mommy and baby at Hogle Zoo. 12. Bruce continued serving in our stake presidency, did committee work at BYU despite being on leave, and published a couple of articles on Shakespeare. He also gave presentations to BYU's Philosophy Club, the Provo Fine Arts Club, a book group at Cove Point Retirement Center, Shakespeareans at the World Shakespeare Congress, the Association for Mormon Letters, and a group of single adults at the Orem Institute. His topics included: (a) Time and space management (a tour of his office was part of the presentation). (b) Dealing with fear (including fear of giving presentations). (c) The fiction of J. K. Rowling. (d) Shakespeare's religious attitudes. (e) C. S. Lewis. (f) Family in Shakespeare and in the writings of Margaret Blair Young. (g) How to make his favorite desserts (including Key Lime pie, brownie pudding cake, and various sweet breads made from whatever he happens to find in the house). (h) More than one of the above (specify): 13. Bruce also: (a) Flew to Boston to attend a reception and dinner in honor of Gwynne Blakemore Evans (textual editor of The Riverside Shakespeare) on the occasion of his (Evans's) 86th birthday. (b) Received an Alcuin Fellowship for his contributions in teaching Honors and General Education courses at BYU. (c) Hurt his back while moving boxes from a room downstairs so that Julie could use it without embarrassment to host the party of the year for her thirteenth birthday. (d) Wrote e-mail letters to Utah's congressional delegation urging compassion rather than revenge as a response to the events of September 11. (e) All of the above. (f) All but one of the above. 14. Rob has been active in drama, choir, creative writing, and role playing clubs. He also: (a) Took part in the school musical Mame. (b) Translated Beowulf into Elvish when he learned that J. R. R. Tolkien was a professor of Old English language and literature. (c) Took a summer school class that combined English, art, and nature studies, involved several camping trips, and left him with sore feet and a painful sunburn. (d) Spent part of the summer with his Sabey cousins. (e) Got a job tutoring fellow students in math. (f) A, D, & E (g) A, C, & D 15. Among the new pasttimes Julie has taken up this year is/are: (a) Trips to the mall. (b) Collecting bird feathers from the ground and making Native American war bonnets to sell at the Riverwoods. (c) Panning for gold in the Provo River. (d) Learning to say no to hot 8th-grade guys who ask her out. (e) All of the above. (f) A & D. 16. Margaret continues to co-write the trilogy on Black pioneers and to help with the production of her play, I Am Jane. This past year, she took part in the Church Public Affairs campaign to publicize the Freedman Bank CD (a remarkable collection of information for African American genealogy). Copies of the first volume of the trilogy were given to members of the Black Congressional Caucus, African-American genealogists, celebrities, and others, and Margaret and her co-author were sent to New York City. There, Margaret met some important people, including: (a) Mayor Rudy Giuliani. (b) Denzel Washington and Whitney Houston. (c) Bruce's old roommate, Jim Lucas, and Noah's cousin, who is married to one of the branch presidency counselors in Harlem. (d) Gladys Knight and the Pips. (e) A&C Merry Christmas from the Youngs (Bruce, Margaret, Rob, Julie, and Michael) (and with an extended family now including Kaila and Noah Lifferth) Answers: 1:c; 2:c; 3:b; 4:a; 5:e (and last part of b); 6:d; 7:b; 8:e; 9:c; 10:d; 11:a; 12:h (b,d,e,&f); 13:e; 14:g; 15:f; 16:c. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:29:16 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of YA Lit While I can't give you a text book definition, the rule of thumb I have been taught is age of main character, though there are exceptions. So YAs have a main character in the high school age range. They would be expected to be read mostly by jr. high and high school students--though many adults and college students also find them well worth reading. Mid-grades' main character would be just that--6-8 grade age, expected to be read by upper elementary and middle school/jr. high students. Picture books usually have characters ranging from very small-7-8 years old. Obviously this is very general. There are some other subtle difference, at least in the magazine market. YA novels tend to have much more of a coming of age theme. They can be darker and grittier, but aren't necessarily so. Mid-grades usually have more of the 'main character overcoming a challenge' feel to them. That is also true of good picture story books BTW. The child character is the innovator and problem solver, not the adults that may also be in the book. But the character does not necessarily have an epiphany or point of major self-understanding. There are probably those who could give you much better definitions, but I'm not sure if any of them are currently hanging around on AML. Perhaps Luann or Sharlee? Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:32:47 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _The Wine-dark Sea of Grass_ (Review) My friends and I in discussing this book felt that, although it appeared to 'be about' the Mountain Meadows Massacre, it seemed much more about polygamy, and not a very happy view of it, with the MMM as a backdrop. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry L Jeffress" In _The Wine-dark Sea of Grass_, Marilyn Brown examines how the Mountain Meadows Massacre affected the lives of the Mormon settlers in rural southern Utah. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:57:58 -0700 From: "Tory Anderson" Subject: RE: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:52:41 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists I note that three of this list were those chosen by the sister missionary in God's Army! I picked up a copy of Asher Lev after seeing the movie. barbara hume At 09:21 AM 12/31/01, you wrote: >Here are a few must-reads: > >1. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck >2. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy >3. 1984 by George Orwell >4. My Name is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok >5. Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry >6. The Shining by Stephen King > >Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 22:46:50 -0800 From: Marsha Steed Subject: [AML] RE: Must-Read Lists Tracie, RE:" what book(s) would you not want to have gone through life without reading? Fiction or non-fiction. - Tracie Laulusa" There is a long list... a couple though, "Everyday Sacred" Sue Bender "Dandelion Wine" Ray Bradbury "Rebecca" Daphene duMauier "The Prophet" - Kahlil Gibran "Anna Karenina" Leo Tolstoy Are you wanting LDS books? I still like Anne Osborn's "Simon Principle" and Carol Lynn Pearson's "Goodbye, I love You". Good luck... Marsha - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:20:24 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists _The Lord of the Rings_. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 23:30:11 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? William wondered which is more important, staying true to the author's vision or intent for their books or getting them into more hands in the general public by a secular type of marketing. Isn't it almost of form of thievery to intentionally take away what the author meant? It's still their work, whether they're here or not. Readers, of course may take away from a book or story whatever it means to them and that is fine, especially if it helps their life in some way. But to purposefully turn away from the book's origins, that bothers me. If the author never spoke about what they were trying to say with a certain book or story then interpretation is up for grabs. I'm going between ranting and mulling this over some more. In a way though, it may be a moot point with these books. I read the first one when I was about nine and immediately understood that Aslan the Lion represented Christ and his sacrifice and was proud of myself for doing so, but I doubt a large number of American children who have been brought up with little or no formal religion would even get the parallel. To them, The Chronicles of Narnia would be just more fantasy books, so why try to De-Christianize the marketing? It's already been done by not emphasizing their Christianity, by attrition. It just seems to me if the marketing people want to do this they've been in their ivory towers for too long and need to get there and get some fresh air. As far as I know Douglas Gresham, C.S. Lewis' stepson tries to protect the integrity of these stories as much as possible, but I don't know if he holds any legal rights concerning them. Any knowledge of that out there? Scott also mentioned C.S. Lewis detested Mormons. What's the source of that? I"d like to know, because if it's true it has to be one of the biggest cosmic jokes out there! C.S. Lewis is probably the most quoted Christian author and apologist among the Latter-day Saints. General Authorities and Church members quote him and his books all the time. What a delicious irony, for him and for us. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:47:04 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Authors in Nat. Market Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > Orson Scott Card writes a lot of books with Mormon themes, but most > non-mormon's don't realize that. I wonder if he had said to the publisher, > oh and by-the-way I based these stories on the Book of Mormon. Let me show > you how they follow the story, if they would have sold. Most of his readers know that Scott is LDS and that he puts LDS themes in his writing. He's been around long enough that people have figured that out by now. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:33:53 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > > What they are doing is performing a "marketing makeover." > > HarperCollins hopes to make more money from Narnia by "distancing it from its > > Christian roots," and a memo to that effect was leaked, which was the source for > > the N. Y. Times article titled "Marketing Narnia Without A Christian Lion." > > And wouldn't this approach actually help to promote Christianity, since > unsuspecting people will read the books and be exposed to Christian > concepts? Isn't this the same approach many LDS writers are advocating > for getting LDS literature into mainstream markets? Absolutely. I think awareness of marketing issues is a necessary part of being a writer in the modern market. Overt Christianity is a barrier to entry right now, so authors need to be aware of that and work with it. Jonathan comments to this issue regarding Tolkien with an important point--the level of inclusion of religious thought is often best accepted (and arguably most powerful) when it remains essentially invisible. Lewis used overt Christian metaphor; Tolkien considerably less overt (though I understand that for both the presentation of Christian thought was deeply important to how and why they wrote their different