From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #37 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 Friday, April 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number 037 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:45:18 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Robert Slaven wrote: > If there were an incredibly well-made porno movie out > there that demonstrated an amazing amount of talent and passion, would you > watch it? Would you applaud its making? Interesting question. And interesting illustration of a common rhetorical tactic used on this list--so common that surely it's earned the label of cliche by now. The tactic: "Would your argument hold up if it were applied to pornography?" I suppose this tactic is used because pornography is a convenient code word for evil: everybody except Larry Flint accepts pornography as an example of truly immoral art. Pornography is like Hitler, someone everyone but the Blues Brothers' Illinois Nazis can agree was an evil man. So I'm not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to the question and say, "Oh, of course not. I wouldn't if it were pornography." I'm going to spend a moment and think about it. If I heard there was a porno movie that was well made on the level of an Oscar-winning best movie of the year, with a fine plot, great acting, and superlative technical quality, I just might go see it out of curiosity. To my knowledge, such a beast has never existed. On the other hand, I might question whether it's possible to make a quality porno movie. Is it possible that raising a porno movie to a level of artistic quality automatically disqualified it as porno by definition? At least using my definition of a quality movie. My definition of quality requires a lack of gratuitious sex, violence, yada yada. By definition, isn't porno sexually gratuitous? The sex isn't there to serve the story. On the contrary, the story is there to serve the sex. So I'm not sure it's possible to make a porno film of artistic quality. Maybe that's why no one ever has. > If you haven't, I encourage you to > get a volume of essays by George Orwell and read 'Benefit of Clergy: Some > Notes on Salvador Dali'. I think it's mandatory reading material for anyone > who wants to produce art that isn't just cotton candy. I'm not likely to search out Orwell's essay in the immediate future. Can you give us a one or two line summary of its point? > But now I'm (more of) an adult, and I realise that I *can* be susceptible to > what is portrayed in this or that piece of art. I have some weak spots > w.r.t. certain forms of temptation that mean I can't watch many network > dramas (or comedies, for that matter) any more without one of my 'triggers' > being set off. I find that my spiritual well-being is precarious enough > that I must avoid certain works of art, even if they're well-crafted with > all the talent and passion their creators could muster. This is an issue every individual has to consider when making personal decisions on what kind of art to expose themselves to. But it's such an individual thing that it's untenable to use it as a basis for a general principle to apply to everyone. What this argument makes me wonder is, sure there are a lot of people in your position and they ought to be careful, but is this actually a good condition to be in? It seems like a whole lot of Mormons think it is. They think it's a wonderful thing to shield themselves (and everyone else they can impose their influence on) from all possible temptation. But I don't think that's so wonderful. I don't believe the ultimate spiritual state is to have one's morality constantly at the mercy of the environment. I believe the line "in the world but not of it" describes the exact opposite of that state. I wouldn't judge you or anyone else who is in that state of existence--indeed, we are probably all in that state over one temptation or another, and we ought to take that into account as we decide what art to consume. But it isn't a very strong state to be in. People ought to be in the process of strengthening themselves to the point where they don't need to use such a reactive, defensive approach to morality. True morality, in my opinion, is the power to ignore temptation, not hiding from it because I know I'm going to give in if I see it. It's an ideal state to achieve, and perhaps none of us will to perfection in this life. But it ought to be a goal we are striving for. The Deseret Book approach won't get us there. Which also means that perhaps we should be applauding those who are well on their way to achieving that state, not condemniong them for being "inappropriate." Isn't that condemnation the very same one that motivated Jesus' statement, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick"? ("Why are you hanging out with publicans and sinners?") - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:33:39 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Michael MCLEAN, _The Ark_ My in-laws invited my husband and I to a small local theater that puts on about 4 musicals a year. The Village Theater is in a Seattle suburb called Issaquah, it seats 488. We had 3rd row center seats. I don't get out to plays very often and musicals even less often--my husband really doesn't enjoy seeing plays, and he enjoys musicals even less. (I love it.) His mother asked him what he thought after and he replied, "I figure I get big brownie points for that one." I didn't know going in that The Ark was written by Michael McLean or that he was LDS. I vaguely recognize the name but I couldn't tell you anything about him. I kind of thought, "What is there to tell about the ark story? This is going to be boring." But it wasn't. It was fun and interesting. Fun because the audience is supposed to be all the animals, and the actors sing directly to you and come out into the audience a couple times, focusing on a person here or there as if they were an animal. Interesting because it looks at what it would've been like to be cooped up on a boat with a bunch of animals and your family for 40 days--the monotony, the fighting, the hardship, the goofiness. The play has very little dialogue--the story is almost entirely told in song. The actors were all very good, but the mother and Egyptus (a black woman playing Ham's wife) really stood out as wonderful talents. Ham was played by a young man with the last name of McLean, but I didn't discover if he was related to the playwright or not. It wasn't horrendously cheesy, and there was even a scene that made me tear up a little. The music was good, and some numbers were really good. It was also interesting to see how the author wove in little bits of Mormon doctrine (Noah and his wife singing about marriage in a number called "It Takes Two") and terminology (generic things like "the spirit" and "revelation.") I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It wasn't spectacular, but I liked it more than the production of West Side Story I saw there last year. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:04:43 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Now that I am a believer, and have studied LDS >theology, I think the implications of it are very interesting >and deep, especially when aspects of physics are >introduced. Multiplicity of gods and multiplicity of >universes is now conceivable to some physicists. So, if I >were a non-LDS intellectual or scientist, I might be >interested in chatting it up with Mormons, >except...ooops! Most Mormons would have no clue >what I'm talking about. I believe your last statement might be a bit of a quantum leap. If I remember the statistics correctly, I believe there are more scientists, and engineers, per capita, coming from Utah than from any other state. The prophet Brigham Young had this to say about education and knowledge back in the mid to late 19th century. "Every art and science known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the Gospel. Where did the knowledge come from which has enabled man to accomplish such great achievements in science and mechanism within the last few years? We know that knowledge is from God, but why do they not acknowledge him? Because they are blind to their own interests, they do not see and understand things as they are. Who taught men to chain the lightning? Did man unaided of himself discover that? No. he received the knowledge from the Supreme Being. From him, too, has every art and science proceeded, although the credit is given to this individual, and that individual. But where did they get the knowledge from, have they it in and of themselves? No; they must acknowledge that, if they cannot make one spear of grass grow, nor one hair white or black without artificial aid, they are dependent upon the Supreme Being just the same as the poor and the ignorant. Where have we received the knowledge to construct the labor-saving machinery for which the present age is remarkable? From Heaven. Where have we received our knowledge of astronomy, or the power to make glasses to penetrate the immensity of space? We received it from the same Being that Moses, and those who were before him, received their knowledge from; the same Being who told Noah that the world should be drowned and its people destroyed. From him has every astronomer, artist and mechanician that ever lived on the earth obtained his knowledge. By him, too, has the power to receive from one another been bestowed, and to search into the deep things pertaining to this earth and every principle connected with it. 12:257." ( Discourses of Brigham Young - 1851-1877) I started reading a book* written by a physicist a few years back, but I had to stop, because it got way too deep for my cognitive resources to comprehend. This book's purpose was to prove, by means of pure physics, the existence of God The author began by examining the "Chaos Theory" and speculating on the odds of one cell forming under the parameters accepted by this theory. Then he extrapolated on the odds of it happening twice, or repeating itself in order to sustain the first one.After that it got way too complicated for me, but I could see where he might be headed, and I think he had a good point. I think this is the kind of knowledge that comes from God that brother Brigham was talking about. Perhaps God is opening the eyes of scientists to help them to understand, that without God, humans are truly insignificant scraps of matter floating in the immensity of the cosmos on an even larger but no less insignificant speck of matter. *"The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler; 1995 This writer was not to my knowledge a member of the church, but then he could be by now. Who knows? http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html Here is an interesting website of Dr. Tipler's in which he concludes: "So our mind children at the end of time will be omniscient (they will know everything that can be known); they will be omnipotent (they will have infinite energy, controlling all the energy resources in the universe), and they are omnipresent (they are ubiquitous throughout the universe). It is interesting that God's Name, as given in Exodus 3:14, is in the original Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which translates into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. " I think the topic of Mormon scientists would be an excellent contribution from someone on this list who is qualified to research and write it. "The History of LDS Men of Mathematics and Science." But perhaps it has been done??? hmmm..... Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:49:20 -0400 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors D. Michael Martindale wrote: >You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Traps need to entice their >victims in effortlessly. Maybe that's why I am so big on writing in a >way that slips the reader easily into my story. I tend to write things >that are traps: forcing people against their will to think thoughts they >wouldn't have chosen to think on their own. > >Maybe that's what I'm trying to say: easy thoughts can afford >labyrinthine roads to them. Difficult thoughts need enticing, effortless >paths. Difficult thoughts paired with difficult roads sounds like a >recipe for failure. Failure, yes, if you want to limit the literary experience to . If you want to trap your reader into a single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work, that's great. I won't deny that I really like and need those sorts of novels from time to time--for the same reason that I enjoy watching "Law and Order" or summer action movies. But I will never come back to them. I will never read a book that easy twice, much less think of it again. And not out of some pretentious literati-type snobbery. I won't because it's no fun, and there's nothing to be gained from a second "viewing". A novel that challenges me, though, that I could read for the sound of its words alone, I'll come back to time and time again. Especially if I'm not sure what it means. Poetic language tends to explode the possibilities of meaning, that is, make multiple layers of meaning apparent. I want books (and movies and art) that force me to make decisions, not stuff that just lays it all out for me. Or rather, I want and need both for different reasons. Of course, if you don't like poetry, which has its roots in the archaic (read: originary) idea that sound and meaning were at some point unified, you probably won't like authors who refuse to deny the musical and multiple quality of language. It's that quality that I would argue might make a "poetic" novel more accessible to a wider audience--since the possibilities of the poetic text are more open (though not infinitely) to specific, particular individual readings. Sales of effortless prose are higher because they have to be--a person could buy one Gene Wolff (whom I haven't read) or novel and never need to buy another, but no one is going to read Tom Clancy's latest seventeen times. Tom Clancy sells more because his stuff is designed to be easily consumed, digested, and well, the hygiene discussion is part of another thread... To use your analogy, the machine--anonymous and reproducible--might dig twenty thousand (good and solid) tunnels to John Henry's one, but people know his name and resurrect him every time they sing his song. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:19:32 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Addictions and Art Medical science has decided that alcoholism and other similar addictions can definitely run in families--even when individuals are raised in different environments. I don't know whether they've studied porn addictions particularly, but it's likely that it runs similar to the various chemical addictions. They know there are several mental illnesses that are also familial. Whether they've actually identified the gene like they have with certain types of breast & colon cancer yet or not, I haven't heard. So--because if there's a gene, do people use that gene as a cop-out and say "there's nothing I can do?" Or do they use the knowledge as a tool to help avoid the problem. Most of the folks I know that discover a genetic link to various cancers use that as a reason to modify diet and lifestyle, including getting more frequent check ups by the doctor. But perhaps links to those less physically deadly familial inheritances don't carry the same urgency for lifestyle adjustment for folks until they get caught in the addiction trap. Then one could begin to argue about the compulsion to create--whether written word, or music, or painting, sculpture or other. Obsessive compulsion is one of the things that get classified as a mental illness, particularly when the compulsions get in the way of a "normal" lifestyle. So are the creative artists in the world "crazy" and does that excuse those who participate in deviant lifestyles because those who are mentally ill can't help themselves & their behavior? Some would argue that it does. I am less sure. But there is certainly a wealth of stories that could be told about even the creative slice of society based on this concept. Karen Tippets - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:56:57 -0600 From: "Jen Wahlquist" Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Hi, Melissa: Congratulations! I also have four sons, and one daughter. Boys are so much fun -- but then, my daughter turned out to be the clan leader. Best wishes, - -Jen Wahlquist PS. Your interest in writing will undoubtedly return when, once again, you are able to focus in that direction. If it were me, I'd just enjoy the baby for now; they are young for such a short time. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:53:06 -0400 From: "C.S. Bezas" Subject: RE: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. Great analogy. I also believe that there are two subsets of Apple Biters: those who choose to wade in that which brings them sorrow and those who have it thrust upon them, which also (in my opinion) highlights the difference between sin and transgression. As writers, then, we choose which of those subsets to explore and in which manner. Layer that with the additional knowledge of gospel truths, and our accountability as artists becomes quite pressing. Cindy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:59:43 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? ailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Eric Samuelsen Se Barbara Hume asked about Brian Vickers' book, Appropriating Shakespeare. It's not a new book, came out in '92 or '93. It's generally regarded as a backlash book, in which he argues that feminist criticism (or Marxist, or whatever) tells us more about feminists (or Marxists or whatevers) than about Shakespeare. Eric's points about Vickers make sense to me. But I also want to argue that Vicker's point--that it is a bad thing for critics to appropriate Shakespeare--misses all kinds of important things about criticism. Criticism isn't just about illuminating the text it is about illuminating the world. Appropriating any text is in my mind a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Why shouldn't a critic who wants to change the world or point out the problems in the world use any text she can to do so? Why does the literary text "matter" more than the critical text? Gae Lyn Henderson Vi - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:58:45 -0400 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature >Clark Goble and D. Michael Martindale wrote: >> > But that merely avoids the question by pushing it down a level. >> > What makes a story appropriate or inappropriate? >> >>When I'm writing it, my personal judgment, no more, no less. >> >> > Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling stories >> > that are inappropriate? >> >>There are well written, compelling stories where the author makes >>different decisions than I do on the relevance of certain details. I >>disagree wih them, and I[m sure they disagree on my assessment. So what >>are we going to do? I explain my reasons for believing as I do, he >>explains his reasons for believing as he does, maybe one of us is >>influenced to change our judment, maybe not. What I don't do is expect >>everyone to agree with my judgment as if it came directly from God. > I'm glad to see this question getting some good debate going; I asked a similar question--whether some things simply ought not be written about--a while ago, but nobody bit. I see where both of you are coming from, I think. On the one hand, we don't want to be in the business of drawing pharisaical lines in the sand or empowering one artist and not another to tell us what is appropriate and what isn't. On the other, many would like to preserve some aspects of our worship as absolutely sacred and therefore not speak at all about them. There seems to be an inherent value in holding certain things apart, despite any reason we might conceive that would suggest the opposite. How do we draw the line? I keep thinking of the second part of Goethe's _Faust_, specifically the episodes in the second part concerning Faust's creation of a "man"--the homunculus. Goethe seems to be suggesting that the fact that we *can* do some things doesn't mean we *should.* (If you're going to start reading this paragraph, please finish it.) More to the point, perhaps, I wonder if the pressures sometimes felt by artists from the official Church are increased by a (conscious or unconscious) disregard for the sacred; that is, if those called in official capacities to maintain the integrity of the Church feel that art is a threat because these lines are always being challenged for largely secular reasons (ie, most human storytelling and art). A different analogy to the same effect: I've mentioned before that I see the "corporatization" or "capitalization" of the Church and its culture not as the cause but the result of our being willing to market whatever we can--Book of Mormon action figures to be stored in the Gold Plates Carrying Case; the upcoming Book of Mormon movies; the entire missionary industry, etc. As we as a culture get more comfortable subjecting our pearls to the market, our church will inevitably follow. NOTE: I don't mean to say that every artist who has felt misunderstood or pressured by the official Church has disregarded the bounds of the sacred. Sometimes good art is just misunderstood. But I don't see a constant pushing the envelope simply for the purposes of storytelling (or any art) resulting in more tolerance from official positions; a retrenchment is more likely. Finally, if we're going to push the envelope, we should be aware of possible consequences and ready to suffer them, just as we would in a case of civil disobedience for a course we felt compelled to follow. I know that we will probably never come to a consensus as to what should be "held apart" (a better designation, maybe, than "off-limits"). It probably has a lot to do with, as D. Michael points out, personal judgment. Here's hoping that we can continue to listen closely and humbly for guidance in our creative efforts, and apply that the same humility to receiving what our fellow artists offer us. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Veda Hale Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art I'm a lurker, but not a millionaire to take the entire AML list to see the stage play of Chicago, as Dutcher would like. But I do think I understand what he is trying to say. That understanding is coming from my work on this huge project that is consumming me, which is the biography of Maurine Whipple. She did what Dutcher is wishing for in her writing of THE GIANT JOSHUA. Hopefully, the biography will help a writer see how costly to a personal life the creation of something great can be. Lavina is finally finding time to get to the editing of the biography manuscript, so in the next year or two it should be out---even if I have to pay to have it published. It might be the only thing I ever contribute to the writing world as I am getting old. But I know in my gut that it is important and just for the reasons Dutcher is telling us. Cedar Fork did publish a novel of mine last year--THE RAGGED CIRCLE-- but I am not inclined to do what it takes to "get it out there". Veda Hale - --- RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:13:07 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Harlow S Clark wrote: > I begin wondering about the morality of taking a > pornographic picture of a young teen actress so you can tell a story > about how destructive child porn is. > What think ye? I wonder if we can classify that photograph as pornographic. I'm not saying I agree with having the picture in the episode. I haven't seen the episode, so I don't know how necessary it was. Harlow may very well be right when he says it wasn't necessary. But I see a big difference between a man, slavering with lust, bullying or seducing a helpless child into posing for a pornographic photo that he will use to indulge his vicious appetites, and a young professional model posing for a photo as part of an artistic project which is trying to speak out against a terrible evil. In the first, the child is being victimized, usually against her will, under harrowing circumstances. In the latter, the child is choosing to participate, probably has parents in attendance to make sure everything is safe and comfortable for the child, understands the purpose behind everything, and is shown respect and courtesy throughout the process. Very different things are going on within the minds of the two young models, and it is in the mind where the damage will or will not take place. One can still believe that posing for the television show's photograph was inappropriate, but I don't think one can equate that experience with a victim of child pornography. > I started thinking about the idea we hear in the culture > occasionally that the people on the other side of the veil have a > tremendous interest in us and want to help us. Somehow I question that. If we're possessed with the same spirit in that life that we are in this life, then I suspect they're all too busy worrying about their own affairs to pay much attention to us. With, I'm sure, some noteworthy exceptions. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:14:43 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Nan McCulloch wrote: > Nor can you copyright a title. I had what I thought was a *million dollar > title* for a children's book. I wanted to protect the idea until I finished > the book. Of course they wouldn't let me copyright the title until I had > the *body of work* to attach to the title. Even then you can't copyright the title. Anyone can use it, as long as they don't use it with the intent of trying to pass it off as your book (which is an infringement of trade issue, not a copyright issue). - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:07:50 EDT From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Apple Biters Etc. I really like your hypothesis, though of course you know it's not that simple. I can't imagine any Paradisian just puttering in the garden for very long. I don't know of any who labor with greater vigor than General Authorities (also other "holy men [and women] that we know not of" - many of whom, I am convinced, live very quietly in our own wards). It's more like they're constantly making hybrids and developing new subspecies, as well as always endeavoring to assist the Apple Biters to come and partake of another kind of Fruit. I think that really, these "Paradisians" defy classification. They have come to realize that, like C.S. Lewis' story of the stable in the last volume of The Chronicles of Narnia, once you get fully established on the Strait and Narrow, you find it is bigger on the inside than on the outside. We Apple Biters need to be very careful about quantifying where we have not yet been, or about perhaps persuading ourselves that we can follow a different course and still arrive at the Tree. Only the great Innocent One can help us make those distinctions. That said, I restate that I really liked your thoughts. Linda Hyde - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:19:38 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:23:10 EDT, RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: >I look at my work lately and I see so clearly the restraints I have = placed on >myself. Where is anything that I have done where you can see my bare = soul >exploding on the movie screen? Have you ever seen me cut loose with a = camera >and show you what I can really do? No, you haven't. Why not? Because I >haven't done it! Because I've held back! I've been polite and modest and >restrained, all good and well behind the podium in sacrament meeting, = but >death behind a movie camera. > >For whatever reason, I haven't been fulfilling the measure of my = creation. I >haven't taken the talents the Lord has given me and magnified them to = their >potential. Why not? That's the question that CHICAGO put into my brain. = And I >can only answer with my work. and Travis Manning replied, in part: >"Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should = define >timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? = Richard >Dutcher? What if each of these individuals see and define art = differently? >Is one person's vision of art more courageous? less? more timid? = less? This seems like two completely different conversations, to me. I don't think Richard's complaint about timidity in art has anything to do with viewers or what their thresholds are. Instead I think he's talking about the artist's reluctance to tell the stories that are in him, unfettered = by fear. If the audience then thinks such stories are too raw for them, = it's their choice and obligation not to participate--but at least Richard = would know that he had used his abilities to the fullest. And I agree with him, wholeheartedly, one-hundred-percent. Every artist = has their own level of talent, their own limit to their abilities, and it's = my belief that we are obligated to reach for that limit. Anything less is = pure laziness--even if we never do reach the full measure of our potential, we ought at least to try. But because this level is personal and usually = only knowable by the individual, it's important for the rest of us not to = assume that there's some absolute scale by which artistic creation is measured. This is where Travis's comments come in. We can only truly know if our = own efforts are timid--not anyone else's. And "timid" doesn't equal "not graphic." I'm not nearly an artist on Richard's level, but his words about trying = to truly make the most of the talent he's been given touched me deeply. All= my life I've known that even as I'm receiving praise for the things I've = done, it didn't even come close to the limit of what I was capable of. And = it's just so *easy* to do the bare minimum, especially if the minimum looks really good. If we were being judged on results, some kind of threshold qualification for passing the earthly test, that might be safe, but I = think God wants our whole hearts, and that's much more of a challenge. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:26:58 GMT From: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art I have one more comment about passion. In December we visited Washington DC for the premiere of Russell's "Prelude to Glory." We visited the National Museum of Art, and the most interesting and powerful thing I experienced was the passion in many of the works. We stood in front of Rembrandt's "Windmills" and I just cried and cried--because it was incredibly passionate. You don't get that in the prints in the art books, but the brush strokes were pure passion. I saw the same thing in the very early works, the medieval stuff. They were almost abstract, they were so intense. It was a real shock to me. Again I resolved myself to more passion, more genuineness, in what I want to do. Cathy Wilson - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:30:28 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity My good internet friend D. Michael Martindale, who I hope one day to = meet, but until then with whom I love to argue online (and by = "argue" I mean that word only in its most positive definitions -- those = about reasoning, thinking and exchange; and that wonderful, oft = forgotten quotation in Webster's New International Unabridged, Second = Edition, which says: "as in, to argue with a friend without convincing = him" -- rather than the negative and pejorative definitions of the word = which we more-often-than-not assign it, both in lexicography as well as = in practice), railed the other day on the literary notion of "obscurity" = with reference to the recent (and I have found, fascinating) thread = regarding some of the speculative works of Gene Wolfe.