From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #237 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, December 31 2003 Volume 02 : Number 237 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:13:50 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Sam PAYNE, _Angels in the Snow_ Thank you for the heads up. And Sam. Shame on you! Why didn't you say something? I was up in the "big city" yesterday doing some last minute shopping. Went right by a media play. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- > when we saw that Sam had a Christmas album on the rack at Media Play. > > Buy it. > > Some day I may wax poetic about its merits, but not here. Here and now I > am only going to do some cheerleading. There are ten songs; four > traditional and six original tunes. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:19:46 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] It's Christmas AML listers:=20 It's Christmas everyone, let's all dig down deep within our hearts, or = into the convoluted mass of grey cells we call brains, and remember why = we celebrate it. Remember, no matter what the question is, the answer is = Love.=20 I sincerely hope that if I have offended anyone on this list that you = will forgive me. I will also put aside any remarks or posts which I felt = were inappropriate, after all we are just putting forth our own = opinions, Right? So what if we don't all agree, the difference is what = makes life worth living.=20 Remember what the Scriptures say:=20 (John 3:16.) 16 =B6 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, = that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting = life. (John 13:34-35.) 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I = have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love = one to another. Bill - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:42:31 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ [MOD: I probably shouldn't even be letting this one through. But then, I let Thom's post through, so I guess it's only fair... This is an intensely political work, and I can't see how we can discuss it without getting into politics. From here forward, though, let's try to make sure the politics stays tied to our analysis of the play, and not an end in itself.] >As a person who thinks that we already have way too many pro-conservative >voices in the land, I am glad that Angels in America has proven so popular >as a play and now as a film. It makes me happy to realize, despite the >ofttime strident voices of Rush Limbaugh and others, that America also has >plenty of intelligent, compassionate, and articulate voices on the left. We >need more such voices. > >Thom Duncan (the aging Hippie, still rooting for the 60's ideals) Can I join Richard Dutcher in the projectile vomiting area of the AML-List? Bleh! Bllllllleeeeeeehhhhhhhh! Marianne Hales Harding (aka: The Next Generation--listening to the overwhelmingly liberal media and yet still working hard to crush your liberal 60's ideals, Thom :-) PS not implying anything about Richard's political leanings, just remembering his Mollywood musings _________________________________________________________________ Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:17:48 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] re: BLACK, _Pride and Prejudice_ (Movie Review) I agree with almost everything Scott said in his review. Just two footnotes: First, Darcy and Elizabeth have to be judgmental and so on in the beginning. That's how the story works. Anyone who has read Austen's original book has gone through hating Darcy at the beginning and really loving him in the end. That's part of the story arc--not really what we're used to in today's movies, granted. But I don't see how they could have changed that part of the story and kept the title. Second, I think the "latter-day comedy" subtitle is primarily a marketing gimic. It cues in the target audience--the one that has come to love LDS comedies and supports them. Without it, I'd wager the film would lose some viewers who either assume it's a period piece or just don't care about Jane Austen. This way the door is wide open for their target audience to clue in that this is a movie they'd want to see. It's slightly rough in spots, but I think it's also the best non-Dutcher LDS film to date. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:36 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] AVERY, _From Mission to Madness_ (Review) "My sister is convinced that Emma Smith suffered from PTSD and that her emotional state and the huge stresses she endured during her last pregnancy were responsible for David Smith's eventual mental illness." If I recall correctly, historian Buddy Youngreen once told me that David probably wasn't mentally ill--just hypoglycemic, which could have looked like insanity back then. Very sad. No verification on what you were actually asking about, though. Sorry, Margaret! :) Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:19:39 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] BLACK, _Pride and Prejudice_ (Movie Review) On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:58:14 -0700, Scott Parkin wrote: > Then the Death Wish Scene happens where both