works). While talking with a friend yesterday I came to understand that effort is being made to actually expand the Narnia series with new books written by selected authors. While the original seven books in the series would remain unedited for Christian content, these new books would be written specifically without overt reference to Christian concepts, symbols, or ideas. Again, their thought is that such an effort would open the series up to more modern readers. In other words, they're turning Narnia into yet another "stories set in the world of..." series, promising a series of knock-offs that start with the overt assumption that they will diverge from the rich world created by the original, successful author. Sequel syndrome, but with a press agent announcing the removal of the author's soul from the new stories so no one is confused. Yawn. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:00:42 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ Jonathan Langford wrote: > Even the structural changes to the plot > are mostly defensible as necessary condensations for translating to a movie > medium. But at a deeper level, the significance of characters and events > has been altered in a way that changes the meaning of the story. > > The thing that concerns me most is that this is likely to affect not only > the interpretations of those who have never read the book (like Sharlee), > but those who have read it before and will read it in the future--because > Hollywood's interpretations are easier, they are vivid (and extraordinarily > well-done in many instances on a cinematic level), they are less > challenging and more familiar. And so Tolkien's story becomes remade in > the image of its imitators. It makes me very sad. While talking with a friend about this film last night (an ardent LotR fan, btw) he made an interesting observation that I think is appropriate here--the book and the film really are two different expressions of the same story, each interpretted through the author's own set of filters and assumptions. Yes, the film is an adaptation of Tolkien's book, but it's also a reinterpretation. Not unlike the several versions of Beowulf. (And yes, I understand the argument that Tolkien originated the story, therefore he is the one and only authoritative storyteller in his own world. Then again, Tolkien borrowed extensively for his mythology from the older Norse--specifically Icelandic--myths and texts making at least part of that argument moot.) There will be a lot of discussion over the coming months about how well the film adapted Tolkien's book, and I think the film did a quite admirable job of it. As a friend said, the film is as good an adaptation as he can imagine being made of the book; not perfect, but quite good and generally true to the original. I pretty much agree with that evaluation based on the first film. I saw the film last week and am still in the process of re-reading the book (only my second reading; the first was nineteen years ago when I was a freshman in college) so I will have to defer on any questions of how the film correctly (or incorrectly) captures the overall themes of the book--though I intend to withhold evaluation of thematic verity until I've both re-read the book (I know, it's allegedly a trilogy, but I think of it as a single book with essentially arbitrary breaks done for marketing purposes) and seen the entire film trilogy. I agree that some elements in the film seem to be at fundamental variance with the book (I didn't care for the whole Galadriel presentation, for example--as my wife said, the words were largely the same as the book, but the emphasis was quite different, the feel of the scene had changed radically from her recent reading of the book). At the same time, I'm just not sure how well the film will or will not handle the larger themes--there's still at least five hours of screen time left for that to be addressed. But I think it is important to recognize that film and novel are distinctly different forms that require different handlings. I didn't like the "talking ring" effect in the film where people hear voices from the ring and find themselves caught in momentary trances of temptation. Then again, those effects are used in the film to illustrate in a few seconds of screen time what the author spent at least paragraphs--and sometimes pages--covering in the book. Yes, it's an infidelity to the events of the book, yet it seems to capture the spirit of it while getting those passages wrong. For me the wizard's duel is one of those. In the book the duel is almost completely internalized--it's a battle of wills at a very intimate level, with little or no power-blasting and spinning off through space. And yet it the film used those kinds of effects to dramatize exactly that struggle. A different telling of the same fundamental struggle using methods most appropriate to its medium. I've turned out to be quite the relativist on this film. I liked it a lot as a film, and as a retelling of Tolkien's story. But I think the film also illustrates how powerfully film and novel differ as media, and clearly shows the ways that story elements need to be reimagined for the target medium. I would never suggest the film as a substitute for the book, but I would suggest the reverse either. They're the same story, but the medium used to tell that story so alters the fundamental presentation that they have to be viewed as complementary tellings, not supplementary. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #560 ******************************