From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #39 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, April 28 2003 Volume 02 : Number 039 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:52:16 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] The New List How much of a free-for-all is it, again? If the volume isn't too humongous I guess I can sign up. It's just that, the more time I spend reading and typing email, the less time I spend writing stuff I can actually *publish*.... Still, it could be fun! Linda At 04:07 AM 4/23/03, you wrote: >As one of the eight people who has already expressed interest, if we >can't find another person willing to jump full-tilt into our world of >frenzy, I promise to post twice as much as I normally would (I got a lot >of pent-up agression ). > >Thom Duncan Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:06:19 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Congratulations, Darlene! It sounds like this one was a wild ride for you. At 12:21 AM 4/23/03, you wrote: > >Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda > and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a > decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Pregnant, I was very creative. It somehow inspired me. Plus it has a deadline, after which the "night cometh in which no work can be performed:" No work that is, save that of caring for the newborn, which is precious and not to be missed! Nursing was just, well, draining. :) The drive to write, I find, is affected by many and various factors combining to create or destroy it. It's never the same with each pregnancy/child/ other life stress, but yes it will be there waiting for you once you come out of survival mode. If you can hold that baby and nurse and type one-handed you can still get quite a lot done! I'm experimenting with ViaVoice, but I haven't given it much of a go yet, which, if I get used to dictating to myself, should be a nifty gadget. (The hard part is saying aloud, "quotation mark. period. comma. new paragraph." All that.) It stinks for editing and rewriting, which is what I'm working on right now (when I'm not on email... ), but new copy works out all right. And congratulations Andrew on your new baby too! How completely wonderful. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:21:07 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art In a message dated 4/23/2003 10:31:18 PM Mountain Daylight Time, tmanning.eagle@sisna.com writes: > For any person to presume they are unaffected by art is blowing smoke out > their keister. I'm in total agreement. I hope no one misunderstood my previous post. I did not mean to communicate that I am somehow immune to any negative influence from the films I choose to watch. It is clear to me, however, that I am not effected as strongly as many others. For instance, I came out of the theater earlier this week after watching the new Disney film "Holes" (PG or PG-13?) and I ran into a fellow LDS writer friend. She mentioned that some of the imagery was too graphic and somewhat disturbing to her. After seeing the film twice, I'm still surprised by her comment. The director was skillfully discreet with the violence. Perhaps even violent situations or the suggestion of violence are too much for some. > > "Timid art." Hmm. Timid to whom? Who defines timidity? Who should > define > timidity? President Hinckley? Brian Evenson? Janice Kapp Perry? Richard > Dutcher? > The last, of course. You are finally starting to understand. I am always right. I will never lead you astray. Trust me. Look into my eyes...You are getting very sleepy... Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:30:11 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art In a message dated 4/23/2003 10:48:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time, gkeystone@aol.com writes: > As strick Jews understand, to not enjoy life and all its juice is > to sin. To miss the joy is to miss it all, and so many are missing it all. > > I love this thought. It feels so deeply true to me. Also, It reminds me of Michael Martindale's excellent Apple Eater post and makes me wonder... Is the juice of life apple juice? Richard Dutcher (This post brought to you today by Del Monte/Martinelli Inc.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:39:40 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] Babies and Creativity I wrote between babies, but during pregnancy and intensive nursing I didn't write much. This grew incrementally the more kids I had. However I read like mad during those times. I remember reading all of Dickens in one year that way. I consider that gestation time, too. Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:10:23 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Yes, Bill, there are many LDS scientists. And I am familiar with the Brigham Young quote you reminded us of. And certainly our gospel encompasses all of it, which is what I was talking about in my original citation you quoted at the top of your thoughts; that is why I am comfortable (among other reasons) being a member of this church. Unfortunately, the members of this list and other groups which I have enjoyed sharing an exchange of ideas with, form, in my opinion, a cultural minority: "Mormon Thinkers". And while there are and have been many great LDS men (and you should also have said "women") of science and mathematics, a gospel which demands deep thought and which has such far-reaching theological implications has engendered a statistically disproportionate quantity of deep thinkers, I feel. But, I have always found such thinkers to talk to wherever I have been, though it has often been a hard search (internet has made this much easier, thankfully). I, too, am often out of my depth when I encounter texts which surpass my education in a given subject, but I am still deeply pleased, even in my profoundly realized ignorance. On the flip side, I wish dearly