From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #950 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, January 22 2003 Volume 01 : Number 950 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:24:59 -0700 (MST) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > There's no doubt the Mel Gibson flick about Jesus is gonna create > controversy no matter how much cooperation the producers got from the > vatican. In 1998, "The Price of Egypt" was released after years of hard > work and excessive consultation from leaders of various denominations > spanning Christians (including Mormons), Muslims and Jews in hopes to > make a definitive movie about Moses. The result was mediocre box office > returns, people of all faith being offended that the movie wasn't > showing "the true Moses", the film being banned in certain countries. I know some countries ban any movie that isn't a radical tract for whatever religion is dominant, so I can understand that - but I wnat to know what is mediocre box office recipts? It made over 100 million in the USA, was a good seller on video and even though the follow up (Prince of Dreams) was a direct to video, they must have felt there was enough of an audience to do a follow up. I don't recall any controversy over it - most people I know who saw it loved it. [Ivan Wolfe] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:41:02 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts for ML King Day Thank you Gideon Burton, sir, for that post. My MLK Day was interesting. It gave me reason to, once again, be disgusted with myself. I was schedualed for surgery at 6:00 am on the twentieth. I went in to the hospital to start on the pre-op paper work while my wife was parking the car. There was a couple already there filling out their papers. He was black, she was white. They were sitting in the chairs directly in front of the desk. There was someone talking to the nurse at the admitting desk. As I walked by the desk and told the nurse my name I wondered where I would sit. Either next to the couple, the most convenient spot, or on the other side of the room. The lady at the desk got her papaers and walked away. I got mine and sat right next to the black guy. I said hello and we talked a bit (he asked about my patch, I asked what he was there for). And I thought this guy's just like everyone else. Later that day I watched Oprah's tribute to Martin Luther King. I listened to his speaches, and I think I'm beginning to hear what he was saying. That bit at the admitting desk bothered me for the rest of the day. It bothered me that I had given thought to the situation. I guess you starts repugnant and you ends repugnant. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:37 -0800 From: "John Williams" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward Not to keep bashing "Singles Ward," (well, okay, to keep bashing it), I'd like to add one comment. The thing that really bothered me about the film was that the entire plot was based on a structural contradiction. The underlying theme of the movie seems to be "Yes, we're Mormon, but we can laugh at ourselves just like everyone else," and yet the (supposedly) grand epiphanic moment of the film is when the main girl realizes that she can never love a comedian who makes jokes about Mormons. What gives? John Williams UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:28:44 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Reading Level of _Ender's Game_ Mary Aagard wrote, responding to Jerry Tyner, regarding _Ender's Game:_ >>> But why would you want to wait to read Ender's Game till you were in your junior year of high school? Isn't the book about a boy? Maybe the complexities of the novel should wait for upper level classes, but reading it should happen whenever the kid wants to. I read the book when I was a 9th grader but I think I would have been just as moved and excited by it, maybe even more so, if I had read it when I was 12-years-old. <<< I think it's quite a deceptive book in that it can be read and appreciated by a wide variety of readers of a wide variety of ages and experience levels. I wouldn't hold off reading _Ender's Game_ (or suggesting to my children that they read it) just because of the difficult themes. In fact, I would suggest that they read it now, then read it again later. I had an odd experience with this myself. I had C.S. Lewis's novel _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ read to me twice as a young person--once in third grade, and again in fourth grade. I adored it. I even caught the clear Christ imagery with Aslan and the stone table. For whatever reason, I didn't read the rest of the Chronicles of Narnia series until I was 38 years old. Of course I started with _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ and read them straight through (in the original order, not the renumbered chronological order they're currently offered in). As an adult I found the series to be pretty much stunning in its Christian allegory, and found that it revealed a cohesive theory of religion that resonated deeply with my own Mormon theology. In other words, I found it a wonderful reading experience both at age 9 and at age 38. I had a similar experience with Lloyd Alexander's work. Some books deserve to be read again and again, and provide new and wonderful insights each time. While I'm not quite ready to put Card in the same box as Lewis, I might be talked into putting him in with Alexander. And Card's books appeal much more to older readers than Alexander, in my opinion. Just a thought. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:29:01 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Okay, Matthew Lee, I'll bite. But first a comment. I've stayed out of this thread (even to the extent of= =20 deleting almost all of the messages on it unread) because i find the=20 conversation mostly annoying. I see the movies I want to see. I don't tell= =20 others that they should see them. I recommend good movies but I never try= =20 to get someone to see a movie I know they wouldn't want to see. I don't=20 care whether someone does see R-rated movies or does not see R-rated movies.= =20 I just don't care. I don't think they are better or worse for their=20 attitudes. I don't think they're missing out. And I would hope they don't= =20 think I'm better or worse for my own attitudes. I really have no sense of= =20 superiority. there is nothing mandatory about partaking of all good art. = =20 Yes i think there is some great art that is in film and is R-rated. I also= =20 think there is great art in the form of paintings, sculpture, literature,=20 photographs, drama, etc., etc. and none of us will consume it all so to each= =20 his own. no superiority necessary. Matthew writes: "You've implied that you are immune to the sexual images, the extreme and=20 gruesome violence, and the crude humor contained in many R-rated films. . .= =20 . I wonder, how long did it take before the uncomfortable-ness of the sex=20 scene wore off? Or how long did it take before you began to look forward to= =20 the crude humor?" In addition to offering some excellent non-R-rated filsm, I'd like to=20 respond to this. I don't believe I am immune to sexual and violent content= =20 of films. In fact, violence upsets me to the extent that I usually avoid=20 films that I know are R for that reason (like the action packed adventure=20 variety). I will see films about wars because I believe that I should know= =20 my history and this is one way to understand it (both the actual historical= =20 event and, perhaps more importantly, the way our society responds to those= =20 events). And overly sexual films bother me too; I avoid those as well. But= =20 I do seek out good films that address important issues. If they contain sex= =20 and violence, I will deal with that. I still flinch at bad language in=20 certain contexts. I flinch at violence. And I don't look for sexual movies= =20 as entertainment. i don't look forward to crude humor. I am lucky because= =20 when the movie is over, what I remember is the themes, the beauty, the=20 artistry. I generally forget the language and the violence. This is not=20 true for everyone. I have a sister who can't handle watching films that use= =20 the f-word. it upsets her too much. By the end of the movie, I have=20 forgotten the incident but that single incident has ruined the film for her.= =20 So I flinch in the moment and then I move on and appreciate (or ignore)=20 the movie for the whole that it is. you asked for some excellent G, PG or PG-13 movies. Here are a few I could= =20 think of: The Winslow Boy Smoke Signals (I don=92t think it was R) Emma Mansfield Park Pride & Prejudice Sense & Sensibility (okay, I must admit that I am a committed Jane Austen Fan and I have only=20 ever seen one movie adaptation that I did not like=97the BBC/A&E version of= =20 Emma because Mr. Knightley was too mean.) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Empire of the Sun Out of Africa A Room with a View Moulin Rouge Howard=92s End Henry V Much Ado about Nothing the Lord of the Rings movies Wit Monsters, Inc. Regeneration (it=92s British, and it wasn=92t =93R=94 according to the= British=20 system=97I saw it in England; but I don=92t know what it is in America) The Buena Vista Social Club Brigham City The Age of Innocence House of Mirth (mostly good) My Big Fat Greek Wedding Real Women Have Curves I'm not sure that all of them came out in the last five years (in fact I=20 know they didn't) but I'm not good at keeping track of release dates. I=20 just know that I enjoyed all of these movies. And, since I love voicing my opinion, I'll give you a few good R-rated ones,= =20 too: 13 Conversations about One Thing (one of the most uplifting movies I've=20 seen; strange because it is simultaneously depressing) The Sweet Hereafter In the Company of Men Nurse Betty Pollock American Beauty Magnolia Billy Eliot Bridget Jones' Diary (very funny but you must read the book cause it's even= =20 funnier, and very smart; especially when thought about in conjunction with= =20 Pride & Prejudice (both recent film and book)) Just a few for fun. And, again because I can't resist voicing opinions, i think that Saving=20 Private Ryan is one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. it=20 bundled itself up so nicely and neatly that it eviscerated itself of all its= =20 power. And Disney is horrible, contaminating and should not be viewed (okay= =20 there is a little hyperbole there). Really, I do not like Disney because=20 they pervert the original tales they retell. They take all the good in the= =20 movie and place it in the heroine (sometimes hero but usually heroine) and= =20 then create villains (who