From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #812 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, August 27 2002 Volume 01 : Number 812 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:18:01 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Cultural First Contact (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From sammiejustesen@msn.com Fri Aug 23 21:48:21 2002 Finally, a question I can answer! Regarding a book introducing folks to Mormon culture, I highly recommend Clark and Kathryn Kidd's book "A Convert's Guide to Mormon Life." When I joined the church four years ago, this book proved an invaluable resource--especially when I was called as First Counselor in our ward Relief Society presidency after only four months in the church. I checked Amazon.com, and they have used copies available for under $5.00. Sammie L. Justesen sammie@doingitwrite.com - ---------------------------------------------------- >From bronsonjscott@juno.com Fri Aug 23 23:30:30 2002 Kathryn and her husband Clark. For Bookcraft I think. ""Mormonism for Dummies" was the title I think. Or, "A Field Guide of Mormonisms." Something along those lines. scott - --------------------------------------- >From wwbrown@burgoyne.com Sat Aug 24 07:42:27 2002 Have her read the new novel that won the AML Unpublished novel prize of $1000 this year, MORMONVILLE by Deseret News writer Jeff Call. It is excellent and just got off the press. It's in the books stores as I speak! Marilyn Brown - ----------------------------------------------- >From Chris.Bigelow@unicitynetwork.com Sat Aug 24 13:20:28 2002 The Kidd book, A Convert's Guide to Mormon Life, is much like what you describe in terms of scope, though I wouldn't call it concise. But it would probably fit your needs just fine. Chris Bigelow - ------------------------------------------------- >From eric_eliason@byu.edu Mon Aug 26 10:09:45 2002 Eric, The book you are thinking of is: Clark L. Kidd & Kathryn H. : A Convert's Guide To Mormon Life. A Guidebook for New Memebers After some years in the Church she might get a kick out of Orson Scott Card's _Saintspeak_ which is a tongue-in-cheek "dictionary." Eric Eliason - --------------------------------------------- >From andrewrhall@hotmail.com Mon Aug 26 18:35:00 2002 Yep, Deseret Book published one by Kathryn and Clark Kidd a couple of years ago, called "A Convert's Guide to Mormon Life." I glanced at it once, it has both simple doctrine and cultural explanations. Sounds like what you are looking for. Deseret's web site says it is available at most stores. The blurb says: This remarkable book is certain to help converts and lifelong members rapidly gain a detailed understanding of the day-to-day life of a committed member of the Church. Written in a light conversational tone to facilitate easy reading and understanding, this remarkable book covers the gospel experience from A (Aaronic Priesthood) to Z (Zion) and tackles questions many may wonder about but be afraid to ask. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:42:59 -0500 From: LDS Film Festival 2002 (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Deadline for LDS Film Festival MAILBOX NEWSLETTER #4/2002 http://www.ldsbox.com feedback@ldsbox.com IN THIS ISSUE: 1. APPROACHING ENTRY DEADLINE FOR 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002 2. LAST CHANCE TO ORGANIZE A SCREENING OF "BEST OF 2001" 3. WHAT FILMS ARE SHOWCASED AT THE LDS FILM FESTIVAL? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. APPROACHING ENTRY DEADLINE FOR 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you want your film or screenplay showcased at the 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002, you better hurry up! Send in your work no later than September 15. $ 2000.00 and the prestigious LIGHTBOX AWARD will be awarded to the best screenplays, films and videos. Everyone is invited to participate. We look forward to an exciting event! You can download the entry form at http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/entry.php For more info on the festival: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/festival.php - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. LAST CHANCE TO ORGANIZE A SCREENING OF THE "BEST OF 2001" PROGRAM - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the last two months, the "Best of 2001" program has been successfully screened in Italy, Oklahoma, and at the Salt Lake City Film Festival last weekend. The program is available for another month. If you are interested in organizing a screening, please contact us at info@ldsbox.com. You can also look up more information at: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/tour.php - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. WHAT FILMS ARE SHOWCASED AT THE LDS FILM FESTIVAL? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The LDS Film Festival showcases primarily works by young LDS filmmakers. The films and screenplays deal with a variety of themes and expressions. An LDS topic is not required. The goal of the festival is to celebrate artistic variety and give LDS filmmakers an opportunity to interact with audiences and other LDS filmmakers. For more information on the motto of the festival go to: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/motto.php You either signed up for our newsletter or were recommended to us by a friend. If you would like to unsubscribe from future LDSBOX mailings, simply reply to this message with the word REMOVE in the subject line. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:42:37 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Church History Recommendations? >. So while > Lund's books aren't as well crafted literature as Levi Peterson's work, I'm > willing to bet that more people have been attracted to the church from TWATG > than from anything Peterson wrote. (And there is at least anecdotal evidence > that Lund's books have led to some baptisms, assuming one can believe the > back-liners.) As long as those folks don't read any real Church history, their testimonies should remain unassailed. But what would we rather have, people who are converted to the Church the way it really is (Levi Peterson), or the way that Lund creates it? The problem with the latter is that you run the risk of your converts turning out like me -- frustrated and somewhat angry when they find out that Church leaders were much more human than they wsere initially portrayed to be, or that the Church has tried to re-write its official history. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:52:33 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Plays (Andrew's Poll) I saw a play at BYU in January or February of 1970 about Korihor. I don't remember the details, and it may have been only one act, but it seems it might have lasted nearly an hour. Anyone know what it might have been and who wrote it? (And I wish I were close enough to the wild wild west to be able to see even a few of the wonderful plays that have been mentioned in the poll so far.) Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:30:50 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty - ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > One of the greatest innovations of the 20th century is non-humbling > > poverty. It used to be that the poor would become humble in their > > affliction and experience a form of spiritual rebirth as a result. > > That happens still, but I think a part of our current hardening of > > hearts includes a certain pride and greed in poverty. To accompany > > our pride and greed in wealth, of course. > > Each of us can only speak from our own experience, but I have > never met someone who was proud in their poverty--which is > not to say that they don't exist, but the fact remains that I > can't find someone to point at and say "that one's proud of > being poor." I'd probably better expound on the point, then. I don't think any of us have seen anyone who will stand up and state proudly, "I'm glad I'm poor--I take pride every day that I am so poor." (though I've seen the occasional competitive poverty--we were so poor that...) But that's not really what I was saying. What I'm marking is the shift in attitude that has made poverty non-humbling. It isn't the pride that we see in accomplishment (that is problematic on its own), rather it is the pride that prevents acknowledgement of need or dependence on others. And I'm not saying that people should feel that they are weak or at fault just because they are poor, any more than I am saying that people should feel that they are above reproach just because they are rich. Feel bad for your weaknesses, feel good about your strengths, praise God for both and do as much as you can to provide the needs of your family. Whether you are rich or poor shouldn't play any role in any of that. A humble person will give graciously to others in their good fortune and receive thankfully from others when they are in need. It used to be that those who couldn't provide for themselves and families felt great humility in having to ask for sustenance from others. And they expressed thanks when those needs were met. Those humbled by asking for their needs learned to rely on God because they have learned that they cannot rely upon their own efforts. And even if they didn't become closer to God, they would become closer to those they relied upon, sometimes building important relationships that involved exchanges of love as well as goods and service. I realize that I'm talking in broad generalities, here. Certainly, individuals will react differently based on their own personalities, experiences, and choices even in like circumstances regardless of their historical era. Still, I believe that in the past, poverty could more easily result in a drawing together and that the humility could and did seep into other areas of their lives. These days, poverty is more and more divorced from humility and those who find themselves in need of things they cannot provide for themselves see no need to adopt any kind of ameliorating stance when approaching those they wish to supply their need. More and more, requests for food and shelter are delivered as demands and couched in terms of "rights". People have a "right" to good food and warm, safe shelter and when they find themselves in need they feel no compunction in demanding their rights be fulfilled. And, correspondingly, they feel little need to express thanks to those who provide them--after all, they are only supplying rights already our due. Because we don't want people who are poor to feel shame in their condition (a laudable goal for the most part, I admit), we've removed any hint of gratitude or the need to be thankful. Gratitude is gauche because it is somehow construed as an admission of guilt. So now, instead of gracious giving and gracious reception, we have graceless demands for unfilled