that I didn't get so many blank looks when I make one of my comments in Sunday School class. The vast majority of our brothers and sisters are of the "blank-look school". Which is what I was bemoaning originally. But, I have learned to live with that fact, even to embrace and celebrate it, as I will explain later in a final of three essays I'm playing with, which I'll think about posting down the road. I appreciated your thoughts and comments in this post (and others of yours I have read). Jon Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:25:43 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives I don't know the specific episode in question, and I don't have any insider knowledge about the producers of this particularly show, but as sick and wrong as most people thing Hollywood is, they are VERY litigation conscious and surprisingly prudish in their own bizarre PC way. So, not that it enters into this conversation at all, but from spending 10 years in LA working directly for major studios, I can GUARANTEE YOU that the actress in that picture Harlow is wondering about was 18. Absolutely no doubt about it. In fact, the category "18 to play younger" is an official Breakdown category that agents and casting directors are always looking for. They drool over the young-looking actresses because there is such a huge demand for legal-age performers to play young kids. The sick and twisted part is that they really want you to think its a young girls, but she was 18 (which of course, an a differently twisted way, makes it "anything goes"). Again, this doesn't add or contribute to this discussion, but do rest assured, after the backlash from Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields days, all "pretty babies" nowadays (PARTICULARLY on Network TV) are all 18. Jongiorgi Enos - ----- Original Message ----- > 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? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:25:31 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art D Michael: > > 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. Me: I suppose you really mean everybody who has been taught that pornaography is evil. I have friends that are in many ways very moral people who believe that pornography is no big deal, something every red blooded American male does. And it was the wife in the couple expressing the view. That was a bit of a surprise to me at the time. Tracie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:28:24 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ If you watch movies strictly for entertainment value than perhaps this would be one for you to miss according to your ideas of entertainment. There are other reasons to watch movies. Something that stretches you or makes you think differently might not be just entertaining, though I happen to like it best when the two things meet. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- > > I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were > > supposed to be appalled. > > So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > > Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:45:59 -0700 From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art I am happy that Veda Hale goes forward with the Whipple biography. Veda w= rites: "Hopefully, the biography will help a writer see how costly to a p= ersonal life the creation of something great can be." I am curious, Veda, as to the degree= to which you believe Maurine's eccentric personality, rather than her no= vel, may have contributed to her estranged, lonely existence. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:08:19 -0600 From: Ken Burton Subject: [AML] Re: Self-Indulgent Authors Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:00:55 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors The word "self-indulgent" isn't a carelessly tossed epithet. A writer who doesn't have the business end of writing in mind _is_ being self-indulgent: writing for himself rather than for a large audience. Now there's nothing wrong with that if they want to do that (and that's why I added that Gene Wolfe may not care if he maximizes his audience), but I don't get why an author would want to do that. This is something that I can see ... my wife and I have discussed this often. There is a need to provide an income and care for the needs of a family. That need is real. There is also a need that people have to express their feelings. That need is also real. The two needs do not need to be concentric or even overlapping. I am an engineer ... being and engineer provides and income for my family. I am not a good musician, I almost never play for someone else, usually when I am at home alone. Playing brings a great satisfaction and when I am playing for ME I don't care at all whether it would be appreciated or desirable to anyone else. Sometimes everything comes together and it is very moving, private, personal and exhilarating. That is everything (for me). >From my experience, it seems very logical that someone might also write for himself, without any thought to building readership or increasing the monetary worth of the document (which was mentioned in the quote). I don't know Gene Wolfe or his work, I could be very wrong, but I can see why he might choose a style that really is self-indulgent and why he might be content with that. As part of our discussions, one of her observations is that too often an artist will subvert the second need in a desparate attempt to satisfy the first. If both must be satisfied in the same expression, both must be in harmony or the work is flawed. Ken Burton - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:43:11 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ In a message dated 4/24/2003 11:52:54 PM Mountain Daylight Time, susanpc@platformcreative.com writes: > I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were > >supposed to be