=20 I have accidentally deleted my copy of Michael's original post, and = being too lazy to go dig it up in the archive or to ask him to send me = another copy, I will plow ahead in this essay by paraphrasing him, which = will doubtlessly do desperate damage to the integrity of the quotes I = will assign to him, for which I apologize in advance. But basically, if = my memory serves, Michael responded to other's reviews and commentaries = about the linguistic and stylistic difficulty inherent in reading = Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" tetralogy, in a negative light. Michael = was not responding to Wolfe's books specifically, having never read = them, but to a more general literary notion or device, that of = "obscurity" or textual difficulty. Michael went on to argue forcefully = for "clarity" and simplicity: a straightforward approach to storytelling = which does not diminish the presentation of complex themes, but wherein = the language itself should be as clear as possible. I think I do not do = disservice to the general tenor of Michael's remarks by paraphrasing him = thusly. That was more or less the gist. Now it is not my wish, either, to speak about Wolfe's work specifically = (other than to cite an occasional illustrative example) -- at least not = yet. I have to do a little refresher course and preparation to be able = to adequately contribute to any discussion of him. After all, it's been = 20 years. But I will say (just so that this admission will set my bias = cards on the table, and it will be clear where I'm coming from) that I = like Gene Wolfe. In my opinion, he's on the "must-read" list for anyone = interested in speculative fiction (which I know Michael is); but then, = that's just my opinion, and Michael says that specifically because of = the recent thread about Wolfe's complexity, Michael doesn't want to read = him. So, to each their own.=20 As a side note, I can further admit that I just dug out my copy of = "Castle of Days" this morning and found some great pleasures in it (so = thanks to Jonathan for reminding us about that interesting tome). = Furthermore, I expect that I will be doing some extensive Wolfeian = re-reading in the next few months. All of this chat has set my mood = swinging in that direction again, and I'm actually quite excited and = looking forward to it. A great, gargantuan gulp of gastronomic sci-fi, a = tapestry of superfluous invention, adventure, images and ideas - Yeah! = It's a feast! And I can't wait to go back to the table! So be = forewarned, I am a fan of Wolfe, specifically, and harbor a tendency = towards a certain gothic verbosity, generally (DUH! as if that isn't = obvious). So I'm not impartial. But that statement of personal inclinations aside, I would like to offer = herein a more general, and I hope well-reasoned, argument on behalf of, = or in defense of, literary obscurity. But to do so, I must also state = that I, basically, agree with Michael's defense of clarity. And what I = hope to do herein is to plead for a balance in literary practice and = criticism: the need for a recognizable common clarity; and the delights = and importance of an occasional obscurity. In Wolfe's seminal sci-fi tetralogy, he plays with a notion he calls = "The Book of Gold". This "Book of Gold" (much like the many-winged = beasts in Revelations) is both an actual book and a figurative one. The = Book of Gold is relative to each person. Your "book of gold" may not be = my "book of gold", and yet, the aged librarian in "New Sun" can describe = his perfectly. Whatever your book of gold is, it resonates with you = forever, changes you, becomes a part of you. And each person will have a = different one. Again: to each their own. Wolfe also plays with the idea, which I like very much, that "books of = gold" are usually encountered early in life. The librarian in "Sun" = tells the main character that he will never actually see this Book, as = he is "past the age when it is met." That reminds me of a quote by David = Kherdian who said that: "What we learn in childhood is carved in stone; = what we learn in adulthood is carved in ice." And then I can never = remember who said this (Dickens? or somebody), but I believe it: "We = never love a book so much as when we are 10." (Maybe it was Stephen = King.) So not only does each person gravitate towards their own personal = inclinations (and my French half is inclined to shout: "Vive la = difference!"), but timing in life, and timing in the encounter of any = given piece of art or literature, also alters the field of perception = and reception. It was said to us as missionaries that, statistically, = people will have 7 or 8 encounters with the gospel before beginning to = seriously investigate it. Sometimes we need a set-up, preparatory = experiences, prior to being able to embrace or appreciate a thing. Other = times, we identify with something suddenly and in whole cloth, as if the = veil of forgetfulness is ripped away and we just recognized something = we've know forever which we have just encountered for the first time. = Other times, no amount of effort or exposure will cause someone to = identify with a thing which feels foreign or which remains perpetually = outside their interest. And then, back to the Dickens or King quote, = sometimes we miss opportunities which may never return. Since my son's brain injury, however, I have learned about the notion of = "neurological dispensation" with respect to youth. While it is true that = your young brain learns things that our older brains do not (the ice and = stone metaphor), certain brain injuries actually set back the clock to = some extent. Neurologically speaking, my son is an infant even though he = is four. His latent potential, then, is still in its infancy. Even at 12 = or at 20, theoretically, after unlocking certain sensory blockers, he = could begin to learn at a rate that only toddlers can, despite his being = a physical adult. This is his neurological dispensation, a gift of the = synapses: perpetual youth. Given that we generally accept in this forum that we are eternal beings, = I have always felt comfortable with the model of this mortal experience = being a spiritual infancy, regardless of our mortal age. And by seeing = it that way, I would argue that our capacity for change, learning, = growth, fundamental development, is ceaseless, or at least, barely = broached while here below. If my son has been given a biological = dispensation of time from a physical sense (whether he is able to take = advantage of that or not has yet to be seen -- we are only talking about = potential), so then do we, in a sense, have a developmental dispensation = of time from a spiritual sense. Whether we are able to take advantage of = that or not has yet to be seen. What I mean to say is that we are forever growing and changing. If we = are seeking perfection (in whatever form one defines it), and if we = think that art -- appreciation of others, the exploration of lives not = our own, the human craving for the exchange stories, the mental exercise = of metaphor and allegory -- if any of this is a part of that arc of = perfection, then there is something to be said for the constant = evolution and modification of our tastes. Literature, for those for whom = it is important at all, is usually considered vitally important, of = fundamental importance. And yet, as has already been explored, we have = so little time. We'll never get through all that we like, and what about = all that stuff we don't like? Or don't know if we might like in future, = or might have liked had we encountered it in the past but it is too late = now? To me there is hope in these questions, not despair. Again, we are = eternal beings. I propose that with respect to struggles in art, = searches for growth, appreciation of the pantheon of experience: we may = always be 10. We may yet be able to find, each of us, our various Books = of Gold. And the encounter at age 90 may be just as etched in stone as = our experience in youth. I'm an optimist in that way. So how does this revolve back around to the subject of clarity versus = obscurity? When I was young, certain texts seemed to me obscure; once I was older, = they were more clear. When I was young, certain texts seemed to me quite = simple and clear; once I was older, and could see previously = unrecognized nuance, they were more obscure. Things change. We may yet = be able to comprehend things which are now obscure. In other ways, the = more we learn, the more we realize how little we understand. Not everyone is at the same arc of time, the same point in the sphere of = progression, the same phase in developmental evolution. We all complete = our arcs of progress (if you will accept that such a concept exists) at = different rates; each of us takes a unique path; all of us may end up at = diverse, but equally glorious, conclusions. One of my kids is probably a = genius (never had her tested, but she's brilliant); another of my kids = is developmentally delayed. My delayed kid is spiritually perfect; my = genius kid, not quite nine, already struggles with sin. Arcs and loops = and ups and downs and improvements and reversals -- we stumble into = eternity with more questions than answers, more hope in promises than = evidences of things seen. Life is not always clear. So how do you communicate THAT feeling, in an articulate way? You must = use every tool you possess. And literature is one of the most powerful, = fluid, elastic, plastic, dynamic, malleable and manipulatable forms of = expression there is, next to music I suppose. But whereas music has mood = and dynamic and emotion, language also carries a meaning which is = somewhat more concrete than music; it has a greater power to more = directly convey meaning (even though it cannot always do so). Language, = in all its power and inadequacy, in all its hamstringing limitations and = vibrant life is that tool.