often do not appear in the original text) and=20 place in them all of the evil and bad in the film. They completely erase=20 the battle between good and evil that takes place within characters in the= =20 original fairy tales. I like Hercules because my best friend and I=20 discussed Hercules as a Christ figure and it was very interesting but it is= =20 a horrible representation of the original myths. just my two bits. amelia _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:00:16 -0800 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Latest on My Memoir >"I'll include some history about where the temple rites came from and >divulge as much as I can about the inner workings of the temple" > >Why? This seems to me like dangling a carrot to the national market--wanna >know what the temple is all about? Pick me and I'll tell you . . . But it's not a secret, is it? It's right there, in scripture, all spelled out. Heck, it's right there on page 261 of _Sarah_. If Scott Card, Sherri Dew, and Deseret Book are willing to publish the cogent elements of temple ceremony, why can't Chris talk about what it means to him? - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:22:30 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee asked: "Why the sense of superiority over those who maintain a blanket policy not to view rated R movies?" I don't think a sense of superiority has been expressed, but instead, thoughtful consideration of individual feelings. Many have expressed a "let's not judge each other, okay?" opinion, and others have expressed frustration that they are deemed "less righteous" by some in our LDS community because they don't have such a "blanket" policy. Your comments communicate the attitude that begets the frustration of some--a sense of superiority because your choice is not to view (quoting you) "sexual images, the extreme and gruesome violence, and the crude humor contained in many R rated films", and thus, by default, assuming those who do view such films are not "able to maintain a level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day" (again your words). It is good that you have come to your decision about media and that it works for you. Why the need to try and correct others whose views differ from yours? Let us not judge and condemn each other, but seek to understand and accept wherever another is coming from. And to answer your question--yes, I have three children. One married (in the temple) and expecting a first child herself. One a missionary in Texas, and a 14 year old daughter. They each have a strong moral compass that helps them make their own decisions. As a family we have viewed a few R-rated things together over the years. Mostly my two daughters leave the room during parts (Saving Private Ryan, Glory, Patriot) they find are overwhelming. Self-editing is a good thing. A wise person knows his own boundaries. Because of open communication and discussion of issues, my kids have never felt the need to sneak around or try to view a movie without talking to us first, unlike many of their friends who have tried to manipulate circumstances to watch something R-rated at my house, since it's off limits at their own. (I always respect parents' boundaries and never let children other than my own view any movie at my house without parental permission.) I find it ironic that those kids who are the sneakiest and least trust-worthy about this are those with the strictest boundaries at home. for instance, the family who wouldn't let their children view THE LITTLE MERMAID because of Ariel's bare midriff. Those children were at my house at least once a month trying to wheedle my kids into putting that movie on. Who thought I'd have to police the Disney flicks? In fact, when my 14 year old daughter has had sleep overs in the past, and the friends peruse our movie collection, all I have to say is "G or PG only, ask if you have a question about content" and the rules are accepted and obeyed. These days I don't even have to remind them, they know the drill. Like others have mentioned on this thread, it's akin to saying "don't drive the car, you're not 16". Certain privileges come with age, maturity and wisdom. You haven't offended me by your comments, and I hope I haven't offended with mine. My hope is all who follow this thread can keep an attitude of patience, long-suffering and kindness towards each other, no matter what personal choice each makes about viewing movies. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:37:27 -0500 From: "Marvin Perkins" Subject: [AML] Darius Gray Article (DN) Deseret News, Monday, January 20, 2003=20 LDS man opening minds - and hearts=20 NAACP giving King Award to Darius Gray=20 By Diane Urbani Deseret News staff writer=20 Darius Gray takes a lot of questions - often following stunned silence. Darius Gray =20 Why would an African-American man join The Church of Jesus Christ of = Latter-day Saints in 1964? "I found out the night before I was to be baptized that I wouldn't be = able to hold the priesthood," Gray remembered. "I said, 'No way would I = be baptized into that church tomorrow.' But I took it to God that = night." He prayed and heard what he today calls "a succinct answer" - that this = was to be his faith, built on "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ." So, = in the midst of the civil rights movement, he adopted a faith