Elizabeth and Jane go > to pieces because they've each lost their respective boyfriends. > They spend a week in full-blown orgy of excessive ice cream, pizza > and poor housekeeping that made both of them seem far from the > intelligent, self-assured heroines they were alleged to be at the > start. I still don't get this as a death-wish scene. *Jane* goes to pieces because= she lot her boyfriend. *Elizabeth* goes to pieces because her work, her= book, was so thoroughly harshed and it will *never* be published. *AND*= she is forced, due to Darcy's email, to re-evaluate things she thought she= knew. She's realizing how wrong she has been about his actions and *that*= forces her to think that he might also be right in the things he said about= her book. I mean, it might still be a death-wish scene because it *is* rather over the= top. But I didn't think it was quite so over the top as Scott here because= I thought there was so much more behind it than simple jilting by= boyfriends. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:40:55 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric Samuelsen on Singles Ward Thom Duncan wrote: >[B]ut we should try to lift our audiences above the mundane, not help them to wallow in it. Also, let's not forget >the fact that, on occasion, art can serve to open and enlarge our minds -- make us see things as they are, but >we didn' know it until seeing a certain film. Of course we should strive to lift our audiences above the mundane. But a large percentage of the LDS audience didn't think _The Singles Ward_ was mundane. It is this failure to perceive what our primary audience perceives that I am concerned about. I agree with Thom that we should strive to do better, but shouldn't we also seek to entertain our audience? How can we do that if we do not perceive what entertains them? D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Shouldn't we strive to give the audience our best effort and not >condescendingly put out dreck because we know the audience will like it >anyway? > >No one's complaining that Singles Ward tried to entertain. What people >are complaining about is that the quality is bad bad bad. Even >entertainment should be of high quality. I don't think the makers of _The Singles Ward_ intentionally put out a poor quality film. They put out as good a product as their budget and experience would allow. The point is that, despite the poor quality, this film has done better in the LDS market than any other LDS film. When are we going to stop thinking we know more about what our audiences should like than they do? And Eric Snider wrote: >[W]hile audiences like things that entertain them, they >LOVE things that entertain them intelligently and with a modicum of >technical ingenuity behind the camera. > >"The Singles Ward" didn't make me want to leave the church, but it did >make me want to leave the theater. To me it simply wasn't >entertaining, which makes the whole discussion moot, at least for me. Of course it would be great if we could entertain our audience intelligently. But this strikes me as the greatest failure of our filmmaking efforts--a critic so utterly out of touch with his audience that he hates the most popular LDS film made to date. Everyone has different taste, and there is nothing wrong with Eric feeling different about this film than the majority of the LDS audience. But a critic is supposed to inform his audience of films they are likely to enjoy. How can he do that if he is so out of touch with their preferences? Perhaps all this is an indication of elitism, but I don't think so. I think we all have very different tastes and comedy is hard. It's difficult to create something that a large number of people like, in other words, it is easier to be critical than correct. A large number of people liked _The Singles Ward_ despite its many obvious problems. So I have to ask, shouldn't we be looking for what they did right in making _The Singles Ward_ as well as what they did wrong? Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:32:31 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] HBO's "Angels in America" It was watchable and the dialogue was witty and well-written. I don't think it was part of a Vast Gay Conspiracy out to get the Mormons. As strange as it may sound, I don't think it was primarily about homosexuality at all. Rather it depicted a contemporary mindset, one that would prefer to suspend judgment indefinitely. One that intensely dislikes the concepts of God, law, responsibility, institutions, history; that would prefer to turn its back on all that and just start over. The perennial millenarian dream, one that in some ways Mormons are not unfamiliar with. Certainly the angels and revelations were lifted directly from our theology, by way of the writings of Harold Bloom, I am convinced. I doubt Kushner has much real first-hand knowledge about Mormons. The "National Review" piece put it crudely but accurately when it said that the LDS characters weren't very good Mormons. They surely didn't have much by way of spiritual resources to meet the crises they faced. Indeed, the young Republican attorney is made to say at one point something like, all we know is the here and now, the immediate circumstances that surround us. Which is a foolish thing for an LDS character to say, particularly with all the angels and revelations floating around him But it appears the whole thing was met by a big "ho-hum" by the American viewing public. HBO reported that 4 million people watched the first installment, which is half of what a first-run episode of "The Sopranos" would draw in the same time slot, and a fraction of the 12 million that watched the silly Jami Gertz made-for-TV Christmas movie that was on CBS at the same time. The second installment drew 2 million viewers, which is worse than mediocre. No doubt HBO will keep re-running it the next few years until we are heartily sick of seeing it on the schedule. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:31:39 -0800 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] The BoM Code On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:20:13 -0500 Tony Markham writes: > Since it is the scripture written "For Our Day" and since it was > translated with divine methods directly into English (bypassing the > need to learn Hebrew), There's a famous passage from Lucy McSmith about how Jose used to sit around the kitchen table and tell the most entertaining stories about the Book of Mormon peoples. I've been intrigued for years with the idea that what Moroni was doing during those yearly interviews was teaching Jose about the culture so he could translate more accurately, could know what he was writing about. At the AML meeting last year my brother Dennis suggested something else, that Moroni was teaching him the language. Dennis said he believes the Book of Mormon is a translation in precisely the way we use that word, a rendering from one language into another by someone who knows both languages. He said he thinks JS was in a hypnopompic state during the interviews with Moroni--a state of extreme suggestability which allowed him to learn and remember what Moroni was teaching. I suspect he was in the same kind of hypnopompic state during the first vision. Harlow S. Clark lurker ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:04:40 EST From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Latter Days_ (was: Angels in America) In a message dated 12/26/03 3:15:17 PM, KSTRICKLAND@media.utah.edu writes: << I had to view the trailer twice to more accurately distinguish the clean-cut Elders from hardened practitioners of the gay lifestyle--characters in both categories wear short-cropped haircuts, white shirts, and ties. >> Hmmm...I hadn't realized that the "hardened practitioner of the gay lifestyle" dress-code was so similar to that of missionaries. Was there a memo sent out about this? <> One could probably argue much the opposite to be true also. John Perry - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:39:03 -0800 From: "Aitken, Neil" Subject: RE: [AML] The BoM Code Another book along these lines is "Written by the Finger of God," by Joe Sampson. It's a little obscure, somewhat far-fetched, but definitely an interesting read: "Written by the Finger of God: Decoding Ancient Languages, A Testimony of Joseph Smith's Translations," Joe Sampson (1993, Wellspring Publishing, ISBN# 1-884312-05-5) Neil Aitken - -----Original Message----- Have you read the book "The Signature of God"? It's about wordprinting, I think, and may come close to what you're trying to learn about. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:06:36 -0700 From: Lynettec Subject: [AML] _Pride and Prejudice_ (Movie Review) Pride and Prejudice December, 2003 Movie I went to see Pride and Prejudice with some trepidation. Was this to be another, perhaps slightly more mature, 'Singles Ward'? I was especially concerned, because my sweet husband, who was paying for the date and had planned to see Lord of the Rings, is tough to please when it comes to pretentious and artificial behavior, either on the part of actors, or writers. We were both pleasantly entertained by this fun romantic comedy. Having read the original book, twice, though some time ago, I enjoyed the familiar moments. However, none of the quotes were familiar. My impression was that was the intention. after a while, though, I began to wonder if the quotes were ringing like scripture references and they became numerous enough to make me uncomfortable. I loved the acting, and the love stories. The closing scene was the fantastic kiss on the Las Vegas tarmac. All the joy, laughter and tears of the story came to a point. It should have ended there. The rest of the movie, I was saying, "Yea, I know, I know . . . . . come on get through the happily "everaftering" that is telling me what I already got, to the last precious scene that was so deliciously described and promised by Darcy. You know, the one where she reaches out of the dark for that frustrating, irritating wind-up alarm clock that one always takes to foreign countries. In the dark of the predawn, she jams herself impatiently into something publicly presentable and races noisily through the quiet halls of the dorm. Out of breath she arrives at the river Thymes, just in the place Darcy described and holds her breath. With interest and unbeknownst to her, a patient quiet Darcy glances up from his reading and smiles that quiet smile. He knew that if he persisted in