=20 How do you convey this overwhelming life in language that is not, from = time to time, in and of itself overwhelming? One of the powers of literature, is to communicate something which is = often greater than the sum of its various parts. A story is a story. = People in it do what they do. But that story may have a broader meaning, = another layer of communication. This second (third, fourth, fifth.) = layer of meaning may be obvious or obscure. It may be intended by the = author, or it may be perceived by an audience in a way that the author = had never thought about. A symbolic level of communication may have been = intended by the author, but no one in the audience gets it. All of these = aspects of literature make it fascinating, make it worth studying and = discussing, make it ultimately, worth more than the specific plots it = recounts. After all, there are only 7 stories (speaking about plot) in = existence. Or 12 or 25 or 102, depending on who you talk to; but the = number is always small and finite. And then there is style: the phrases and words used to describe the = stories themselves. And herein lies the infinity of our form.=20 The story may be that Buck kicked a ball. But "Buck booted the ball", = "Buck belligerently bashed the ball" and "The boy with the brick-red = face bent his toe to the apex of all his longing and showed the crowd = what he was all about" are all different styles of the same ball story, = the last example the most "obscure", but perhaps also the most "true". = Depends. Furthermore, as has been explored somewhat in other threads regarding = validity of memory, individual words are tricky things, and reality and = perception itself, constructed as it is upon a tenuous spider's web = network of untrustworthy synapses, is bound to be inherently complex and = difficult to relate. And each attempt to relate it, to convey a sense of = reality, will be more or less accepted or understood by each audience = member depending on a host of external factors, not the least of which = is where they are in their overall life journey to begin with. Therefore, nothing can be clearly stated for everyone. There is no story, no experience, no character, no thought, no literary = exercise, that will, in every case, be clear to everyone. A science book = that is clear to Clark Goble today may never be clear to me, or some = day, in time, I might get it. A joke that is utterly hilarious (and = therefore, completely accessible) to my 6 year-old, may strike me as = totally obscure; when my 6 year old is 38, she may not get why it was so = funny back then, either. Clarity and obscurity in literature are subjective, relative = experiences.=20 [I have to just quickly make an aside and quote Paris Anderson's funny = and wonderful reaction the other day under the "Time Heals Artistic = Wounds" thread talking about his altered perceptions of music over time, = going back to music that used to be dangerous and intense to him and = finding it today suddenly jaunty and innocent. He says: "Whoa! My memory = has been betrayed! It's one of those things that make you wonder if = anything is real." I love that.] The quest for clarity of communication in literature is laudable, and I = would argue further, is ALWAYS the goal of the accomplished writer. = Great writers are always struggling to clearly communicate something. = What they are trying to communicate may be obscure to some of their = readers; they may fail in their attempts to be clear; they may use words = and devices and metaphors and symbols and terms which do not communicate = to a portion of their audience, but the overall mood or feeling or = concept is communicated clearly. Bad writers are obscure for obscurity's = sake, or impose upon their otherwise bad writing a veneer of style = (read: obscurity) to disguise their lack of talent. (Bad filmmakers do = the same thing.) This is not something I defend. I am defending good = writing here, great writing (and Gene Wolfe, by the way, is great in his = genre), and I would say again: great writers are ALWAYS trying to be = clear. But how do you clearly describe a psychedelic experience? What if your = point is to clearly communicate a sensation of total disorientation? = What if the life of your character is a hell, a hell which you wish to = communicate, not just in its outer trappings, but within the inner life = as well, to go into a mind that is filled with disorder, in order to = briefly (I say "briefly" as a critic, because it is my opinion that if = such things go on too long they become pornography; but I have a = different definition of that term than many, and that is a topic for a = different essay), I repeat, in order to briefly convey to the reader the = "reality" of the character's disorder? This may require the writing of = some very difficult passages, difficult not just in content, but in = style, presentation, meter, time, narrative device, all tools used by = the artist to convey, clearly, something which is to most of us = unimaginable or obscure.=20 To one reader, such a passage might hit the nail on the head so = powerfully as to bowl them over with a sense of recognition. Another = reader might say, what the heck is this writer doing, I don't understand = a thing that's going on here! Obscure for one; clear for another. But the writer used the literary = device of obscurity to convey, as clearly as the limitations of his = medium and the range of his inventiveness would allow him, the reality = of the experience. And I say we must allow this artist to do so. You see, if we limit ourselves to one expression of reality, we have = effectually closed the door to possibility. In some sense, I agree with = much of the concepts of artist and lecturer Ben Zander. Zander talks = about art being absolutely interested in this concept of "possibility". = He says, there are three ways that we can react to the world, three = choices we can make when faced with the conundrums of existence: we can = react with a sense of resignation, anger or possibility. He creates a = syllogism of interconnected concepts: 1) When faced with the world we = can feel anger, resignation or possibility; 2) a human being in the = presence of possibility has shiny eyes; 3) art is to create shiny eyes = and to transform people's lives. Okay, perhaps this is simplistic, but = the simplicity of his ideas offers a certain clarity, no?=20 He goes on to propound the following sound-bite: "All you can do is = stand in possibility and create." (Which may, of course, be a little = obscure for some tastes.) At any rate, to insist that obscure writing is bad writing is to miss a = very big point (not that this is what Michael suggested -- I'm just = saying). In the description of extremes of experience literary obscurity = may be the only way to "accurately" convey certain things. And, in this = argument, poetry is essential to some forms of expression; and poetic = forms, which are obscure to many, communicate truth to some in ways that = no other medium can. We cannot disallow it. Sometimes, obscurity is used, temporarily, to make a larger point, a = point which would be less clear, if it did not start out obscurely.