that = excluded black men from its priesthood. In 1978 LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball received what black = Latter-day Saints simply call "the revelation." It extended priesthood = privileges to all worthy men, regardless of race. Twenty-five years hence, many people of color still view the LDS Church = as racist, Gray acknowledged. But as he receives the 2003 Martin Luther = King Jr. Award from the National Association for the Advancement of = Colored People, he hopes to open some minds. "In the '60s and '70s, many of my black brothers and sisters found fault = with me because of my chosen faith. They saw me as an Uncle Tom," he = began. "It's nice to finally have my brothers and sisters recognize and = appreciate that I've been there too," working for equality for all = people. "I've been struggling too, with them. As a black Latter-day Saint, I've = struggled as much as a black Baptist or a black AME to bring about = change." Gray is president of Genesis, a support group for black members of the = LDS Church. He just finished writing "The Last Mile of the Way," the final book of = his trilogy about African-American pioneers. It's a kind of = Intermountain West "Roots," tracing the journeys of Gray's = great-grandfather, who lived most of his life as a slave, and his = grandfather, who was born a slave and later freed. The story progresses to Gray's father, a light-skinned man who could = have passed for white but "proudly chose his black heritage," said = Margaret Young, co-author of the book. Gray's father, Young said, = constantly carried a copy of "Lift Every Voice and Sing," the = African-American national anthem, as he and his wife moved West to raise = their family in Colorado Springs. Gray isn't the least bit eager to talk up the books nor the award he'll = receive on Monday. Young, however, said there's nothing she'd rather do = than pay him tribute. "He knows what it's like to feel isolated, knows what it's like to be = called a racist name," she said. In his travels across Utah and the United States, Gray "holds steady in = his beliefs," encouraging African-Americans to join discussions of faith = and race, Young said. "Martin Luther King's principles have been the guiding principles of his = life," she said. The co-authors have occasional meetings with their publisher, Deseret = Book, to plan marketing and presentations around the country. But Gray = has skipped such meetings after telling her, "There's a Genesis sister = with a child in the hospital, and I need to go be with her," or a friend = needs to talk. Both Young and Gray frequently hear from people looking for Genesis, = whose newsletter mailing list covers 1,500 homes. Gray says his research on the African-American pioneers who migrated = West taught him, "We are literally brothers and sisters. And we ought to = act that way." "The Last Mile of the Way" is due out in early May. The book spans from = 1890 to 2002, following Gray's forebears through the Depression, the = march on Washington in 1963 and up through Gray's own life in Utah. "Their stories are stories of faith and endurance. And Darius' is too," = Young said. The book, Young hopes, will let the reader "experience what they went = through. . . . It can be a heart-expanding experience." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:19:16 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee wrote: >I don't believe anyone is able to maintain a >level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day >while willfully viewing things that normally merit an >R rating, for the sake of entertainment. It's a >contradiction to the principles by which the Holy >Ghost operates and communicates with man. I think there's a difference between watching movies--of any rating--"for the sake of entertainment" and watching movies in a spirit of reflection on the human condition. I'm sorry that you or anyone else feels judged for deciding not to watch R-rated films. While some of the posts to this thread have been probably more antagonistic than they needed to be, I'd be surprised if anyone on the list disrespects the choice not to watch R-rated films in and of itself (please correct my assumption). Problems arise rather when a person makes that choice one way or the other (to watch or not to watch) and then tries to force their decision on someone else. Pushing personal revelation and personal conviction on another may also contradict the principles by which the Holy Ghost operates and communicates with people. "I wonder, how long did it take before the uncomfortable-ness of the sex scene wore off? Or how long did it take before you began to look forward to the crude humor? Do you guys have kids? How can you teach them the standards of the gospel and hope to maintain any sense of credibility while watching David Lynch films, The God Father, Boogie Nights, or many of the other movies that have be listed in this thread?" Is it possible that one could watch films with sex scenes and still be uncomfortable? Is it possible to watch sex scenes and not be titillated, not feel ashamed, but rather recognize how a physical relationship concomitant with emotional intimacy is, for many, one of the only ways to find real meaning in an otherwise absurd world? Is it possible that one could watch films with crude humor and not laugh? Or that one could see that crude humor