coming, she would remember that moment together and be there. The quiet of the city wraps itself around them and they become the only people in the whole of a sleepy London. (And who cares why!!). You know, that one . . . . Ooops, hey, what's this!?! A hug! in a noisy, busy place! Where is the romantic kiss! Hasn't the director ever experienced the still peace of a huge city in the predawn!?! What a climatic lead up to a dead end. Even New York in the predawn and early dawn is one romantic gorgeous place. I love . . . well, so is the back side of Timp. at that time of day, as well as farmhouse in Germany. No narration was needed, just the completion of the picture. Oh, . . . yeah, I forgot, this is not my show. Well, I enjoyed the show. It was unpretentious and honest. It was clean and to the point. It was entertaining, even when we found ourselves laughing when others didn't and not laughing when other did. Most of the time, we all laughed and worried together, and that is the fun of a theatre. For a few moments, in the dark, someone spoke to us in a common language and we all shared the experience. Well, done. Lynette Jones - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:36:01 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] (AKST) X-WebMail-UserID: ftsrc Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:31:43 -0900 From: Stephen Carter To: aml-list X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002732 Subject: RE: [AML] On Marketing a Static Product Message-ID: <3FC8A82B@webmail.uaf.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.08 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list [MOD: This is the first of several posts from about a month ago that got stuck in the cracks. They'll be going out over the next couple of days. Apologies all!] Margaret, This is a very interesting problem and I look forward to your observations. I might be an interesting case study along the trilogy's lines. First, I'm a huge fan of yours. I have read (and bought) all of your books thus far - except for the trilogy. Why is this? I think you're right that the fact that Deseret Book published it puts me off. Deseret Book is like Sunday school to me, intellectually immobilizing, and dedicated to good publicity and easy answers. So I must admit, I haven't bought the trilogy mostly because I was afraid that everything I love about your writing (the voice, the struggles, the honesty) would be muted. It's an ordeal I'm not equipped to handle yet. Add to that that _House Without Walls_ (which DB also published, I think) is my least favorite book of yours. So far Salvador and Love Chains are my favorites. I've read them multiple times and am often plying them on my Mormon friends. I think I may also be wresting with foolish pride. I'm so stuck on my view of DB that to find that they can put out something worth reading on a touchy subject would pull out one of the linchpins of my narrow world and make me have to struggle with reality - an activity I try to avoid. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:38:46 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] forged)) by trilobyte.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hAT55LJ09998 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:05:21 -0700 Message-ID: <00a601c3b636$70f1f460$4f487941@oemcomputer> From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" To: References: Subject: Re: [AML] John Moyer Questions? Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:05:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Aside from the obvious question (Is Eric Samuelsen on your Christmas card list?), I have a few I wished we would have asked at the AML writers conference. 1. When did you first become aware that the message of Singles Ward was not to have fun at the Mormon's expense while the film as a whole had fun at the Mormon's expense? And since then have you had ideas about additional scenes that could have made this irony more pointed and fun? Tell us how they go. 2. If the first scene of SW is taken from your personal life, can you tell us what brand of beer it was? Okay, bad question. 3. How much of the R.M was autobiographical? (If fiction is 47% autobiographical, was it more or less?) 4. Wasn't the whole GA's daughter character a figment of your imagination? I mean, who really dates GA's daughters without a series of interviews? And which GA's daughter tries to pick up missionaries at the airport? 5. In the R.M. what was the scene with the weirdo reading Deseret Book love manuals stupposed to mean? Did you mean to make fun of DB? Or say that some people can find evil in the best things? Was the audience supposed to laugh or feel anxious? 6. What is your favorite scene that you wrote that made it into film? Why? (There's a softball quesiton.) 7. Did you write the Elders Quorum meeting scene? It was too true for comedy, and I had to cover my eyes. Why did you leave it in? PS. The RS meeting was funny to me. 8. Do you write with a certain actor in mind for the character? Is Wally Joyner going to get a lead role someday? 9. The talking to the camera (ala Ferris Buhler) of Singles Ward made it more personable, IMO. Have you ever considered writing a screenplay where the principle talks to God on a regular basis (ala Fiddler on the Roof)? 