appalled. > > So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > > Because being "appalled" will help reinforce right and wrong in your heart and, perhaps, correct your course if you have been leaning at all towards this type of behavior, lifestyle, or attitude in your own life. It's useful as a reminder, just like getting the same Sunday school lesson over and over and over and over. One example (in addition to "Chicago"): while watching Martin Scorcese's masterful film "Goodfellas," which was based on a true story (and "Casino" to a lesser degree), I was so appalled and horrified by the actions of these characters, and by the consequences that naturally followed, that I understood more strongly than I ever had before that I want nothing whatsoever to do with that lifestyle. Also, while seeing "The Piano" and being appalled at the actions and philosophies of the Nazis, I was reminded how such appalling behavior is not unique to the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, but that it reappears time and again, most recently in Asia and Africa. Some believe that it would be best if we didn't watch this kind of entertainment, if we didn't appall ourselves occasionally and remind ourselves of the horrors that happen on this earth. Seems to me that's an awfully dangerous opinion to keep. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:20:35 -0400 From: Tony Markham 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? It reminds me of an episode of Different Strokes (Inter-racial Adoption with Gary Coleman, Todd Bridges, Dana Plato, etc.) that aired probably twenty years ago. This episode featured the great LDS actor/icon, Gordon Jump, portraying a child pornographer who enticed Arnold and a young friend into his apartment to pose for some photographs. As I recall, the young actors were down to their briefs and about to play horsie when Arnold (Gary Coleman) finally drew the line. I don't know if he delivered his trademark "Whatchoo talkin' bout?" at that moment or not. The entire episode was handled with sensitivity and with the stated purpose of portraying these kinds of dangers so that children would recognize them immediately and take action. But it got pretty darn graphic with Coleman and his little buddy posing in their skivvies. I don't remember any backlash or public outrage about the episode and I once had the opportunity to tell Mr. Jump personally (he was visiting our Salt Lake ward) how much I admired his decision to do the role, that it must have taken great courage to enact such a horrid scene thing for the greater good. He remembered the episode with clarity and we ended up talking all through Sunday School and most of the Sacrament meeting. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:01:09 +0000 From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Re: Self-Indulgent Authors From: "D. Michael Martindale" >. What I truly don't get is >why an author would make him/herself hard to read. You may enjoy >putting >your mind through a meat grinder (I don't--not a meat-grinder >of difficult >writing style), but I feel pretty confident that the >majority of readers >don't. >What I don't get is why writers would choose the difficult approach. It >_will_ decrease the size of the audience. >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. You seem to be making the assumption that "thoughts" and "words" are completely independent of each other. That is, a writers can check any box they want - "easy thought," "difficult thought," "easy word," "difficult word." I think it makes more sense to say that language and thought interact with each other. I suppose that the plot of, say, "Absalom Absalom" could have been told as a straightforward, chronological narrative, in "simple," "accessible" language, but would the same ideas have been expressed? I think not. The form and language of the book are absolutely inseparable from the thoughts and ideas it contains. There are certainly authors who strike me as needlessly difficult, as letting their language get in the way of their stories (Annie Proulx is one I can't get through 2 pages of). But I recognize that this is to some extent a matter of taste. I also recognize that most good writers write in the ways that work for them and, if they tried to tailor their material for 'what the audience wants,' they would probably be less successful artistically, and perhaps commercially as well. I think the reason that so many studio movies are so bad - or at least so forgettable - is that the desire to give the audience what they supposedly want and would be able to "understand" has superseded any inherent artistic content. Often movies or books that try to frame big issues in an "accessible" way (think "The Life of David Gale," which turned the death penalty debate into an inferior chase picture, or think just about any Grisham book) just make a mess and lose the big ideas. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a simple style, but it's not necessarily a size that fits all ideas, or all writers. carrie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:12:35 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] _Chicago_ Interesting question that implies that movies should only engender certain kinds of emotions in its viewers. And the question that leads to is this: are feelings in and of themselves, good or bad? Psychologists will say no. To the person going through the stages of grief, it is encouraged to all yourself to feel anger, frustration, depression, etc. To me, emotions and feelings are like colors which the writer uses to paint his/her palate. Sometimes, the art piece suggests that one use "happy" colors. Other times only colors that make one appalled are the requisite colors. Some passages in scripture appall me. The story in Judges about the man cutting up a woman into twelve pieces appalls me. I'm not particularly amused when I read about Lamanites drinking the blood of dead Nephites. Lot's daughters