=20 For example, and this is not the best example, but I'm too lazy right = now to think of a better one, and it was something that happened on the = list: a little while back, to make a point about reality, and some other = things, I played a little literary "joke". I created a fictional = character, Voder Foss, and had him write an introduction to the list = denying my own existence with the claim that he had created me. I = submitted the false letter without explanation. There was almost = immediate confusion. Our fair moderator, attempting to adjudicate a list = with a no-anonymity rule, and not knowing me from Adam, found himself = perplexed. What is real? Who are you? What is going on? Everything was = sorted out pretty quickly and I got to make my point in a follow-up = essay. Some people laughed and got it; some people got it, but didn't = laugh; some people could have cared less. That's not my point. The point is that I used an initially confusing device specifically to = create a literary object lesson which I desired to express clearly. The = confusion at the outset was essential to my point, and precisely the = reaction I desired from that portion of the audience that would = eventually even care. I chose, consciously, to be obscure, to create a = temporary mood of confusion, so that my point about the vaguities of = literary reality could then be made. Initial confusion was an essential = element of the bigger joke. Could this have been done a different way? = Sure. Was it successful done this way? Maybe, maybe not. As I said, it's = not the greatest example. But I propose that as a concept, it is valid: = literary obscurity can be a viable device for the conveyance of a = different spin on the truth, or to punctuate reality in an unexpected = way, initiating a thought process in the audience that is, again, = greater than the sum of the parts the writer presents, because it = demands a reader's involvement at a heightened level than a more = conventional (clear) telling might have required. Now let's move to scripture. I'm going to argue that scripture is = literature. (This is, obviously, not to suggest that literature is = scripture, even great literature, or that Gene Wolfe's Christian = allegories in an otherwise violent and sexy swashbuckling sword and = sorcery adventure make that specific work important or even worthwhile.) = But scripture is a literary form: it is written by men, describing their = spiritual experiences, stories about their lives dealing with issues of = faith. Many of us also write stories about our lives dealing with issues = of faith. At any rate, some would say that scripture is literature at = its highest most rarified form. And I hope I don't come off as smug or = condescending when I point out that, excuse me, there is nowhere a = better argument in defense of literary obscurity in all the world than = scripture! Some of the most famous devices used by the great spiritual teachers, = many of whom we venerate, are the forms of the parable, the symbolic = rite, the extended allegory, the poetic allusion and the visionary = rapture. None of these are devices to which I would attribute a great = deal of "clear and simple storytelling"! Scriptures are often not = straight-forward; they often defy initial compression; they demand study = and thought; they engender debate and discussion; we hunger after = interpretations and clarifications; we struggle to discover applications = of them in our actual lives, etc., etc., etc. Scriptures use obscuring literary devices more consistently than any = other written form, and I am here to argue that it is ESSENTIAL that = they do so. Why? To PROTECT the reader. And to IMPRESS themselves upon the mind of the = reader. It is not God's intention to damn us out of hand, I would suggest. = There's a great plan of salvation, an atonement, and some incredible = quantities of mercy being bandied about. We are getting lots of chances = to "get it", as it were. But there is an interesting wrinkle in justice, = however, that says that you are responsible for that which you = understand.=20 (I'm going to go into more detail about where this thought might lead us = in an aside in another essay I'm working on in response to Jacob = Proffitt's and my recent exchange under the heading of "Artist's = Personal Lives", but some of those thoughts relate to this argument as = well.) We do not believe that a man will be condemned in ignorance. That is to = say, we do not believe that a man can be saved in ignorance, either. But = we do believe that all men (yes, women, too, sorry about the = gender-centricity of my language, but it's just easier) will be taught = the complete truth, and after that will have to decide. We do not = believe in judging people for laws they have not been given. = Missionaries do not go in to teach a young couple living together and = immediately start out by screaming madly, spittle running down their = chins: "You sinners! You fornicating heathens!" No. They start out = slowly, teaching principles, which, if accepted, lead on to others, = until finally, if this couple desires baptism, we say, "Oh by the way, = you guys really need to get married." At which point, the couple says, = oh yeah! Of course. Given their new understanding, they move into a = different sphere of law and obligation. Say you and I are god. Or rather say that I am god. (Yeah, that sounds = more cool!) Okay, so I'm god. And my dog, his name is Henry, he is my = creation or charge or whatever. Now, my dog is pretty smart. Henry's got = a lot of things together; more, in fact, than a lot of people. But even = so, there are some things Henry doesn't get. So, what would it be like = if I said to my dog, "Henry, I want you to go wash the car. Right now. = And triple wax it, too." Henry is, of course, not yet equipped to 1) = understand what I'm asking of him, or 2) to actually do it if he could = understand me. Then, we'll take the example one step further, what if I = was to put some kind of extreme penalty upon his failure to accomplish = my directions? If you don't do what I tell you, I'll kill you. Now, = Henry's a pretty nice dog, but you know what? That puppy's dead.=20 There is no way that Henry can do (yet, at this point in his evolution) = what I ask of him. There is no way that he can even understand it = (again: yet). But what if I have this other dog, Butch, who is actually, = kind of amazingly, not like any dog you've ever seen. This dog Butch can = read newspapers, walk on his hind legs, and likes to go dancing. He has = a tendency to smoke cigars and play poker with his other dog buddies = (one of whom is an artist), but still, this is one fairly evolved dog. = So now I say to Butch, "Go wash the car, do a good job, or your dead." = Butch gulps, washes the car, and he's off the hook. But Henry, = unfortunately, he didn't get it, so he's dead. Not very fair, right? I have to take into consideration that my dogs are = not on equal terms here. But what can I do, the laws of nature have been = decreed: dogs who don't wash cars will eventually die. It's a law, = folks. Out of my hands. (See, I'm not such a vicious god after all -- = this is just the way things are.) Really, I'm a very nice god. I don't = make arbitrary rules. In fact, all I really do is provide an education = service to try and help my charges evolve based on rules which are in = existence which they have forgotten that they know about. So, somehow, I = have to tell my dogs that these are the rules. But thankfully, I don't = have to execute the penalties until everybody understands everything. Or = at least that's the theory. So, I decide I'm going to publish some of these rules and things in a = book. And I pass the book out. Butch, he's a great reader, he gets it. = Henry, he's still pretty doggy and all, and he can only decipher = "H-E-N-R-Y". (I have a sneaking suspicion that he can also read = "D-O-G-F-O-O-D", but I can't prove it yet.) But see, I'm stuck: when = somebody understands the law, they are under obligation to live by it or = suffer the consequences. (Some laws have consequences even if you don't = understand them; Butch's cigars hurt him even if I decide it's not an = actual sin to smoke them; but I'm just interested right now in the = "what-you-don't-know-can't-hurt-you-and-what-you-do-know-can" kind of = laws.)