10. Do you review other scripts for Halestorm? Alan - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Bigelow" To: Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: [AML] John Moyer questions? > I am working on an interview of HaleStorm screenwriter John Moyer for > Irreantum's forthcoming film package. I believe Moyer has been primary > screenwriter for "Singles Ward," "R.M.," and the forthcoming "Home > Teachers." > > Would anyone be willing to suggest any questions for us to ask him? > Reply on the list or directly to me, whatever you prefer. > > (For the film package, we've already completed a Neil LaBute interview, > and he gave us a short story to accompany the interview and also > promised to review "Brigham City," which we sent him because he hadn't > seen it yet.) > > Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:40:02 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] hASErGnW144708 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:16 -0500 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:15 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list - --- Original Message --- From: "Bill Willson" (by way of >I also get weary personal opinions being offered as the Gospel of the Muse. The personl opinions of some on this list are worth their weight in gold. >When a simple, *I didn't like it for this reason* would serve the purpose. >We all assume what is posted on AML is the poster's own opinion, but IMHO >some seem to be trying to establish unwanted or unnecessary standards and >restrictions on the craft of writing. There ARE standards of writing whether we like them or not. That's all there is to it. I don't know why this should be such a hard concept for LDS writers to understand. We have gospel standards by which we will be judged in the afterlife, so we should be used to this idea of having to live up to at least a minimum of rules and standards. >This kind of criticism is within reasonable expectations for the >responsibility of an English Professor in an English 1010 class, however; I >think it is inappropriate criticism for an author of five going on seven >best sellers whose residuals for one book alone was over $100 million. No author, no matter how popular and successful should be immune from any kind of criticism. If they can't write a decent English sentence, that ought to be said. That doesn't mean that the non-writer can't tell a good story. Charles Dickens couldn't punctuate to save his soul, but that didn't stop him from telling wonderful stories. Edgar Rice Burroughs's purple prose doesn't prevent Tarzan or John Carson, Warlood of Barsoom from being tghe great reads that they are. >I've always said opinions are like belly buttons, we all have them, and each >one is unique. What a shame it would be if all the medical schools in the >country refused to graduate their obstetricians until they all could tie >exactly the same umbilical knot with the same resultant healed mark. There are standards by which umbilical cords must be separated and certain tools that must be used. You wouldn't want the OB/GYN to use a pair of tin snips, for instance. That could cause infection. Nor must the cord be cut too soon, or we're talking hemorraging. There are standards, pure and simple, in the craft of writing. If a mega-popular author abuses them, I think that's worth talking about. - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:43:07 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Acting and Movie Directing > Dianna Graham wrote: ...I know that Film Directing majors at BYU have a lot on their plate, but I > really think they need to have a few more acting classes in their > curriculum. They got a really nice, talented cast that delivered pretty > well in this film, but the first ten minutes were really shaky to me. I > noticed it when I was at the Y, and I notice it now. BYU film majors > and grads are not usually very good judges of acting, and I don't know > if a majority of them understand at all how to cast or work with actors. > After the first ten minutes, things seemed to improve for me. I may > have just gotten used to it, though. No wonder one of my all time > favorite director's is Sydney Pollack. It helped me see a little more > why I prefer Richard's films the other LDS films. AMEN. It is very intersting in my observation (and this is by far not just an LDS filmmaker problem, but a problem in ALL film schools with which I have experience), to note that budding filmmakers are almost exclusively technicians. They become exceptionally paroficient cinematographers, they know all about film equipment and tecniques, and talking to them is like reading a Kodak manual. Very few modern directors come out of the acting tradition. Very few have spent the years working with actors that a DIRECTOR needs. Quite frankly, to me, that is the opposite of what it should be. Technical stuff can all be picked up on the fly, especially since you hire great DP's etc., to help you with all of that. But directing actors cannot be picked up on the fly, and that is really the most important part. So I agree with Dianna's remarks, but would expand them: most film school students have problems with acting. Frankly, most general audiences have problems with acting, too. Anyway. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:43:31 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] hARElDe15696 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:47:13 -0500 Received: from 132.183.152.76 ( [132.183.152.76]) as user smbrown@127.0.0.1 by webmail.fas.harvard.edu with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:47:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1069944433.3fc60e71cd28e@webmail.fas.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:47:13 -0500 From: Samuel Brown To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] Sinner Names from Scripture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.0 X-Originating-IP: 132.183.152.76 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I'm working on a short story about a distorted psychologist who works with autistic children and gives them code names based on sinners in the Bible. I have two questions for the theologico-literary oracle of the AML list: 1. who are your favorite sinners from the Bible? 2. are there any sinners from the Book of Mormon that sound enough like a Bible name (something like Korihor, but more Biblical) that I could sneak it in as a playful name-drop? thanks much for the assistance. happy thanksgiving (stuck at work on this happiest of happy days). - -- Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:52:51 -0600 From: Gideon Burton (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Young/Gray Writing/Working Together >From margaret_young@byu.edu Wed Nov 26 13:13:24 2003 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:14:39 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: Young/Gray marketing static product [MOD: Okay, I'll try this way... More old messages from November.] I don't know how many people my reports will help, but I thought I'd add = a bit here about some of the struggles Darius and I have faced in learning = to work as a team and in remembering that our books are part of a much = larger mission-certainly not just to make money. I posted the following some = time ago and somehow sent it to the wrong address. I'll re-post it as I tell = the list that one impasse Darius and I have right now in marketing our books = is that I am ready to move with all of my bulldozer instincts, while he is = not. I have already compiled a list of 100 talk radio stations I think will = be interested in our books and have nearly completed press kits for each of them-not just e-mails. However, Darius does not want to move so fast = and feels that unless we move in the "right spirit," we will be moving on = our own power and not in a God-guided way. If we move in anger, we will not = be successful. (He has told me this more than a few times.) Darius wants = to wait for some peace about what our books are really for and not move = from the current frustration with our publisher. He wants me to be more compassionate with the folks at Deseret Book. (And so, incidentally, = does Bruce. He and Darius are absolutely aligned in this one.) It all fits = into what I wrote on another day, responding to Eric Samuelson. So here is = that post: Eric S. quoted a playwright as saying: "But I came to realize that the consequences for writers NOT writing about characters from different = ethnic backgrounds than my own were far more negative than for us to write about them." Sounds good, but also dangerous. I think you have to be a VERY good = writer to do this successfully-and a relentless researcher. For me, writing _Standing on the Promises_ involved immersing myself in Black literature = for 5 years, but also figuring out how to get along with Darius Gray-who is = very strong black man raised in the height of the Civil Rights years, when = Rosa Parks was taking a stand, Megar Evers was murdered, and Brown met the = Board of Education. I've thought a lot about how Darius's and my = personalities clashed at times because of his strong personality, his persistence, his insistence on some details-and maybe a little stubbornness on my part. = For example, he refused to be moved from the preface he wrote to _One More = River to Cross_, which someone at Deseret Book re-wrote and which almost = destroyed Darius's and my friendship. Why? Because I was willing to go along with = the re-write. He saw the re-write as a sanitization of his whole life experience and viewed my going along with it as betrayal. After nearly = 6 years, Darius and I still clash on some things. We have what I would = call a chaste marriage, where we have to work in partnership almost like a = husband and wife. I am still learning. And even now, when I've learned to hear subtle racism in comments I would not have even noticed before, I find = there are areas where Darius and I still clash because our upbringings were so completely different. I was raised to expect privilege; he was raised = to work for it and then to insist on the dignity which should come along = with the privilege. I watched the Civil Rights Movement on television. He = lived it and felt the effect of every law that made the Utah papers like news = from a distant war. As Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, or as Linda = Brown refused to learn how to be a maid, Darius