can serve as a reminder to be humble, that man, as Moses said, really is nothing? Is it possible that Heavenly Father, through the Holy Ghost, could inspire a screenwriter, a director, an actor--even one of another faith, or no faith--to write, direct, or portray something "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy"? On my first post to this thread I joked about being screwed up because my father had given me the novel _Catch-22_ to read when I was in junior high. But it's precisely in part because my dad challenged me with excellent fiction and excellent movies growing up--when I was still in his home and he could help me see, for example, the tragic beauty of Yossarian's flight from violence at the end of the book, when he could, through his example, contradict the allure of secret power that seduces and then destroys Michael Corleone in _The Godfather_--that I was motivated to go on a mission, to be married in the temple and to keep those covenants, and to be (I pray) a good father. Through the Spirit, fiction and films about life teach me--right along side the scriptures and the people I know both in and out of the LDS church--how to love. "What about the excellent non R movies? Why focus on the exceptions?" The thread has focused on R-rated films because the post that started it asked specifically about them. However, I've read all the posts and no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that there are no excellent G, PG, or PG13 films. In fact, several non-R movies have been suggested by posts on this list. I'd start with a David Lynch film that I listed as one of the best recent films I've seen--"The Straight Story" (rated G, by the way, and "based on a true story"). I also recommended "Unbreakable"--PG13, I think, about a man dealing with the burden of a great gift and its accompanying responsibility (something that might resonate with Mormons). Eric Samuelson talked about "The Ring" and others have mentioned "Titanic." Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:59:20 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: [AML] Sacred in Writing (was: Latest on My Memoir) [MOD: I'm breaking this short post off to start a new thread, because I think it's a topic eminently worth discussion on this list. So let's get the comments rolling!] At 08:40 PM 1/17/2003 -0700, you wrote: >"I'll include some history about where the temple rites came from and >divulge as much as I can about the inner workings of the temple" > >Why? This seems to me like dangling a carrot to the national market--wanna >know what the temple is all about? Pick me and I'll tell you . . . > >Connecting this to Mormon Letters in general--Maybe this is why we don't >have our break-out Mormon author yet--we're too busy trying to appeal to the >rest of the world. I don't think we need to dangle carrots by including >extra stuff that doesn't belong with what we're trying to say. We can trust >our stories to stand on their own. > >Annette Lyon This is a topic of some interest to me--how does one treat the sacred in writing? Are there things that shouldn't be written about? Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:58:08 -0600 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Three amazing PG-13 movies I've seen in the last three weeks: _The Lord of the Rings_ _Chicago_ _The Hours_ I must mention, though, that _Rings_ is quite violent, _Chicago_ is (as my husband commented as we made our way out of the theater) "one of the sexiest movies I've seen in a long time" and _The Hours_ deals quite openly with homosexuality and lets a woman abandon her son and admit at the end that she can't say she regrets it. (I found that scene more disturbing that almost anything bloody or sexual that I've seen on the screen in a long time. I'm still running it through my head.) My point is that I found all three of these films to be amazing for different reasons, but they are all also difficult, challenging works of art that can "leave images in your mind" or make you feel "uncomfortable" or "don't end on a happy note" or contain many of the other attributes that I hear people use as justifications for not viewing rated R movies. These movies are *not* the Disney version of Hercules. They are artistic expressions of what it means to be human (or, in the case of _Chicago_, an amazing expression of how electrifying raw talent can be). These works of art challenge you, make you think, make you sad, make you question, and linger in the mind. Because so many PG-13 movies *don't* do these things very well, I'm so thrilled that there are some good PG-13 movies like this out there so I can recommend them to my friends with the hopes that they'll go see them. Like I said before, I respect people who decide not to view rated R movies. I can understand why they've chosen not to. What I can't understand is when people avoid movies (or books or art of any kind) that "makes them uncomfortable." Isn't being uncomfortable, in a nutshell, why we're all here?? So, all of you, non-rated R movie watchers alike, see if you can catch these movies. I loved all three. (I don't know if I'd take a 14 year old boy to _Chicago_, though, unless you knew he could handle it. It *is* one of the sexier movies I've seen in a long time.) Angela Hallstrom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:12:21 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Why