=20 So I come up with a plan to disguise some of my instructions in fairly = obscure texts. Butch, chances are, he'll figure it out after a while. = Henry, on the other hand, to him its all garbly-gook, which is just as = well, because he can't even walk on his hind legs yet, and if he KNEW he = had to go and wash the car, well then, darn it, I'd have to kill him. All right, my dog game's gone on long enough. I think my point is = probably boringly obvious. I may be wrong about this whole thing, but I = think that one reason for literary obscurity in scripture is a = protective device to limit the texts accessibility to those who are = ready to receive it. And that is a perfectly acceptable reason to = indulge in a little confusion from time to time. Ironically, it is the scriptural character who is most apt to preach in = defense of clarity, Nephi, who is the one who most vigorously suggests = that we study Isaiah, one of the most literarily obscure of the ancient = prophets. "For I Nephi delight in plainness," he says, and then he turns = around and says, "Great are the words of Isaiah," and everybody should = study them! He goes onto explain that Isaiah is not hard for him to = understand, because he was taught in the manner of the Jews, lived at = Jerusalem, and he has the tools in his arsenal to work out the truth = between the lines. But he then goes on to say that anybody who really = desires to work out Isaiah can do it, with a little study and prayer. To = Nephi, Isaiah IS plain. But for me. Yikes! Why make it so obscure? Why give us the allegory of the tame and wild = olive tree? Why give us chapter after chapter of Isaiah (when we know = good and well that there are some great action scenes coming up in just = a little while)? Why give us the parables when straight-talking would be = easier? My contention (besides the idea I presented about, about "protection") = is that in some cases, these devices are the only means or at least the = best possible means, to convey certain truths to the human mind. Poetry, = symbolism, allegory, actually have a power to etch themselves more = easily into our comprehension after, or perhaps even because of, an = initial period of struggle. In fact, there is concrete evidence that the mind remembers those things = better which stand out as unusual, or which have to be cognitively dealt = with in some way before being stored into memory. Do you know that it = takes you a split second longer to read the word "red" if I were to = print it in green ink? Your brain spends that split second analyzing the = dichotomy. And the more connections and interrelated associations you = have with a word or an experience, the more likely you are to be able to = recall that word or experience in the future. Neurologically, things = that are set apart, pop out and stick in our minds, while things that = the brain considers not unusual, are often completely ignored by our = senses. Therefore, it is my contention that when used sparingly, the literary = device of obfuscation, of adding complexities in tone, style, = vocabulary, image, content, by forcing the reader to engage in a deeper = or more prolonged thought process for understanding, can have an = intensely rewarding outcome and make an impression on the mind which = could not be achieved IN ANY OTHER WAY. Laman and Lemuel had things very clearly spelled out to them time and = time again, but it did nothing to change them. Nephi was thrown complex = and difficult allusions from a very young age, and in his struggle for = comprehension, discovered wisdom and clarity. I suppose to conclude my defense of obscurity, I must acknowledge the = importance of balance. We should strive, as Michael suggested the other = day, to be as clear in our writing as possible. But we should not = dismiss the power of the tools we have at our disposal, nor be afraid to = indulge in them from time to time for desired effect. Gene Wolfe, who is indulgent, certainly (but then, so am I), will never = appeal to many. But he vigorously defends his style as being essential = to the story he wanted to tell, to the mood he wanted to convey. In his = opinion, it would have been boring any other way -- pointless. His use = of arcane words, narrative leaps, starting and stopping in time, and = other elements which make his text difficult, all have specific, = conscious reasonings behind them. Some audiences may disagree, but for = many thousands of readers, his desired effect was achieved, and he truly = "communicated", and did so "clearly", impressing the mind and doing so = in a unique and artistic way.=20 Wolfe wanted to create an utterly foreign world, a truly new experience. = And yet he wanted that world rooted in the history of our own world. And = so, every word he uses comes from our own language and history. There is = not a made-up word in the entire text. That was an essential condition = for him. There is no "Klatu-Baracktoo-Nicto" in his world - no words are = made up. But there are lansquenets and fulgurators and khaibits and the = blacker than black color of nigrescent. These words are utterly foreign, = truly alien, of another world (science fiction). And yet, they are = somehow real, genetically familiar, rooted in the history of our own = language's past. And the process of looking them up, comprehending them, = creates an astonishing juxtapositioning in the mind. A heightened level = of reality is achieved, even within the confines of a completely = fantastic and unrealistic world. Furthermore, Wolfe wants to toy with the idea of memory (as I do), but = does so in a spectacular way, by leaping from events and disassociating = the standard flow of A-B-C narration, he forces us to comprehend the = illusive nature of time and memory, and the lateral connectivity of = reality within the human mind. Difficult? Yes. Rewarding? Yes (to some). = Does it convey a truth and a realty? A variety of it, yes. And could it = have been done in any other way?=20 Is a rose a rose by any other name? the Bard asks. But then, why use = iambic pentameter? Why use verse at all? Why not just talk? Damn, = Shakespeare (and many do): his plays are so long, too! Is a rose always = just red or pink or white. Does it smell "rosy", or "delicious" or = "light". What is the "clear" way to describe it? Is there any way which = is clear to everyone, or will everyone have a different take on the = smell or color or name of a rose? We look to the artist to surprise us and shock us and teach us and regale = us. Sometimes we want to be blown away, astonished by the rose, so that = we can stop, suddenly in our tracks, and say: What?! And by that = metaphoric stopping, by that reconsidering, by that figuring obscure = things out, we have literally (and literarily) "taken time to smell the = roses". And the experience of doing that can be, occasionally, = infinitely more profound than it would have been otherwise. To use a recently discussed example from one of Michael's own books: if = Sheila masturbates, then she does, whether I do or don't, whether my = wife does or doesn't. And if her brief but brilliant ecstasy can only be = described by an artist in an indulgent, fanciful flight of archaic words = and disconnected images and flashing prose, then that's the way it has = to be. The writer in Martindale didn't do it that way, apparently, but = told it straight; but either way, "clear" or "obscure", there will = always be readers who don't like it, or don't get it.=20 But to others, you will have discovered, in your slice of obscure = observation, truth. And to someone, you will have written the Golden = Book. This is what art is for, but all of it ain't for everybody, nor = should it be. After all, everybody knows, deep down in their heart of hearts, that = sometimes, once and a while... a rose is anacreontic.=20 And when it is... it needs to be. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #37 *****************************