rights and a begrudged giving or even a forced taking for purposes of fulfilling those rights. In getting rid of unwarranted shame, we've been hoodwinked into an accompanying lack of grace or humility. Shame and humility are *not* the same and our conflating the two is a sad foundation for our current hardening of hearts both giving and receiving. And I'll say here that this is something that is largely *not* found within the church. Our poor *are* more humble and our rich as well. One action of the gospel as a keen understanding of and preoccupation with pride and we (as a whole and not always in individual cases, mind) do pretty well when it comes to taking care of those in need. I think it is one place where we shine and are able to meet human needs in a way that is ennobling of both those who give and of those who receive. > On a general basis, though, I can't help but wonder if we > sometimes spend inordinate effort fighting the spectre of > unrealized possibility more than the real problems that lie > at our feet. If we spent less time worrying about fraud and > devoted that time and effort to offering service, it seems > like we could accomplish even more good than we already > do--even if some undeserving benefit as a result. I wonder if > we shouldn't just "serve 'em all and let God sort 'em out," > as it were. If resources were unlimited, I'd be happy with this as a policy. The problem is that fraud is incredibly crippling. Even if a very small portion of the population will engage in fraud (say 1 CEO in 100), the costs of that fraud will rise over time with no natural limiting factor. Fraud grows because greed has no bounds and systems open to fraud will attract those willing to defraud. Even a little fraud will grow over time as that little bit becomes normal and that next little bit more is sought. Allowed to grow unchecked, fraud will eventually destroy any system of distribution. That will continue to be the case until human nature changes. > I wonder if our fear of the elusive (illusive?) "welfare > queen" has caused us to become so demanding, harsh, and > critical of those who seek help that we all but criminalize > them, and look for excuses to withdraw our assistance in the > name of moral right. Are we letting the criminals dictate how > we treat the honestly needy? Is that the best mindset to use > when attempting to offer real charity? I *do* hesitate to give when my giving is demanded and even taken by force. I dislike it because without my willingness to give, there is no blessing in the giving. When there is contempt for my giving and open suspicion of my human value because I'm "rich", it gives me little joy or willingness to give. I *have* seen in vivid detail delivered to my living room those who *demand* food and shelter as their *right* as Americans and it leaves me cold. I've seen the reports detailing literally millions of dollars lost to fraud and I've seen the reports detailing the millions more lost to inefficiency and bureaucratic empire building. That's why I value the opportunity I have to give through the church and I value the experience gained in receiving assistance there as well. Fraud is enviably low there and bureaucratic overhead virtually non-existent. If I could, I'd divert all my aid to the poor through the church. I wish that were possible. > It's an emotional argument, but it's the one I keep coming > back to. Isn't it to our good to help those in need of > help--even if they have the tools to escape their poverty, > and even if they're defrauding us by accepting our > assistance? If we should labor all our days and save only one > soul from poverty and the spiritual abyss it can represent, > won't our joy be great in the kingdom of heaven? I don't believe so. Saving a soul from poverty isn't at all the same as saving a soul from sin. I don't give in to my daughter's demand to be carried everywhere we go, either. I make her walk. And I'm glad the bishop didn't carry me when I had great need, either. He made me walk it through and helped me as much as I needed help--and no more. It isn't for us to have every bump of life smoothed for us and every adversity swept from our path. Instead, it is important to be humble in giving, to learn discernment, to love others, and have generosity towards all. Wasting our resources on those who defraud is poor stewardship. Wise giving is as important as wise spending and anything less is an abdication of responsibility. Attitude is everything, though. Eliminating fraud by seeking understanding with a kind heart and generous spirit is a whole lot different from eliminating fraud by seeking conviction with a spirit of suspicion and assumed superiority. > Of course we need to target our assistance to those who have > real need so that needed resources are not wasted on those > without need. But in attempting to make sure we only serve > the truly needy I wonder if we don't do ourselves spiritual > violence by looking at people as statistics, commodities, or > subhuman, putting the mask of our own fear on them and > turning them into targets or even enemies instead of fellow > children of God. You certainly *can* do yourself spiritual harm by looking at people as statistics, commodities and so on. But making sure we serve the truly needy doesn't have anything to do with statistics or commodities. Serving the truly needy requires personal relationships, love, and caring. To me, that is the empowering