Not PG? - ---Original Message From: Matthew Lee >=20 > I don't believe anyone is able to maintain a > level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day > while willfully viewing things that normally merit an > R rating, for the sake of entertainment. It's a > contradiction to the principles by which the Holy > Ghost operates and communicates with man. You make it sound like there is some single, unified basis for the communication and operation of the Holy Ghost. Like he's a formula you = can program into a computer. I'm wondering what principle you think is = violated by viewing absolutely any rated R movie for entertainment--and to such = an extent that it merits the entire withdrawal of the Holy Ghost. If this = is the case, you'd think we would have heard about it. None of the quotes = so far provided by General Authorities implies that the Holy Ghost is = violated by a *any* rated R movie, *always*. And by implication, you seem to be passing judgment on all those who = have violated these singular principles--after all, you know what our = spiritual circumstances are and state, unequivocally, that we are in violation of covenants (covenants that promise us the presence of the Holy Ghost as = long as we remain worthy). I'm a little stunned at the hubris of your = statement. Haven't you ever heard the Holy Ghost tell you to cheat or break a rule? = I have. Sometimes I even listened. The Holy Ghost isn't a set of rules = you follow to feel good about yourself. The Holy Ghost is a person, a = living being, and a complex one who understands complex circumstances (and = people) who adapts to situations and realities that we only barely comprehend. = I'd find it hard to believe that he delegates his authority to the MPAA any = more than he "goes to bed at midnight". Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:21:59 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Card, Sister 'B', and Other Stuff I've got a lot of little things I want to say, so I'll stuff them all into one post. From: David Boyce In other words, I am guessing "Saints" by Orson Scott Card. While I have yet to read the book and don't know where my copy is, I have heard about other complaints concerning it from OSC, himself. Card's comments about Saints that I have seen have never complained or expressed regret about about the content of the book, it was about the origional packaging. The publisher changed the title to "A Woman of Destity", and gave it a Harliquin style cover, kind of a bodice-ripper type, if I remember correctly. He eventually had it republished under his chosen title (Saints), and had a new cover made. The A Woman of Destiny paperback is no longer available in bookstores, just the Saints one. I have a copy of A Woman of Destiny at in storage in the US. I'm stumped on Thom's book. Fun post though. Card has a fun weekly collumn on books he has read, movies he has seen, food he has eaten, and just about anything else. http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/ I noticed some posts from Linda Hoffman Kimball recently, I haven't noticed you on the list before Linda, welcome (sorry if I am dense, and you have been here a while). You recently published your second novel at Signature, The Marketing of Sister 'B'. I wonder if you could tell us anything about the process. How was Signature to work with? They have a reputation for taking a long time to publish, and not publicizing their novels much, how are they doing with you? Kieth Merril has two new long articles about the upcoming Book of Mormon movies at Meridian Magazine. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030116movie2.html http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030120movie3.html In general, AML-list has been fascinating lately. Thanks for all of your interesting comments. I am in the home strech of my dissertation, I turn it in in two weeks, so I am only giving myself internet access one time every three days, AML-list is a good prize to look forward to. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:26:25 -0800 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Multiple Views and Issues (was: Outstanding Movies of the Last 5 Years) On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 Scott Parkin , replying to Jacob Proffitt's reply to Preston Hunter's comment that "the American health care crisis ... is the most pressing social and political issue facing the U.S. today," writes: > I suppose this is another one of those areas where I'm forced to > scratch my head and wonder about the alleged homogeneity of > Mormons that I hear so much about. As far as I know, both > you and Preston are Mormons in good standing, yet your > opinions on these current political issues are very, very different. > So either the Church's system for enforcing a limited set of > social and political opinions is busted, or it never existed in the > first place. But that's an entirely different discussion. Or it's an effect of cyberspace and moderation. I remember a comment Thom Duncan made a few years ago that in person he's not nearly as confrontative as in his posts, that he'll run from confrontation. Benson Parkinson and Jonathan Langford have done a great deal to bust the system of opinion enforcement by making AML-List a safe place to express very differing views. It may be an entirely different