From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #700 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, May 6 2002 Volume 01 : Number 700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:23:55 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Todd wrote: >If you have ever stood in a clearcut, you'd know that >those places have a feeling of violence in them. To say that no one is >against forests after witnessing that kind of incursion is like saying >that people who kill aren't anti-people. They may not be, but they sure >act like it. I find the example of clear-cutting particularly interesting, since it illustrates how quickly the emotional side of environmentalism and the scientific side can diverge. Growing up in western Oregon, I remember attending a discussion of clear-cutting, which was a hot topic back then. Many people were against it, for the same sorts of reasons that Todd mentions: in part, the outstanding ugliness of a clear-cut hillside. And yet... The scientists present at the meeting--including scientific environmentalists, not only timber industry specialists--explained that if you were going to log Douglas fir forests at all, the *best* way to do it was to clear-cut, because it was only by clear-cutting that you could create a situation where Douglas fir could be replanted. Young Douglas fir need full sunlight. If you did spot-logging, you would get a temporarily nicer effect, but there would be no potential for replanting. And so the argument between informed environmentalist scientists and the timber industry was not whether or not to clear-cut, but on where the clear-cutting was to take place and how big the clear-cut patches were to be. It may be that the scientific perspective related to clear-cutting and Douglas fir has changed in the more than 25 years since I attended that meeting, though I keep reading similar things about clear-cutting and many types of conifer forests in general. My point, though, is that there's a difference between environmental motivations and environmental science. I should add that I'm far more environmentalist in my leanings than this exchange probably makes it sound like. (I'd also point out that there are many environmentalist organizations that don't take a public-policy approach to issues; some, like the Nature Conservancy, use donations to buy up land, and work with existing landowners to try to preserve specific areas and habitats.) The problem, as I see it, is that what appeals to people on an emotional level is often not well thought through on a scientific or rational level. This, I think (to return us to nature writing), is a potential problem with nature writing as a genre: that to the degree it is designed to appeal to people on an emotional level, it may distort the scientific realities (to the degree that we understand them). Personally, when I want to think about the environment, I prefer to read scientific studies and their results rather than nature writing. I want to read something by someone who I'm pretty sure knows something. Perhaps it's the technical writer in me... I know there are some nature writers out there who have a good reputation for knowing their science *and* being able to write effectively (a tradition that includes, for example, Rachel Carson). I have the strong suspicion (admittedly without having looked into it in any detail) that there are others who substitute emotion for logic, and I have really no interest in reading authors who fall into that category. "Nature writing" per se is a very narrow literary vein. I'm not surprised that we haven't seen much of it in Mormon letters. I don't see much of it in the western literary tradition. Literature, on the whole, tends to be about humans; literature that takes nature as its major focus will always, I suspect, be a minor literary footnote at best. Still, there are a number of genres where nature shows up in an important way, and those genres have, I think, a healthy representation within the Mormon tradition: nature-oriented poetry and poetic imagery (e.g., the writing of John S. Harris, and I believe Sally Taylor too); western writing; science fiction and fantasy (e.g., Shayne Bell); and probably pioneer journals and narratives as well. I understand that part of what Todd is doing is intended to push the discussion. (There's an upcoming issue of Irreantum that focuses on the nature writing tradition in Mormon literature, of which Todd is the guest editor; a good AML-List discussion of nature writing in Mormon literature would complement that issue quite nicely.) Still, I get a sense from Todd's posts--perhaps intended, perhaps not--that unless we're doing a particular type of writing, and unless we're engaged in a particular type of activism, we don't qualify as environmentally aware. I'm active enough in the environmental community to know that there's a lot of factionalism out there, which is one reason why I object to generalizations about environmentalists: there are, as I have reason to know, many different kinds of environmentalists. Personally, I think little purpose is served by maintaining such divisions. I'd rather point out to Church members the environmental threads that run through our tradition, rather than say that the majority of Church members are anti-environment, or even anti-environmentalist; among other things, it strikes me as a more rhetorically effective approach. I'll close with the point (again) that different types of rhetorical strategies work for different types of audiences. In my case, a tirade about how ugly a clear-cut forest looks turns me off because of what I know (or think I know) about the underlying science. Similarly, Scott Parkin and I have both pointed out the strong threads related to environmental concerns that run through many of our Mormon science fiction authors, such as Shayne Bell, as others have done for other genres; but from Todd's reactions, these do not seem to count. I'm forced to conclude that what Todd is asking about is not a general concern with nature in writing, but rather a specific, rather narrow type of writing that appeals to a specific, rather narrow audience. In which case, I can only say "de gustibus non disputandum est"; but I refuse to stand convicted of lack of environmental awareness and concern simply because I don't care much about a particular type of writing. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:10:55 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Disney > seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from start to > finish by infatuation with an attractive form. Like _The Lion King_ or _101 Dalmations_ or _The Straight Story._ Even _Jungle Book_ manages to wait until the very last scene, and uses human attraction as the bait to cause Mowgli to re-enter human civilization (an arguably good thing). Clark Goble argues that human attraction--and passion--is a basic human story, and I agree. The fact of romance in a story doesn't make the romance trivial, though Disney is every bit as guilty of trivializing it as anyone else. Still, the search for sex (and the stable emotional environment it used to imply before sex became the #1 spectator sport of the last century) is a basic human motivator, and is the basis behind a huge amount of the decision-making people do. That it should become a foundational plot element for any story is hardly surprising. >From my perspective _Snow Dogs_ is an abomination on a whole lot of fronts, not the least of which is a trivial view of human attraction. But it looks like a relatively benign trivialization to me. Still, I so despise the technique of animating animal mouths (or babies or soda cans) to mimic human speech that I will avoid that film as much on the basis of special effects heresy as for any other reason. FWIW. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:19:51 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Clark writes: Yet at the same time I think that saying that this line is the line between sex and romance is incorrect. Indeed it is somewhat worse than incorrect if it causes our basic drive and passion to be hidden. I think Clark is right--and perhaps worse than "hidden" would be feeling that our basic feelings are wrong. There's a strong opinion throughout much of the church that these feelings are bad and wrong till we get married. I remember hearing a comment in a Young Women's Conference that we should avoid romantic relationships till we're marriageable. But as someone has already said, we often fall in love with we're first graders! None of this romance and sexuality means that we break our commitment to chastity. But I think that the generalized feeling of wrongness about our romantic and sexual human nature leads to problems. _Dancing Naked_, for example, deals extensively with how our lives get messed up and crazy when we're conflicted about this aspect of our normal and good and wonderful human nature. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:36:55 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists At 04:22 PM 5/1/02, you wrote: >Anyway, when I was reading Martha Grimes, I kept thinking how much >Barbara Hume would enjoy her books. Thanks for thinking of me, Tony! I'll check on these books. (Which means I'll first be sure they have satisfying endings, because in general I don't trust mystery writers for that.) A writer named M. C. Beaton has a couple of mystery series out that have been highly successful -- the Hamish Macbeth series and the Agatha Raisin series. They are pretty depressing because she never lets her protagonists be happy. She wrote romances for years and years under the name of Marion Chesney, but usually felt as though the writer disliked having to provide a happy ending -- she didn't like her characters, and I always sensed that she would rather have left them out in the cold and the rain than give them even the desultory sexual fulfillment she half-heartedly provided in the final paragraph. She liked the intellectual twists of plot, IMO. She must be much happier now, since hr plots are quite interesting, but she usually leaves her hero standing alone in the rain as yet another female rejects him and walks away. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:57:42 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Chris BOWMAN, _The Wrong Brother_ (Review) "The Wrong Brother" (2001) Directed by Chris Bowman Produced by Ryan Little, Carter Durham, Chris Bowman Director of Photography: Doug Chamberlain Starring Bryan Summers, Chris Kendrick and Joel Wallin Reviewed by Preston Hunter As far as I can tell, the purpose of "The Wrong Brother" is simply to be fun and entertaining. This is fine, because it is very fun and entertaining. In fact, it is hilarious. I found myself frequently laughing out loud at this historically preposterous but ostensibly earnest telling of the story of "Hector Wright," the lesser known, not-at-all-famous younger brother of Orville and Wilbur Wright, the inventors of the airplane. "The Wrong Brother" is a short film written and directed by BYU film student Chris Bowman. The film's producers are Bowman, along with Ryan Little (director of the feature film "Out of Step" and the award-winning short film "The Last Good War"; director of photography for "The Singles Ward") and Carter Durham. These are some talented young filmmakers. "The Wrong Brother" looks fantastic: it appears professional throughout. It is set in Dayton, Ohio circa 1903. Inserts of actual footage of the Wright Brothers' demonstrating their flying machine and Ivan Crosland's solemn narration increase the air of mockumentary-like realism. The costuming and sets all look authentic, which make the intentional anachronisms (particularly with regards to dialogue) all the more comical. (At one point one of the successful Wright brothers addresses an attractive woman among a crowd of admirers: he pantomimes dialing an old-style telephone and mouths the words "call me.") Much of the comic relief in the film comes from Orville and Wilbur (Chris Kendrick and Joel Wallin), who occasionally exhibit some decent brotherliness, but usually mock their little brother mercilessly. They are particularly bemused by Hector's intentions to invent something himself. "He wouldn't know an invention if it was right in front of him, wearing a sign that says 'invention,'" says one. "And bit him," finishes the other. This is followed by the two brothers using their hands to mimic mouths, making biting and growling sounds. It may sound slightly mean, but it's all in fun, and the film has a great heart. Bryan Summers plays the part of Hector as, well, a bit of a loser, but a very sympathetic one. Hector is redeemed by his optimism and determination to emerge from the shadow of his older brothers. Hector eventually announces his own invention before the excited townspeople: a portable drinking fountain, consisting of at least 50 pound of equipment carried on one's back AND dragged by a harness attached to one's ankle. The invention is intended to deliver people from thirst. Of courrse, the whole thing is patently absurd. What is even more funny is the way the hecklers in the crowd are eventually drowned out by the sentiment that what really matters is whether or not it works. Alas, Hector isn't even entirely successful on that front. The hose from the back-mounted drinking fountain produces, at first, a beautifully photographed trickle of water, only to turn into a disastrous torrent that knocks hats off onlookers and leaves Hector drenched. Seemingly washed up, Hector drives home with his not-so-successful invention. But on his way home he passes a burning school building. Children are trapped inside, and nobody is around to help them. Does Hector save the day? Does his invention turn out to be useful after all? Well, I won't give away the ending, except to say the film ends on an upbeat, but hilarious note. Watching "The Wrong Brother," it is easy to see why it won first place (as well as an audience choice award) in last year's International Young LDS Film Festival (2001). The solid filmmaking, top notch comic acting, and thoroughly enjoyable story combine to make a commendable film. I normally have no interest in writing "reviews" of short films, but my thrill at seeing this compelled me to do so. "The Wrong Brother" can be puchased on video (in LDS video stores, or from www.candlelightmedia.com), or (if you've got the bandwidth) downloaded for free from: http://yfilms.byu.edu/finalcut/drinkingfountain.mov - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:26:54 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Does the unpopular NEA-funded art get much play in society? Unpopular > Mormon art already exists without government support--an audience for it > won't suddenly spring up just because the NEA starts funding it. So what > have we won with government funding? Just some artists who get a > paycheck without ever bothering to figure out how to make their art more > relevant to people. Government sponsorship of Mo-lit will stymy the > efforts people are now making to figure out how to nurture a genuine > Mo-lit audience. To some degree my response it pragmatic. What others do or have done is irrelevant to me; what I'm looking at is how to use the system to my own advantage. If I can get funding to support what I believe is a better form of alternate Mormon literature than the vast majority of what I see from Covenant or DB, then why shouldn't I? I would far rather work through the existing free-market structure, but the simple fact is they won't buy or publish some of the excellent work that I see being produced because it doesn't fit into their idea of appropriate (or marketable) work. So I have to look for other ways to do it. I'm not sure how NEA (or Utah Arts Council or Utah Humanities Council) dollars are going to stymie my effort; but I do see how those dollars could help me start something that I believe can become self-sustaining and both literarily and socially relevant. I can't argue that a great many lazy people use the government dole to fund their own trivial vision and shock-oriented esthetic. But seeking and using money offered by the government does not automatically turn me into an artistic zombie--though coming to depend on the handout can certainly