difference between church giving and government giving. Government gives based on statistics. Anyone meeting certain statistical criteria qualifies regardless of situation or circumstance. There is no humanity there and no relationship or love no matter how complex and sophisticated you make the criteria. Church giving is based on personal evaluations and thorough knowledge of situations and circumstances. It's a weaker system insofar as it isn't subject to central oversight and is subject to the weaknesses of individual interpretation and so on. But it is also a stronger system because it gives wide access to a large pool of generosity and a human aspect in charity that permits kind giving and the expression of honest gratitude in receiving. We give central guidelines and dispersed discretion in application of those guidelines. You have to trust deeply to implement such a system and I find that faith touching--even ennobling. > An emotional response rather than a rational one, but it's > the hill I still struggle to climb despite recent experiences > that should have taught me otherwise. It's one I struggle with, too. Rational explanations are all well and good, but they don't really give much comfort when adversity strikes. It was disturbing to find that I wasn't humble enough to ask for help even when I desperately needed it. And that I had to seriously work on my gratitude as well. I thought I'd been raised better--turns out I'm not done growing up... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:59:46 -0500 From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Re: _Possession_ (Movie) The release of "Possession" has always been planned as a "platform release" - -- a very common distribution pattern, even for films released by major distribution companies or studios. Prints cost thousands of dollars each, and platform releases are one method to save on total print costs, as well as enhance box office in downstream markets as a result of previous positive reviews in the big markets and television shows. Lag time in bringing a film to a specific market does not signify that a movie hasn't gotten good reviews. Often it is the movies that distributors know will not be reviewed well that are better off being released simultaneously in as many markets as possible. I have no connection to the company distributing "Possession", but I believe the original decision to release it in limited markets at first, and as a platform release, was made not because they thought it was a "good" or "bad" film, but because they knew the subject matter was more cerebral, and based on a relatively highbrow book -- the movie isn't "blockbuster" or "popcorn crowd" material. As such, it was more likely to appeal to film critics than and attract an older, more serious-minded crows than, say, "Men in Black." Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:38:58 -0600 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Church History Recommendations? >Eric wrote: >And I disagree with Lynette on this issue. I would not recommend Work and >the Glory. I would absolutely recommend Standing on the Promises. Karen wrote: >You know, when introducing a non-member to the gospel through books, it's >probably more the Spirit whether a book takes or not. . . . >A few years later, I reread the >thing, and couldn't figure out what had impressed me so much about it. It >was not very well written, nor did it explain the gospel very well. >Margaret Young wrote: >....Then I'd just recommennd the scriptures. That's the fundamental >literature of our faith. I am grateful that Eric disagreed with me. It seems fair to say that Standing on the Promises is better written. However, Karen and Margaret have hit the nail on the head. Pray about it and use whatever the Lord makes available to you. (By the way, the second witness of the conversion stories from WATG came to my dad, Bob Collier from Bro. Moe). This has been a great discussion. I've created a long reading list. Thanks Lynette - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:45:29 -0600 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Course on Mormon Poetry Fred wrote: >For example, I have Parley P. Pratt on my list of LDS Poets; William Blake >is an >important non-LDS poet of the Restoration, and the England and Clark book, >Harvest: Contemporary Mormon Poems, seems useful. What do you think? My only thought as a former BYU student who loved "Ma Bell's" poetry class on the writings of women is this: don't forget the simple. We sometimes get so caught up in the effort to prove that we are sophisticated and educated that we forget the simple joys. Kind of like the way we all love the simple pictures of Grandma Moses. Emma Lou Thayne comes to mind. I have not dug that book out for a while, and it seems that some of that is too bent on issues. However, there a few simple ones there that can be enjoyed for face value, left unspoiled by "archeological digs". Lynette - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:25:56 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Hymns Celebrating Polygamy--Update I know of three other hymns that deal with polygamy. The first two are by Joel H. Johnson, who is better known (and rightly so) for writing "High on a Mountain Top". Vain is the world's alluring smile, It never can my heart beguile; For all its glittering dust, to me, Is like the bubbles on the sea. To know my God, my soul aspires; To share his love, my