discussion, but a meta-Aml-List discussion, an examination of the rhetorical structure of our conversations, would be well worth our time. > I personally see health care as an issue of more immediate and > personal concern than the opinions of other nations on the > quality or value of Americanism. From my perspective, more > Americans have suffered and died needlessly from inadequate > health care than from terrorist attacks. I agree. The problem, though, that anyone wanting to express that idea fictionally has to solve, is that the more you concentrate on a particular idea the less successful the work is likely to be as a work of art, but if you concentrate on the story the idea may come through, but the story will transcend the idea. For example, suppose you want to explore the psyche of an abusive husband who eventually kills his wife, so you write a play with homoerotic overtones about two army buddies who make a pact to kill some people and seal the pact with a mock marriage ceremony. By the choice of plot you've expanded the story so it also explores the way men bond with and betray each other, how military people behave, and maybe how military bonds can destroy family life, and maybe a lot of other things. Whatever the play is about, by the time you've fleshed out the plot it's about a whole bunch of things in addition to what you started writing about. This is good, unless your sole purpose is to dramatize a particular social problem or event. About 10 years ago I was talking to Richard Tice at the Wasatch Review Writers Conference about Lindsey Phillip Dew's novel The Trial. Richard was an editor then at Deserts of Vast Eternity Book and said that Dew wrote the novel to put himself through law school and hadn't written another because the effect he hoped that novel to have had been achieved through the Supreme Court. That was fascinating, because the issue Richard mentioned is not the main focus of the novel. The Trial is about a bishop called as public defender for a man he knows is guilty, and the only evidence that can convict him has been seized illegally by a bad cop who likes to harass men with long hair. >From what Richard was saying, Dew believes that evidence seized the way it is in the novel should be admissable, and the Supreme Court ruled that in certain cases it is (and we ought to be a little alarmed for our Miranda rights). But the story took over and stopped The Trial from being an issue novel. (Indeed the narrator defends Miranda rights at one point, noting that in retrial Miranda was convicted without the illegally seized evidence.) Instead it becomes a novel about a man expected to do certain things by a society who deserts and betrays him in varying degrees because he does his duty to them. And it's a much better novel for telling as complex a story as it does, rather than settling for propaganda. > Of course I'm also one of those Americans who doesn't have health > care of any kind and who has strong (if not desperate) need of it, > so enlightened self interest certainly has a place in forming my > opinions on the matter. Indeed, in the same way that having an uninsurable family member does not dispose one kindly toward insurance companies or the state's uninsurable people program. > It's a matter of individual priority and a point on which many, > many Mormons, Americans, and Humans disagree. Further > explications of the ways they disagree and the relative merits of > their arguments seems off-topic for this list; at least to me. Not necessarily, since the film that touched off this part of the discussion explores the issue and how people disagree. There are narrative, rhetorical and literary aspects to any discussion of how a work of art treats social problems, and whether or how art that is socially involved can succeed both as sociology / protest / activism and art. > Fortunately, American social and political systems are such that > they can address multiple issues at the same time. As are American literary sensibilities. > Just as fortunately, those systems allow people to have widely > differing opinions on both the relative importance and proper > solutions of problems, yet still work together to build the > common good. Literature and art have a part in that if we will let them help us break down the barriers we put up between outselves. > I don't find it hard to believe that good and honest people can > seriously hold opinions that are fundamentally opposed to my > own. I can even respect both the fact of their opinion and > their right to have and express it. Even when I disagree. This is another discussion well worth having in-depth. Dew's narrator, John Lindsey, notes at one point that because lawyers may savage each other in the court room their children are often surprised that they're good friends. A lot of public rhetoric would have us believe that people who hold opposing opinions are enemies, but opposition needn't mean enmity. Every time I lean across the alter in the temple from Donna I am reminded that the first time we knelt that way we were opposites, but were opposite each other to contract a most sacred and deeply intimate union, and now when we kneel in opposition we enact that union for other people who are dead, and I'm told occasionally, grateful for our opposition. Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #950 ******************************