cloud one's pure vision. I don't have the knowledge or the power to change the way other people think, but I do have the ability to express (often poorly) my own hope for a better existence, and to support the publication of those people who express their own hopes better than I do. Theoretically, that's one of the purposes of Art, and even art that disgusts me moves me to refine my own vision and belief. Which I consider to be good, regardless of the intent of the artist or his/her personal morality. At the risk of offending my good friend Scott Bronson by using his words to support my social/political views, that's why his statement that his goal with art was to build the kingdom of God is so powerful to me--it seems like the best and most complete reason to create art that I can image. Art to impress a snobbish New York elite will have its limited play and will vanish when its patrons pass on (either in death or to the next fad). But art used to build a heritage of godly seeking and spiritual building strikes me as a good thing. So why shouldn't I use the tools designed to support a snobbish elite to support my own artistic vision and hope? Why shouldn't I benefit from a system that supports trivial expression, and turn it so it support a somewhat less trivial (IMO) expression? That's one of many ways that I as an individual citizen can determine what art tax dollars goes to support--but only if I seek it. And if it should turn out that funding my alternative Mormon press means that one less can of chocolate syrup comes in contact with one less broccoli clump, maybe I've done two goods in the world instead of just one. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:07:34 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Clash of Cultures (was: Money and Art) First of all, I applaud Jonathan's on this thread. I'll make an effort to = follow his excellent guidelines. =20 It's been very interesting to me to see the strongly felt libertarian and = politically conservative opinions that have been expressed on the subject = of this thread. Obviously, since I'm neither libertarian nor conservative,= I do disagree pretty strenuously with some of you. I hope we're all = still friends. But what interests me is to see the clash of cultures that has emerged = within this thread. I'd like to tie this to another fascinating subject, = Jeff Needle's excellent review of the Johanson book. =20 On the AML-List, we all share an interest in Mormonism and in literature. = This automatically places us in the orbit of at least two cultures; a = culture of bibliophiles and a culture of Mormonophiles. (Coinage?) If we = assume that arts lovers are, in the broadest most general terms, more = inclined to be politically liberal than most, and that Mormons are, in the = broadest terms, more likely to be politically conservative, this issue = becomes, quite predicatably, a hotly debated one. This is especially true = since most of us would, I think, consider ourselves rather iconoclastic = members of either society, or perhaps, of both. =20 This brings me to the Johanson book. I reacted very violently indeed to = Jeff's review of it, and later found myself wondering why I so intensely = disliked a book I haven't read and probably won't read. Johanson clearly = knows nothing about other religious traditions. He also knows next to = nothing about the sociology of religion as it applies to Mormonism. What = he knows is what he and those of his ward members he hangs out with think = about things. It's a very useful window into current active American = Mormon attitudes about current active American Mormons. And I don't like = it because (based on the review alone) I don't think it describes me at = all, and yet I consider myself an active Mormon. So my feelings of = alienation from this culture are intensified. And that's not comfortable; = I lash out. Other cultural circles come into play. I think most American Mormons are = politically conservative because most Mormons live in the Western US, = where people are generally conservative politically. (Utah is a conservati= ve state, and Utah is 70% LDS. But Arizona is also conservative, and = Arizona has a much smaller LDS population). I think lots of people on = this list are Libertarian in large measure because lots of people on this = List work in the computer industry, which has a tremendously strong = libertarian bent. This is not to say that conservative or libertarian = points of view aren't carefully thought through or deeply held. I suppose = I'm liberal because I'm a theatre guy, and that culture tends to be quite = leftist. But I also think, at least, that I'm a liberal because I'm LDS, = because I think Mormonism, as I understand it, is generally more compatible= with liberalism than with conservatism. Plus, I'm a cantankerous sort; = living in Utah drives me further left each year that passes. There's another interesting factor that's emerged in this debate. D. = Michael put it this way: >The problem with the NEA is the same problem with most solutions >implemented at the Federal level of government. It's too distant, too >wieldy, too beaurocratized and politicized to work well.