heart desires; Yea, more than all earth's glittering toys, Her gold, her gems, and all her joys. Then, Father, let me share thy love; Send down thy Spirit from above; And give me wisdom, faith and light, To guide my wandering footsteps right. Oh! when my work on earth is done, May I be honored as thy son, Called home and crowned with endless lives, With glory and celestial wives. - --------------------- O God of Zion, hear my cry, While I to thee in want draw nigh; I want from bondage to be free, The victor over sin to be. I want thy Spirit night and day, To guide me, lest my feet should stray; I want, through life's short day, to stand, Prepared to go at thy command. I want to dwell on Zion's hill Where thou to man mak'st known thy will; I want to share thy love and grace, With Priesthood pow'r to see thy face. I want my lamp with oil supplied, When Christ shall come to take his bride; I want to be his welcome guest, And in his house forever blest. I want my kingdom to increase, Nor through eternity to cease; I want the gift, celestial wives, Which brings the pow'r of endless lives. - --------------------- B.H. Roberts wrote "Have Courage, My Girl, to Say Yes" while on a mission, between taking his second and third wives, and in counterpoint to the temperance hymn, "Have Courage, My Boy, to Say No". The dark clouds of hatred are gathering They menace the Saints with distress The nation in pride is forbidding The Saints to obey God's behest Will the daughters of Zion be fearing To choose for the right and for God? With fines and imprisonments threatening Will they cling to the sure "Iron Rod"? Chorus: Have courage my girl to say yes Have courage my girl to say yes If an Elder that's true Should come wooing to you Have courage my girl to say yes. Better marry a man who'll be constant Though of wives he may have more than you If he's faithful to God & his cov'nant Be assured he'll be faithful to you. Though of Babylon's proud wealth he can boast not Don't fear if his heart's only true The riches of earth can compare not With affection eternal for you. MBA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:54:27 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Democratization of Opinions Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >>>I think that this democratization of expertise may well be particularly prevelant among Mormons, who have no professional clergy, no theological seminaries or much in the way of theology, and who regularly are asked to jump in and take on jobs that they are in no way qualified for. This isn't a bad thing, of course; I think the track record of our lay ministry is pretty impressive. But it's also not true that all callings are equally well magnified, and it's likewise untrue that all opinions are equally valid. <<< So what's the role of discussion lists like this one? I'm one of those people who's frequently guilty of expressing opinions that I'm not qualified to offer, but I do so at least partly to see how others will respond so I can learn more about an idea or issue. Is that an unfair use of the AML-List? As an adult who has no opportunity to go back to school and become educated to post-modernism, it's techniques, and uses, a list like this one proves to be one of the few opportunities I have to test out my understanding on a live audience. I know that I worry a lot about that. There was a time a few years back when more academic types participated more regularly on this list. I have to assume that unqualified, uneducated blowhards like me drove them off, and as a result it can be argued that total quality of discourse on the list has moved further and further away from that of a studied, qualified sharing of ideas to something more like an expanded testimony meeting full of nice people offering their thoughts, but with little actual ability to either shape or understand Mormon literature and culture. Interestingly, though we Mormons have a lay clergy and ask people regularly to become experts in areas where they have no prior experience, when it comes down to it the average Mormon requires authority before accepting most opinions. If a GA doesn't offer the spiritual advice we seem to mistrust it--especially if we perceive the person who offers spiritual advice as having lived a sometimes unspiritual life. We seem to require an official stamp of approval before we accept counsel. I know I'm guilty of that. I want the best possible understanding and tend to be more critical of opinions offered by non-experts. Yet even the uneducated have opinions and want to test them against those whose opinions are more considered. It's one of the reasons I like this list so much--the chance to learn more than I know and to hear thoughts that are not my own in a forum that can allow a college dropout like myself to converse with professors, selling authors, editors, and other people qualified to comment on literature. It's one of the many reasons I think the internet is at least as much a blessing as it is a trial. I admit that I would like to hear more from our qualified people on this list, though. How do we encourage that while still allowing each of us to exercise the right to express our unqualified opinions? Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:19:44 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] High School Literature Curriculum - ---Original Message From: Larry Jackson > > Melissa Proffitt: > > ... I also wanted to know if they recommended different > books for girls than for boys, or if there were any books > they would *only* recommend for girls or boys. > > _______________ > > Is this where I would confess to having read almost all > of the Nancy Drew series, and only one or two of the > Hardy Boys books? Is it too late to repent? Would > this require institutional repentance (i.e., talking to my > bishop)? I've already admitted to her that I read all the Trixie Belden books. I didn't like the Hardy Boys. Wasn't a big Nancy Drew fan either, but I thought they were better than the Hardy Boys. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:07:06 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] English Departments Etc. On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:39:25 -0600 Mr. Mod writes [Attn Russ Asplund, bad pun alert, put down your diet Coke. Actually there's two potential bad puns here, I could rhyme Mod with Squad, or pair it with Archie and Edith Bunker]: > [MOD: (I note, with no disrespect intended, that neither > Clark nor Jacob has actually taught in a literature department, nor even I > think completed an advanced program.) Come on, all you List members > from English et al.; what think ye of all this?] I have done both, and I'll talk about my experiences in another post. I want to make a couple of other comments in this post. Clark Goble, on the same day as the pronouncement from the Mod Squad bunker said, > Read a lot of the feminist criticism, or New Criticism, or Mythic > Criticism. Most of it is facile, faddish and easy to "fake." The > problem isn't postmodernism (of whatever sense of the term). > The problem is that English departments tend to do poor > scholarship and that the departments are run according to > popularity contests. Before I counter this by pointing to the excellent, rigorous (two buzz words for the price of reading one sentence) scholarship of Richard Cracroft, Marden Clark, Bruce Jorgensen, Elouise Bell, Marilyn Arnold, or (where'd my mind go--I used to home teach her, was when she got fired and moved to Albuquerque, let's see, her husband makes seminary films and his name is like Sr. Benson's maiden name, uh, Amundsen, Mike Amundsen. Ah, there it is) Gail Houston, Joyce Nelson and many others, might I say I'm quite surprised no one in this thread has talked about the issue in terms of Hegel's dialectic, or of how that dialectic relates to Joseph Smith's letter from non-Liberty Jail where he reflects on how easy it is, once in power, to use power unrighteously, so easy you don't even have to have power, you just have to suppose you do. For me politicization in English departments started 100 years ago. the roots of the problem relate to the discussion we had of canon a couple of months ago. (No--it was back in February and March--must be all those Knights of the White Satin making time seem to stand right still.) Jacob Proffit said, 21 Feb., as part of that discussion ("Agendas in Lit Classes") "Further, survey courses should include the very best there is to offer in English literature for the topic of that survey course and should not be skewed to emphasize a particular sub-grouping." I said that if you want to teach literature, and look at all the questions the discipline entails, you can take any body of work, including LDS writers. Jacob replied that it would be a tragedy for an English major to graduate without having read T. S. Eliot, etc. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent," and his other writings about canon came out in about the 2nd generation of English departments, when departments were still debating and forming canon. I recommend Terry Eagleton's "The Rise of English," (Chapter 1 of Literary Theory: An Introduction) for its comments on Eliot and on how the canon was formed. As Jacob's quote above suggests, canon was formed as a way of excluding writing (the non-very best)--and therefore of exercising control over how and what people thought. In late Victorian England women were clamoring to get into universities and professors needed a curriculum that could both allow them in and keep them from gaining the power that inheres in knowledge. Eagleton says the academy did this in two ways, by teaching that literature was not about the lives we live (so Othello wasn't really about an abusive spouse-murderer--you have to dig deeper for the true meaning) but about more sublime truths, and by teaching that literature was in the past and that women writers weren't generally worthy of being in the canon. Both of these ideas have come down to us, that we don't yet know who the truly great writers of today are because you have to wait 50 years or so till after someone's death to see if they're still being read, still readable, and that canon is a means of exclusion. Indeed, the lack of LDS writers in the canon is one thing that makes My Name is Asher Lev a poignant novel for LDS writers, since Asher struggles with the lack of Jewish painters in the canon. Asher has no tradition he can model himself after so his Rebbe finally introduces him to a non-observant Jewish sculptor who can give him the guidance he needs. But not everyone is lucky enough to find a Jacob Khan. And if you're a brilliant writer or scholar, or just someone hungering and thirsting after writeousness, hungering and thirsting to see your culture represented in art, but worthy art is only about the past, never about you, how do you react? Now there's