getting their dad drunk then having sex with him without (as fas as I know) any divine or earthly punishment also appalls me. I believe that, rather than react negatively to any emotion of feeling a work of art engenders in us, we should (as we also ought to do with scripture) instead ask ourselves why we have that feeling. Was it generated from the work itself? Did we react such and such a way because of inherent prejudices? And, perhaps better, is there anything I can learn from that feeling or emotion? Thom Duncan >-----Original Message----- >So why should I enjoy a movie that left me appalled? > >Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:27:00 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Housing Needs [MOD: Note: Please respond directly to Margaret's email address of margaret_young@byu.edu rather than replying to this email, which will get sent back to AML-List.] I don't know how many of you are in Utah, but we have a particular need in the Genesis Group. On June 8th, Gladys Knight and her 110 voice choir will be presenting a program in the temple square tabernacle. We would like to save the Church a large hotel bill and house these folks in our homes during their stay in SLC (from Saturday June 7-Monday June 9, I believe). If you have room to help us meet this need, please e-mail me personally. Let me know your address and how many you can accommodate. Thanks!! ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:18:17 -0600 From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Passion in Art Veda Hale wrote: "That understanding is coming from my work on this huge project that is consuming me, which is the biography of Maurine Whipple." Veda, as a great fan of THE GIANT JOSHUA, I thank you in advance for your efforts in chronicling Maureen Whipple's life and work. I look forward to reading it when it's released. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:20:16 -0600 From: "Jennifer Ellsworth" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction I've been wanting to read _Brother Brigham_ since it was first discussed on the list. Point me in the right direction to read it and this female will weigh in on the great Sheila debate. Jennifer Ellsworth (who mostly lurks) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Does Theory Matter? I really enjoy the discussions of literary theory on AML-List. Even though my own reaction to theory is akin to Dracula when shown a cross, or Elaine Benes when the toupee on George Costanza's head is thrust upon her consciousness. Why I am provoked like this? In an essay, Philip Roth once wrote that there was a central metaphor in much of his fiction. We are all born seeing through the eyes of our parents and others, and not with our own independent thoughts. We are confronted with a cultural wall, a way of seeing that separates us from other perspectives. Imagine a man shot out of a cannon, at that wall. In Roth's case the wall was his Jewishness. Some of Roth's characters are smashed against the wall and destroyed by the impact. Others are shot half-way through and lie torn and bleeding in the hole. Some manage to pierce the wall and fly into the great unknown space beyond. In my own case the wall is cultural Mormonism. Hugh Nibley once said "There are things about the church that appall me, but I know that the gospel is true." (That was back when BYU faculty were allowed to say things like that in public.) I too have a spiritual witness of the gospel but have come to really dislike what some people's popular ideas about the gospel are, and I really struggle with the implications. So I guess I lay torn and bleeding in the hole in the wall. So many of my brethren and sistren insist on things like no R-rated movies, no television or newspaper on Sundays, multi-level marketing schemes like Amway are inspired by God, the Republican party is the only true party, women should strictly stick to having as many kids as possible, etc., etc. etc. Much of my time at BYU was spent in silent loathing at many of the attitudes I found there. It was a minor miracle I graduated. So I have become highly allergic to systematizers, to those who extrapolate systems of thought from just the basic facts. The money quote from the "New York Times" article is from Sander L. Gilman: "I think that one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track records of intellectuals are any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways." Deconstruction, feminism, psychoanalysis--all ideas with a germ of truth, that are set upon by careerist systematizers who harden them into orthodoxies that permit no dissent the the academic marketplace. That's one reason I have a powerful intellectual attraction to modern-day neo-conservatism. It doesn't deny the possibility that ordinary people can find truth. It permits the possibility of God. And it's laissez-faire and eclectic about ideas. There's no neo-Marxist straitjacket you have to fit into. I still enjoy the *insights* of individual post-modernists. For example, at Salon.com there is an excellent post-modern analysis of the horror movie "The Ring" that really illuminates why that film is so creepy. (You have to sit through an advertisement to get to it.) http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2003/03/18/ring/index_np.html It's only when such readings become The Only True Readings that I bridle. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:20:13 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art "Travis K. Manning" wrote: > "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? There's a very simple way to define timidity in art that automatically covers the huge spectrum of perceptions from individual to individual. Timid art is when an artist thinks he should do it one way for artistic integrity, but doesn't for fear of the audience's reaction. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #39 *****************************