=20 Is it possible that this 'small is good, big is bad' philosophy, which is = very popular on the Right today, gets embraced by a lot of us because = that's how we experience the world; at the ward level? I grew up too close to Mayor Daley's Chicago to believe in anything like = it. Local government has historically been far more prone to corruption, = inefficiency and majoritarian tyranny than the Federal government has = been. Or have we forgotten Tammany Hall, Mississippi, Arkansas or Alabama = in ths '50's, or the current Utah legislature? Besides, think of the last = election. Most folks do make an effort to study the issues, and to think = long and hard about their vote for President. While the City Council vote = is mostly won by the guy who put up the most yard signs. =20 I've served on local and state arts councils. Their decisions are usually = driven by the concerns of the one loudest mouth in the room. It's not a = pleasant experience. And so, I like the NEA and want it greatly expanded, while others on the = List, of course, are against it. But part of this is the fact that I = don't trust my ward. I attend every Sunday, and I teach my Sunday School = class, and I'm friendly with most of the folks there. But I'm always = wary. I always guard my tongue. I feel like I can show them the 30% of = me that's politically correct. I probably will never make a close friend = in the ward. I feel much much closer to many of you on the List than I = feel towards anyone in my ward. And so I tend to mistrust local = decisions politically. =20 It's a very interesting question, the way in which cultures intersect. = I'm grateful for the exchange of views.=20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:48:36 -0600 From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith I know I've suggested this before, but can't we afford Jude Law? He's happily married with three children, believes in God (from watching his t.v. interviews). He'd be perfect for the part in all other ways. He's into Independent films, I'm quite sure. And I know that I personally and some of my stay-at-home neighbor-moms would Happily volunteer on the set to help off-set the expense of his salary. Personal Assisant, free catering, baby-sitting, free room and board, etc. At least try. Joseph Smith deserves the best rendering possible. Jana Pawlowski - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:21:29 -0600 From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Virginia SORENSON >From what I gathered by reading through Sorensen's letters in BYU's Speci= al Collections library, Fred was quite jealous of her success. Her biogr= aphy is being written by Susan Howe and Mary Lythgoe Bradford. =20 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn= .com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:46:53 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > Thom asked about how people (at the Beet) get paid. > > We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and publicity in the SL > TRib and newspapers all over the country. That's better than a few > bucks, don't you think? > > I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but fame of a kind > nonetheless. > -- > Todd Robert Petersen > No, I don't. Gimme the bucks anytime. You offered the Sugarbeet as an artistic endeavor that did not receive gummit funding, as if to show that we don't need NEA money to create good art. Quite right. But the fact remains that no one in sugarbeet is likely to be able to pay their bills from the fame they will get. To do that -- to actually make a living doing something as high quality as Sugarbeet but also as necessarily focused -- will require some outside funding at some point. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:07:45 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Activism in Mormon Lit (was: Money and Art) robert lauer wrote: ...an extended explanation of his views on the immorality of using tax money to fund the expression of ideas, as well as some of his thoughts on the nature and purposes of government--most of which were in direct opposition to my own views. First, thank you Robert for expressing those ideas. I think the foundation for much of our disagreement is the difference between ideal behavior and actual behavior. Since I have little or no faith in the likelihood of people to do the right thing simply because it's good I do support a certain amount of legally-enforced morality--and our right to alter or change or overthrow that legal authority when it no longer meets the needs of people. But such actions must always be taken with utmost care, lest our zeal to enable the rights of some destroy the rights of others. In any case, I love it when people feel passionately about something and work to express that passion. The instant we stop feeling passionately about an issue is the same moment that we give away our will to seek better answers--something I think we need to do a lot of (seek better answers) in regards to our government. I still disagree with some of your basis assumptions, but that's what it means to be human and individuals and I can only celebrate the extraordinary range of beliefs and the actions they encourage among people. Which ties back somewhat to what Todd Robert Peterson asked about in his post on environmentalism and why we don't seem to see more activistic literature from Mormons. While I disagree with the alleged anti-environment stance that Todd ascribes to the average Mormon, I strongly agree with his lament that we see precious little expression of social or political ideas from a Mormon standpoint. I can think of a number of reasons for that. * We don't want to draw attention-- Have