became entitled to what I had always taken for granted. But that entitlement made him all the more = aware of what still wasn't there. He recognized suspicious eyes-he had to. = His mother once told him, "I'll never take you south. You're so hot-headed you'd get us all lynched." Even when we started working together, it = took me years to recognize suspicious eyes or what Howard Griffin refers to = as the "hate stare" in _Black Like Me_. Darius and I both still have = behaviors resulting from our very different upbringings. I'm not sure if it's = easier for younger people. I hope so. I grew up in a community without = diversity and was surrounded by rampant racism which I didn't acknowledge until it = hit me over the head (when my seminary teacher used the "N" word repeatedly = in class). Even now, it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel like saying to = Darius, "You're too difficult and it is just not worth the effort." And I know = he feels the same about me, because neither of us is terribly submissive or willing to back off. I think that's part of the beauty, though. = Neither of us backs off. We understand how important our work is, we feel we've = been called to it by God, and we keep working and figuring out how to = negotiate the cultural divides. These comments have application to what Eric = posted, but I'd say they have even more application to the Church in general. = My black friends know that I respect them enough and respect myself enough = that I will fight for what I believe. (Darius is not the only one I've = disagreed with.) The result is actually a great sense of trust. I know that my friends will tell me what they actually think, and they know the same = about me. And we are involved together in a great work, and we know it. I = also know they've got my back, and they know I've got theirs. In Utah (I = can't speak for other areas), I see a lot of white folks overjoyed that Blacks = are coming to "our" temples. I see some self-congratulatory attitudes that = give a thin cover to persistent racialism. (See what you hear in this line: = "We have inter-racial couples at the temple a lot nowadays. At first, it = was hard to get used to. You'd see this handsome white young man, good = looking as anyone, and he's with a woman so black she's almost blue. But you = get used to it.") That's one of MANY examples that I hear because of my = work and because I'm white. Would I hear the same comments if I were black? = I doubt it. I think there would be some self-censoring. But what does = that say about our hidden attitudes? I believe the point of unity must be the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I'm still frustrated with where we are = REALLY in our treatment of our brothers and sisters. We are losing our African American converts, folks. And it's not because they get bored by Sunday School. Though I've been thrilled by what I've seen in Texas and other areas in the way of diversity, we are NOT WHERE WE NEED TO BE. So I'd = be real careful about writing from another ethnic viewpoint, particularly = the black one. Even after all these years, I would never write a story from = a black perspective without a little help from my friends. And I'll tell = you that several of my black friends have really been offended by some = stories written by well-intentioned white folks about them. Jack Weyland's = story in _Turning Hearts_ did not go over well. Scott Card's depiction of Mary Sturlogson's conversion on audio tape for "Living Scriptures" made some = of my friends downright angry. These are minor points, though, and not the thrust of what I really want to say: Darius and I are committed to the = work we feel God has called us to do, and which we have been prepared to do. = We have entered it DEEPLY and found that neither of us is easy to get along with. We have found cultural differences. MANY TIMES we have wanted to quit. But we know we can't quit. This "mission call" matters too much. Can we extend that example to the Church as a whole? Is the idea of = Zion, which we are all called to establish, worth fighting for? Is that goal worth enough that we will do all we can to acknowledge our differences rather than hiding them, and then to figure out how we can actively = support each other? Is it worth enough that we can learn to catch our own = divisive signals and STOP THEM? Obviously, these are rhetorical questions. The answer is obvious too: We have to repent of the racism which has been = passed on to us-even if we're not racists ourselves (or don't think we are). = In turning our hearts to our fathers, we must repent of what they set into motion via the false doctrines suggesting that God has cursed particular races for whatever reasons our ancestors accepted. We can't just keep saying, "President Hinckley needs to make an official statement"-because that statement is not likely to happen anytime soon. So we work where = we are. We don't quit. We stand up for what we believe. We never quit guarding each other's backs. We figure out how to live a true and = undefiled religion on a deeper level than we may have assumed we'd reach. Margaret Young margaret_young@byu.edu - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #237 ******************************