the Hegelian thesis: The people who set up English as a discipline set it up with a group of assumptions designed to hide the power of literature from the people who would be studying the discipline. What's the Hegelian antithesis? [Of coarse fool diss-closure re-choirs me to tell ewe I've never read Haygull and have Noah Deah what eye yam tocking about. I'm Ornery the eighth-eye-yam, Ornery the eighth-eye-yam eye-yam.] I suppose the antithesis is that the students in English departments study hard (For an affectionate look at the materials that came out of early canon formation read Helene Hanff's _Q's Legacy_ about her love of Arthur Quiller-Couch's books of essays. Hanff is the author of _84 Charring Crossroad_, about her transatlantic friendship with a London used book dealer.) and develop sophisticated complex tools to dismantle the assumptions that keep minority literatures minor. The clash between the new scholars and the older produces, finally, a synthesis, which becomes the new thesis, etc. Ok, I still haven't read Hey-girl-ye've-stole-my-hart, but I have read Joseph Smith's letter from Liberty jail (ever noticed how resonant titles like "Letter from [insert 3-syllable name here] Jail" are, and how much wisdumb such letters contain?) and it doesn't surprise me that the people who dismantle the older assumptions make a power grab. Power was very much on the minds of those who set up academic departments, and you can hardly go through the training offered in one without getting some sense of the power structures that be there. I said I'd write about my experiences in advanced programs and teaching in another post, but I will make one comment here. The clash between various schools of criticism is not the only one in English departments. There is also much tension between the critics and the writers--enough tension that though the Uof Warshington told us first group of MFAs that our degrees would be considered the same as MAs for purposes of getting into the PhD program, they reneged and made us (who wrote a thesis 3 times as long as the master's essay) write a 30 page master's essay as part of the application to the PhD program. (Can you say twisting in the wind?) One other comment. Clark Goble said > I love literature, but I honestly wonder how anyone could handle > making that their major. Which is a variation of a question that was > raised here a few months ago. How does Mormonism affect how > you read literature? I suppose this is just the question of whether > literature in academia conflicts with Mormonism. I know that > biology has traditionally got the big questions because of Evolution. > However it seems to me that English departments and perhaps > sociology are the ones with the biggest conflicts. A very good essay on this is Marden Clark's BYU College of Humanities Centennial lecture, "Art, Religion and Science: The Profounder Challenge" (in _Liberating Form_, but if you'd like to read just that essay drop me a note and I'll e-mail you a copy.) Boy that Art fellow sure shows up a lot of places in the humanities. Even shows up in discussions of Mormons and Masons, thanked repeatedly in footnotes for his insights Art DeHoyos is in Michael W. Homer's "'Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry': The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism" (Dialogue, 27:3, Fall 1994, 1-113). Art even shows up in Lindon city council meetings, his son or brother, anyway, talking about fiberoptic Internet infrastructure, "I'm Ben DeHoyos and you're Harlow Clark, and your father is Marden Clark." Ok, enuff of this silliness. I need to get to bed and fill in the gaps I've left in it later. (I wrote that last sentence several days ago and filled in the gaps tonight, Aug. 26--but there is no end of gap filling. Hm. There is no end to a lot of things. Could make a catchy hymn. Harlow Clark aka Hollow Clock, incessant ticker until the former SS officer turned horologist said, "We have ways of making you tock." ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:31:54 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Church History Recommendations? >>> roy_schmidt@byu.edu 08/22/02 11:38AM >>> >Did Signature publish this? I am pretty sure my copy is by Doubleday. >But my copy is at home, so I am not sure. Doubleday published the first edition of Donna Hill's _Joseph Smith, the First Mormon_ in 1977. Signature Books republished it in paperback in 1998. It's still in print, and is a very well written biography. >I believe Marvin Hill, >Donna's brother, did the research, and would have written the text, >but the publisher insisted on having coherent sentences . I've heard versions of this rumor before, but I'm skeptical. Donna is amply qualified to have researched and written the book herself (she has a master's from Columbia University, was a professor at Hunter College, and published 10 other books, including an award-winning novel). Other church history recommendations: Avoid historical fiction, at least as a way to learn history. Read some biographies of people who weren't church presidents: Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story, by Truman G. Madsen Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God/Son of Thunder, Harold Schindler Supporting Saints Life Stories of 19th Century Mormons, Donald Q. Cannon and David Whittaker MBA (Morgan B. Adair) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #812 ******************************