we as Mormons come to conflate all authority as equal and untouchable? We can't select our church leaders but grant them power anyway; do we feel the same way about our political leaders? This could certainly lead to an unwillingness to question legal authority, either for fear of being seen as unsupporting of God-inspired authority (aka, rebelling against orthodoxy), or for fear of recrimination either from within our religious community or from without (a fear justified by some past events in both cases). So maybe we stay clear of questions or issues in our literature that could draw unwanted attention from the leadership--political or religious. * We don't want to sow contention-- As recent discussions on this list show, people have very strong feelings about social and political issues, and are often quite willing to question the moral fiber and righteousness (or at least intelligence) of other Mormons who disagree. But the spirit of contention is the spirit of the devil, so we generally steer clear of issues that people can and do contend over--like the environment, politics, feminism, war, abortion, same-sex attraction, and race. So we avoid issues that can and do divide people in the Church, because our goal is to build unanimity and community, not to fire conflict and contention. * We don't want to seem silly or be wrong-- In many ways Mormons still seem to be trying to get the acceptance of the rest of the world. As long as we deal with vague or ephemeral issues--or simple issues of morality or perception--we can be just a little odd but still claim overall normalcy. Specific issues create opportunities for specific rejection of us and individuals and our religion in general. Especially if we should later change our stance on the issue (which seems like at least a part of the whole repentence process--the constant judgment and re-creation of our moral foundations). So we avoid stories that expose too much of our own thoughts that aren't specifically addressed in official doctrines or proclamations, thus reducing the number of points on which we might be judged as wrong by authorities that we (try to) trust. * We just don't think in those terms-- Having been called out of the world and believing in an ultimate repair of all wrongs and perfection of all institutions, perhaps we just can't generate strong interests in any issue that doesn't directly impact our daily existence. Broad conceptual issues have little or nothing to do with how I'm going to obtain my daily bread, teach my family, and perfect my own soul, so why should I worry about that over which I have no control? Simple pragmatism. ===== Of course any list is, by definition, incomplete and skewed to my own perspective. But I do see a certain insular behavior by many Mormons where they don't involve themselves in issues that are not specifically addressed from the pulpit. Certainly our book publishers have had a conservative approach to activistic work; whether that conservatism is because they fear losing market share by publishing a divisive book, or because they can't publish what Mormons aren't writing is a question I can't answer. Anyway... I think we *should* be writing more and varied works that touch on any and all subjects of interest to us as individual people who are also Mormons. And if we express our beliefs in the context of that Mormonism we should both have the courage to express our beliefs and the charity to accept that good Mormons can believe differently than we do. In other words, we should have a little more trust and do a little less judging--on both sides of the literary fence. Because if we don't study everything and try to understand it in context of revealed religion, I don't think we're working hard enough to perfect ourselves and become as God, knowing good and evil in all things through direct exploration and analysis. Just a thought. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:56:46 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" To: Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > Thom Duncan wrote: > > > > "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts > > and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, > > the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) > > produce/publish good edgy mormon art." > > > > And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their > > efforts? > > Precisely the point--good art can still happen even without funding. That's not the point. The point is, can an artist make a living doing such things as writing for Sugarbeet, etc? Todd Peterson makes the claim that writers are paid in fame. Well, that only goes so far. I remember the first time I was published in a High School literary publication. Got no money. It was a thrill. But the thrill dies fast. Personally, I have all the fame I ever want. What I want no is to be paid for what I write, even if only one person reads or sees my stuff. The biggest motivation for me to get this theatre group going with Scott Bronson is so I can finally make some money with all the plays I've written over the last decade or so. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:11:07 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Michelle Shocked NPR story (in RealAudio format) on singer/songwriter Michelle Shocked's new CD: http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020501.me.15.ram Mentions her LDS upbringing. MBA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 16:07:01 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants At 05:36 PM 5/1/02 +0000, you wrote: > >Is there somewhere that individual artists can go to find out what grant >monies are available? I've got a few projects I've been working on that I've >wondered about grant money before, but I've never even known where to begin >to look to see what was even out there. > >Kellene Ricks Adams > I wanted to post this as an answer to Cathy, but I will post it now. Most Universities as well as the State Endowments for both Arts and humanities and many professional organizations for the artshave grant writing workshops. In general they are very helpful. Also, most Endowment funds keep records of successful grants on file. That will usually involve going to the funding agency and asking (Email is not very effective) for copies of successful grant proposals. For large grants, (over 10,000 dollars) I usually prepare a preliminary proposal and hand carry it to the grant agencies, making appointments ahead of time and asking for suggestions (In case of Federal Grants, your congressman or Senator or both, or any one in power who had ever spoken in support of the kind of activity you propose --or title you propose is a good person to present with your proposal with a request for suggestions.) It is important to look as successful grants to get a feel of the types of things the officers of your agency support, and to skew your request as far as possible in that direction. Personal contact is extremely valuable. It is also important that you fill out the final report data that the grant agency sends you (if there is such) because, if you don't, it is liable to be your last grant. Type "grants" or "art grants" into google and you will be shocked at the wealth of information on sources for grants, formulae for filling out and filing the paperwork etc. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:06:26 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Update on Nauvoo Theatrical Society So maybe some of you are interested in how things are going with the Nauvoo Theatrical Society, the organization dedicated to producing Mormon theatre. Well, I've already announced that we've procured a space at 50 W. Center, Orem. Two doors west of Chuck-E Cheese. We're in the process of gutting the place so we can build our lobby, the theatre itself (recently upgraded to fit 150 seats), and a backstage area with dressing rooms and a back lobby for selling concessions. The space also has a back area large enough to rehearse plays at the same time that another play is performing in the main area. This could lead to our being able to produce more plays per year. We've already received one donation which we will put in the bank as soon as TNST is organized as a NFP corporation. The theatre itself will be called Center Street Theatre. The previous owner had an awning with his company's name on it. We hope to paint the name of the theater over that. May and June will be refurbishing time. We'll start casting and rehearsing for our first show, _My Turn on Earth_, in July. More information as it becomes available. - ---- Thom Duncan The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 15:58:03 +0000 From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Clark Goble wrote: The > distinction we make between "romance" and "sex" is really a false one. The > drives which lead us to romance are sexual. The reason we distinguish > between sex and romance is because we have a sphere of proscribed behavior. > Without knowing that the statement came from Clark, I would have bet money that it almost certainly came from a man! :-) (how's that for a stereotypical statement.) There is absolutely a very real distinction between romance and sex. That doesn't mean that there isn't an overlap sometimes, but it does mean that there doesn't always have to be an overlap. I know one couple who have been married for more than 30 years and have never had sexual relations and they have a relationship that is much deeper and stronger than a platonic friendship. They have a marriage that has plenty of romance, and there's not an iota of sex in it. I suspect we all know couples who, for one reason or another (health, emotional problems, distance, etc.), have gone for periods without sex, yet the romance in their relationships is vivid and real. Romance (maybe more for women than men, if you believe stereotypes) can be emotional and mental. In a relationship with two people who truly care about each other and love each other, the drives that lead to romance may be the desire to show support, encouragement, love, compassion, contentment, whatever. Of course, sex can be a part of those drives, but it doesn't always have to be. I suspect sex sometimes is, as Clark notes, the single drive behind romance. I just don't believe that that is always the case. I don't dispute Clark's right to feel that there is no distinction. The fact that we all have different viewpoints on so many important (and unimportant) issues is what provides for different plots, different storylines, different points of view in the material we're all creating. And that's the spice of life--and art. But I couldn't let his post go without noting that his statement may not be accurate. (nothing personal, Clark.) Kellene Ricks Adams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #700 ******************************